Two citations have been offered concerning the notion
of criminal culpability due to being an accessory to a
crime:

http://law.anu.edu.au/criminet/tcmplicty.html
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_..._Law.html#s165


Both of these make clear that knowledge of what will
take place, or what is foreseeable as likely to take
place, establish the criminal liability of the
accessory before the fact.

"vegans" very clearly have knowledge that the killing
of animals almost certainly will take place in the
course of producing the foods they eat. In order to
try to get around this, they try to draw a distinction
between the deliberate killing of animals for meat,
which they say is necessary in order to obtain the
meat, and the collateral killing of animals in the
course of vegetable farming, which killing they claim
to be "unnecessary". The distinction is false, as we
shall see, in terms of establishing complicity. It
omits the fact that some killing of animals in the
coures of growing, harvesting, and distributing
vegetables is deliberate.

The alleged lack of necessity of collateral deaths is
not a defense. One especially ham-handed and inept
pseudo-"vegan" who haunts these groups (he is not
really "vegan"; not even vegetarian) claims that he
doesn't "buy" the deaths; he only pays the farmer for
the produce.

The law on complicity clearly does not allow this as a
means of escaping responsibility. An accessory before
the fact to a bank robbery in which an innocent person
is killed cannot claim that he only wanted the money
and didn't "order" the killing. While the accessory
may not be punished as harshly as the person who
actually committed the killing, it is very clear that
the punishment of the accessory will be substantially
harsher than it would have been in the absence of the
killing. This is because the laws regarding complicity
make the accessory both morally and legally responsible
for ALL the forbidden acts that take place in the
course of committing the intended forbidden act.

While aiding and abetting the collateral and deliberate
killing of animals in agriculture is not a crime, the
moral similarlities are striking. The "vegan" has full
knowledge that the actions of the farmers and
distributors, with whom he willingly trades, are
virtually certain to result in death to animals. If
the "vegan" truly feels that such death is wrong, due
to violating some alleged "rights" of animals, then the
"vegan" is fully complicit, morally if not criminally,
in the deaths of the animals. That the deaths may be
collateral rather than deliberate is not a defense; it
is the KNOWLEDGE and the WILLINGNESS TO PARTICIPATE
that establish, beyond doubt, the moral culpability of
the "vegan".

"Ted Bell" > wrote in message
link.net...
> Two citations have been offered concerning the notion of criminal
> culpability due to being an accessory to a crime:
>
> http://law.anu.edu.au/criminet/tcmplicty.html
> http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_..._Law.html#s165
>
>

Stp the cut and paste ~~jonnie~~, Your own posts are more entertaining

"Ted Bell" > wrote in message
link.net...
> Two citations have been offered concerning the notion of criminal
> culpability due to being an accessory to a crime:
>
> http://law.anu.edu.au/criminet/tcmplicty.html
> http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_..._Law.html#s165
>
>

Stp the cut and paste ~~jonnie~~, Your own posts are more entertaining

Ray wrote:
> "Ted Bell" > wrote in message
> link.net...
> > Two citations have been offered concerning the notion of criminal
> > culpability due to being an accessory to a crime:
> >
> > http://law.anu.edu.au/criminet/tcmplicty.html
> >
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_..._Law.html#s165
> >
> >
>
> Stp the cut and paste ~~jonnie~~, Your own posts are more
entertaining

**** off, shitbag Ray.

Ted Bell wrote:
> Two citations have been offered concerning the notion of criminal
> culpability due to being an accessory to a crime:

Hi Ted.

I am an alt.food.vegan reader and I am not interested in this kind of
content.

I didn't read your post beyond the first few lines as those lines
signaled that you are some kind of person posting to get a reaction a
negative reaction out of people.

There are so many good things to do and so many good things to read I
can't justify the time for reading that kind of post. To save time in
the future I am creating a new usenet filter to dispose of your posts
before they are ever dowloaded into my client.

Farewell

No Offense

Steve

Steve wrote:
> Ted Bell wrote:
> > Two citations have been offered concerning the notion of criminal
> > culpability due to being an accessory to a crime:
>
> Hi Ted.
>
> I am an alt.food.vegan reader and I am not interested in this kind of

> content.
>
> I didn't read your post beyond the first few lines as those lines
> signaled that you are some kind of person posting to get a reaction a

> negative reaction out of people.
>
> There are so many good things to do and so many good things to read I

> can't justify the time for reading that kind of post. To save time
in
> the future I am creating a new usenet filter to dispose of your posts

> before they are ever dowloaded into my client.
>
> Farewell
>
> No Offense
>
> Steve


"No offense," bullshit. The only - ONLY - reason you would puff
yourself up and PUBLICLY ANNOUNCE the killfiling of a poster is to
cause offense.

You sanctimonious ****.

Steve wrote:
> Ted Bell wrote:
> > Two citations have been offered concerning the notion of criminal
> > culpability due to being an accessory to a crime:
>
> Hi Ted.
>
> I am an alt.food.vegan reader and I am not interested in this kind of

> content.
>
> I didn't read your post beyond the first few lines as those lines
> signaled that you are some kind of person posting to get a reaction a

> negative reaction out of people.
>
> There are so many good things to do and so many good things to read I

> can't justify the time for reading that kind of post. To save time
in
> the future I am creating a new usenet filter to dispose of your posts

> before they are ever dowloaded into my client.
>
> Farewell
>
> No Offense
>
> Steve


"No offense," bullshit. The only - ONLY - reason you would puff
yourself up and PUBLICLY ANNOUNCE the killfiling of a poster is to
cause offense.

You sanctimonious ****.

"Steve" > wrote
> Ted Bell wrote:
>> Two citations have been offered concerning the notion of criminal
>> culpability due to being an accessory to a crime:
>
> Hi Ted.
>
> I am an alt.food.vegan reader and I am not interested in this kind of
> content.
> I didn't read your post beyond the first few lines as those lines signaled
> that you are some kind of person posting to get a reaction a negative
> reaction out of people.

You mean a "troll"? No, he is expressing a well considered opinion about the
moral implication idea of animal death in the production of vegan foods. He
wants you to have a positive, life-affirming reaction by seeing the truth
instead of a fantasy.

[..]

"Steve" > wrote
> Ted Bell wrote:
>> Two citations have been offered concerning the notion of criminal
>> culpability due to being an accessory to a crime:
>
> Hi Ted.
>
> I am an alt.food.vegan reader and I am not interested in this kind of
> content.
> I didn't read your post beyond the first few lines as those lines signaled
> that you are some kind of person posting to get a reaction a negative
> reaction out of people.

You mean a "troll"? No, he is expressing a well considered opinion about the
moral implication idea of animal death in the production of vegan foods. He
wants you to have a positive, life-affirming reaction by seeing the truth
instead of a fantasy.

[..]

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 20:12:57 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>"Steve" > wrote
>> Ted Bell wrote:
>>> Two citations have been offered concerning the notion of criminal
>>> culpability due to being an accessory to a crime:
>>
>> Hi Ted.
>>
>> I am an alt.food.vegan reader and I am not interested in this kind of
>> content.
>> I didn't read your post beyond the first few lines as those lines signaled
>> that you are some kind of person posting to get a reaction a negative
>> reaction out of people.
>
>You mean a "troll"? No, he is expressing a well considered opinion about the
>moral implication idea of animal death in the production of vegan foods. He
>wants you to have a positive, life-affirming reaction by seeing the truth
>instead of a fantasy.

You can take your tongue out of his arse now he's left
the group, Dutch. You're all on your own now.

"Reynard" > wrote
> On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 20:12:57 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>"Steve" > wrote
>>> Ted Bell wrote:
>>>> Two citations have been offered concerning the notion of criminal
>>>> culpability due to being an accessory to a crime:
>>>
>>> Hi Ted.
>>>
>>> I am an alt.food.vegan reader and I am not interested in this kind of
>>> content.
>>> I didn't read your post beyond the first few lines as those lines
>>> signaled
>>> that you are some kind of person posting to get a reaction a negative
>>> reaction out of people.
>>
>>You mean a "troll"? No, he is expressing a well considered opinion about
>>the
>>moral implication idea of animal death in the production of vegan foods.
>>He
>>wants you to have a positive, life-affirming reaction by seeing the truth
>>instead of a fantasy.
>
> You can take your tongue out of his arse now he's left
> the group, Dutch. You're all on your own now.

Please, keep your fantasies to yourself.