2 ms·

Yes, it ought to be. Otherwise, you would be taking a big gamble anytime you accepted money from strangers. It would be quite impractical. Also, it goes beyond

Yes, it ought to be. Otherwise, you would be taking a big gamble anytime you accepted money from strangers. It would be quite impractical. Also, it goes beyond mere ignorance, it's unknowable. SBF's lawyers will find out whether he is guilty on the day that the verdict is pronounced.

freejazz 4y ago
>Yes, it ought to be. Lol, since when? Oh, your honor, I didn't know murder was BAD! > Otherwise, you would be taking a big gamble anytime you accepted money from strangers. Really? Hasn't been an issue for me at all. Are you sure it's that big of a gamble? Maybe you should think about the kind of people you are accepting money from? > It would be quite impractical. As I said, hasn't been a problem for me. And I'm an attorney too! I get paid! > Also, it goes beyond mere ignorance, it's unknowable. SBF's lawyers will find out whether he is guilty on the day that the verdict is pronounced. This is literally the opposite of what you described. They are lawyers with expertise in this exact kind of crime and they are well aware of the risk presented by taking money from him. They know he stole money. They know he stole money and saved it for himself.
- olalonde 4y ago
  I was not talking about murder, I was talking about receiving money. It has to be the least enforced law ever... Because the chances of breaking that law as a phone company, or as a taxi driver are close to 100%. It's a bit sad that you are an attorney and don't seem to believe in due process. If his lawyers "know" that he is guilty, I hope for his sake that he finds lawyers that don't "know" it, given that he is pleading not guilty.
  - freejazz 4y ago
    >I was not talking about murder, I was talking about receiving money. Well, when should it be an excuse? You didn't really seem to offer any bounds, and I put it as "a crime". >It has to be the least enforced law ever... Because the chances of breaking that law as a phone company, or as a taxi driver are close to 100%. I don't think the law is really targeting taxi companies or phone companies. It's targeting people who abet criminals by taking their money in exchange for services or goods. >It's a bit sad that you are an attorney and don't seem to believe in due process. It's not a surprise that you think that considering you clearly have no idea what due process is. >If his lawyers "know" that he is guilty, I hope for his sake that he finds lawyers that don't "know" it, given that he is pleading not guilty. Geez, I can't state it enough for you, huh? "Knowledge" is not an element of the crime. So everytime you say they "know" something, it's completely irrelevant to the issue and only reflects your willful misunderstanding of this entire conversation.

freejazz 4y ago

>Yes, it ought to be. Lol, since when? Oh, your honor, I didn't know murder was BAD! > Otherwise, you would be taking a big gamble anytime you accepted money from strangers. Really? Hasn't been an issue for me at all. Are you sure it's that big of a gamble? Maybe you should think about the kind of people you are accepting money from? > It would be quite impractical. As I said, hasn't been a problem for me. And I'm an attorney too! I get paid! > Also, it goes beyond mere ignorance, it's unknowable. SBF's lawyers will find out whether he is guilty on the day that the verdict is pronounced. This is literally the opposite of what you described. They are lawyers with expertise in this exact kind of crime and they are well aware of the risk presented by taking money from him. They know he stole money. They know he stole money and saved it for himself.

olalonde 4y ago
I was not talking about murder, I was talking about receiving money. It has to be the least enforced law ever... Because the chances of breaking that law as a phone company, or as a taxi driver are close to 100%. It's a bit sad that you are an attorney and don't seem to believe in due process. If his lawyers "know" that he is guilty, I hope for his sake that he finds lawyers that don't "know" it, given that he is pleading not guilty.
- freejazz 4y ago
  >I was not talking about murder, I was talking about receiving money. Well, when should it be an excuse? You didn't really seem to offer any bounds, and I put it as "a crime". >It has to be the least enforced law ever... Because the chances of breaking that law as a phone company, or as a taxi driver are close to 100%. I don't think the law is really targeting taxi companies or phone companies. It's targeting people who abet criminals by taking their money in exchange for services or goods. >It's a bit sad that you are an attorney and don't seem to believe in due process. It's not a surprise that you think that considering you clearly have no idea what due process is. >If his lawyers "know" that he is guilty, I hope for his sake that he finds lawyers that don't "know" it, given that he is pleading not guilty. Geez, I can't state it enough for you, huh? "Knowledge" is not an element of the crime. So everytime you say they "know" something, it's completely irrelevant to the issue and only reflects your willful misunderstanding of this entire conversation.