In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote
> >> > "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >> Enticing or inciting to commit murder is immoral and illegal.
> >> >
> >> > Yes, it is illegal and a demonstration of the childlike thinking that
> >> > is
> >> > pervasive in our culture.
> >> >
> >> > "He made me do it." "Honestly, your honour. If he didn't give me the
> >> > money, I wouldn't have pulled the trigger. It's all his fault. Don't
> >> > blame me for my actions, blame him for causing me to do it. I pulled
> >> > the
> >> > trigger but he paid me."
> >>
> >> You might have a point if that were a legitimate defense against a murder
> >> charge, but it isn't, It doesn't excuse the killer. The person who paid
> >> the
> >> shooter is just another criminal.
> >>
> >> It's over Ron.
> >>
> >> Now repeat after me, "I will troll no more."
> >
> > There you go again, using one vague instance in law as support for your
> > position. Sadly, the rest of us are quite clear that this is the
> > reasoning used by children.
>
> It's not "one vague instance", it's a fundamental principle of law,
> morality, and logic.

Really. Do tell. I have a passing interest in law. I would appreciate
what legal mind has declared this as a fundamental principle in law. I
would also be curious why this fundamental principles is applied so
rarely and inconsistently.

> > Someone paid me $10 to type this. I cannot be held responsible for my
> > actions or the outcomes.
>
> False conclusion, you AND he are now *both* responsible.

He is responsible for what I type. More of the same. He and the money
controls my fingers, muscles, tendons, words and so on.

> > I have been coerced and influenced. I am
> > unwilling to assert myself. I must now blame the person who aids and
> > abets my action.