"Ron" > wrote
>"Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Derek" > wrote
>> > On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 00:13:15 -0500, Ron > wrote:
>> > >In article >, "Dutch" >
>> wrote:
>> > [..]
>> > >> 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.
>> >
>> > Dutch claims to have been a police officer, so the "legal mind"
>> > behind this fundamental principle is his own, no doubt.
>> >
>> > "In my life I was many things, a farmer, a police officer, and
>> > a vegetarian, among other things."
>> > Dutch 29 Jun 2004 http://tinyurl.com/3kbsb
>>
>> That's irrelevant, everyone knows that accomplices and accessories to
>> crimes
>> are thereby also guilty of crimes.
>
> It would be helpful if you were more specific. In some countries and at
> this point in time, acting in conjunction with what is deemed a criminal
> act can lead to a case of being found guilty of the same crime.

Not necessarily the same crime. Driving a getaway car in a robbery may be
considered robbery, but buying the goods later is being an accessory to
robbery after the fact, a different crime.

> Using North American laws, and inconsistent ones at that, as measure of
> an absolute moral code is problematic.

You're the only one talking about an "absolute moral code". You attempt to
answer every problem you encounter in this debate by pummelling this same
strawman.