In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote
> >>
> >> > The question was who taught you that you or I was responsible for the
> >> > outcomes of other people's actions.
> >>
> >> It's called complicity. In legal jargon it's "accessory".
> >
> > Using cultural, or national laws really undermines your argument. Many
> > of the acts that are illegal (and therefore immoral) are legal elsewhere
> > and therefore moral.
>
> Morality doesn't matter to the principle. If you aid, abet or encourage a
> person to commit an act of mercy you have complicity in that act as well.

Really. If I encourage someone to return money that has been recovered
and there is a reward then, I am morally and obviously legally entitled
to part of that reward?

Further, if one encourages one to use pot responsibly and they die as a
result of the responsible pot use then too are complicit in that death?

Should we discuss the Good Samaritan laws as further examples of where
you are mistaken.

> You really are hopelessly lost trying to win an argument with me on these
> subjects, I understand them far better than you ever will.

It's been suggested that you were a former police officer. I suspect any
former police officer could recite the criminal code far better than I
ever could. That a policy academy though would be any demonstration of
the ability to clearly argue a position IS another matter.

So, in what jurisdiction are you claiming an expertise?

As I have been stating all along, Dutch, it is a principle that is
inconsistently applied. Further, it is not universal or absolute.