In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "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.

Hmm. So it is subjectively wrong (ie. relative to time and location) or
absolutely wrong (universal through time and space) to be an accomplice
or accessory.