HotJazzFan wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct. But we're not talking about who reads what, we're talking about an ability to act within the rules of society.
Social rules don't mean dick and your statement "ability to act within" social rules is non-sequitur as well.

However, if we were to take a liberty and make an assumtion about social rules, we could assume that someone who was not capable of acting within these social rules would be guilty of nothing. For instance, if an invalid was in a wheel chair with relatives eating at a country club as a result of one of the relatives possessing the authorization of the club to bring family members to the country club restaurant for the purpose of eating at that establishment and the invalid crapped in their pants, the family would not necessarily be banned from the country club because social rules typically dictate that people don't simply crap in their pants while eating a meal in a private club.

Oh, you didn't mean "social rules", you meant criminal law.

Well, in that case, the state is typically not able to prove criminal guilt, without being able to prove criminal intent.

What people like yourself have to understand is, that criminal law has to do with violations of the state and state justice and that civil law has to do with individual justice.

Therefore, if a man breaks into my house and steals 4,000.00 in cash, I could give a rat's ass if the state be getting their justice on the man, I want that man or his ESTATE, or his LEGAL GUARDIAN sued and proved liable in civil court for;

1) returning my 4,000.00 in cash,

2) paying for the damage to my property incurred during the burglary,

and,

3) last but not least, paying me for legal fees, pain and suffering.

Once that is over, I could give a rat's ass if the PEOPLE get their shares worth out of him.