Top GE Activist Chris Haskell Needs Your Support for His Sentencing

Remember, there is about a 2 week window here, for Chris to receive, and give to his attorney, the letters and emails of support.



His Probation Sentencing is Oct. 22nd.....so these notes of support should get here by Friday Oct. 12th, so they can be presented, by Chris's lawyer to the Judge IN TIME for her to NOTE/READ them.



The email address:

weareallchrishaskell@yahoo.com

The postal address:

Chris Haskell 5849 E. Burns St.

Tucson, AZ. 85711



hold on a sec did he say simulated?, then there's no crime because there is no victim the definition of a crime is "A crime is any deed which constitutes, by its nature, a danger to society, is described by criminal law and was committed with the (legally required) guilt/criminal responsibility" and there isn't, also if he didn't think or know there was anything wrong with his action then he cannot be charged as a he didn't know of its illegality at the time of committing the action, in most civilised places this used to be the standard definition of a crime until some people botched up the criminal code and came up with a "newer, better and improved" version, and I've provided a very basic translation.



The key elements here are that if any action/inaction you can think of may in itself be considered as presenting "social danger", it might be a crime. Does killing people fit ? Yes, it does. So does theft. So does fraud but not giving a "Public service announcement"  Etc The second requirement is that those actions/inaction's must be presented by the criminal law as such: there should be a "recipe" or a "description" that makes it clear which actions/inaction's are crimes and which are not ...If I shoot you with a water pistol, I'm likely not responsible for attempted murder ( unless you're allergic to water and I know it in advance and plan to kill you this way). The third component implies that the action/inaction described by the criminal law and that poses "social danger" should also have to be committed with the criminal "responsibility/guilt". This sort of implies that if someone holds a gun to your head and asks you to hack a website, you're not responsible legally for having hacked the website, the same goes for someone poisoning you and the public, so in an attempt to rectify the situation you do a P.S.A , but it also implies pretty much everything in terms of criminal responsibility.



Take that definition as a basic guideline when asking yourself the question " Is X in this case "raising public awareness of potential health risk to themselves and the environment and their children" a crime ?". no it isn't,  And yes, there's no requirement for a victim in this definition. There's just the requirement that you did something that the criminal law asks you "not to do" which they haven't, and that it was dangerous (which its not neither a water gun or a P.S.A) in some way, and that you were responsible/guilty for it  which you don't ;) #peace