EVE General Discussion

Yes, I deny that. I never said anything about my intent. Are you trying to claim I had an intent? I seem to remember making it plain as day that what I was doing was an emotional reaction. As far as I knew, he'd just caused my mother serious harm. My intent was non-existent: I was reacting without thought, how could I have an intent without thought?

And he wasn't within an inch of his life, he was completely unharmed. Unharmed isn't within an inch of life. Like, not even any bruising. The guy was scared shitless though and we never saw him again.

Do you know what I don't deny? That I acted irrationally and without thought. Do you know why? Because I'm capable of taking responsibility for my choices, even the ones that I leave to emotion. As any sane, not-at-all insecure person is capable of doing.

Why is this relevant? Did you have a point? Were you going to attempt to address my character again based on your terrible reading comprehension skills? Because my point was to demonstrate why ignoring what Sokhar did or brushing it off as 'justified' demonstrates that this is just an irrational Ero1 witch hunt.

So, make your point. And try to make a good one this time lest you never be taken seriously on these forums again.

Not that anyone has so far, of course.

Are you sure he has not broken any rules...

Did you write the rules?

The section where it suggests he could of broken the rules has been posted a number of times.

As with most EULA/TOS, it is vague whether it could be applied to E1, the decision on whether it can be applied is not down to you, me or anybody else here but by CCP and CCP alone.

I imagine right now that is what CCP are doing, deciding whether they should apply those rules to E1 or not.

HTFU?

Oh hello mister straw man. I liked that movie you were in, very clever movie. You were never too bright though, were you.

Damn carebears, ruining all the fun!


This single post is worth the thread.

Here is your testimony:


If he was pinned, that literally means he was unable to move, meaning the inch is validated.

He was literally, and figuratively, within an inch of losing his life due to your actions.

If you had driven the truck one inch closer, it would have killed him or harmed him.

Your emotional state is sufficient, and certainly not an excuse of, to prove the mens rea of intent to harm.
It was not an accident. You deliberately drove a two-ton truck directly at him.

That you did not kill or harm him, does not change that you initially had the intent to kill or harm him, whether emotional or not.
You had that intent until you "realised what I was doing and stopped it with him pinned between a bullbar and a garage door."
That is why you drove a two-ton truck at him in the first place.

Emotional state does not change whether a crime has been committed or not, it is only a possible mitigating circumstance or, depending on the crime in question, an element necessary to the proof of burden for the prosecution to prove intent.

Yeah and that's where it all starts and no other way around it. Platform of choice.

But then again. you know better so enjoy your lollerwaffles.

Don't assume I know what AMTRAK is. Check your privilege americentric scum.

After that post, I would like to point out that I sell the cheapest BURN! cream in all of New Eden.

whooooosh yet again.