Many crimes may be excused or inferred with proper understanding of "motive." with a motive, there is evidence of gains for the criminal, if there is no motive then how could there be a case, as, the gains are not there, yes? I remember this case i was analyzing and found that this rural king in africa was not driven by motive. it was obviously not revenge, as his people served him well the papers said. a lot of his people died and were hurt, but without a motive, there is no crime. he was in jail at the time, and, he was released shortly afterwards as i sent out chain letters showing he did not have any reason to order the deaths of his people, in fact showing that it was a revenge from his underlings as they were up to no good. this is because they wanted to feel powerful and such things, with them hurting people for some or other reason, as they were in fact hurt. Then there is wiki leaks. this is a gross violation of trust, with news that could upset many people, drive them away from work and interfere with the economy of the countries that are mentioned. the motive for this 'crime' seems to be that mr snowden wants to be famous and make money, while upsetting a lot of people of the world and making them panic, yes? do you tell someone news for their own good or to sell stories? if he was anonymous, then there would not be a motive, yet he stands to be the star, yes? Self defense is also excusable. i read about cops killing people all the time, and, they are doing it because they need to defend themselves. maybe if people did not slander them so much, show them threats and keep them on their toes like that, they would relax and be 'more social,' but they are out there with a huge target on their backs. what the hell motive do they have for killing innocent people? how could they want to harm people and not all be out shooting? is it a case where some of the officers should not be officers, or, is there no difference to the person depending on the circumstance? if they want to scare them, the police wonder why they want to scare them - believe me they would ditch the police force for a better paying job, but they are stuck there, or, they love working there. so, there is no motive to shoot people other than self defense, as they are not mad, none of them, so why would they shoot? consulting a psychologist will show that they are never mad, just scared. Then there is 'clueless cases.' sometimes due to social means, people seek to vent their anger on others. take these shooting people that go on massacres, they always want to settle old scores. there is a gun, there are dead people, the motive does not matter, does it? the act is done, justice needs to follow. at the same time, there is conception of the idea - where did that come from? if bill gates robbed a small shop, and took all the money, he is a criminal without a motive. with this in mind, could he get off? i mean, after threatening the cashier with a gun shaped u.s.b, would he go to jail? would he be fined, what is his motive, and, without a motive, where does conception come from? So, it is something that requires some thinking. any lawyer that throws this at someone, this 'motive ideal,' would severely influence the gullible jury or judge, either way, if you ask me. at the same time, if you do not listen and think, are you doing your job?
