To begin with, since you're being the annoying pedant that you are, I'll just return the favor: Crimes that lack the mens rea requirement are not limited to "statutory rape or minor ordinances (punishable by fine or less then 6 months in prison)." You've never heard of drunk driving? Possession laws? Don't get upset because "you have no idea what you're talking about."

Oh wait, I actually knew what you meant and Im not a pedantic dipshit looking for a meaningless fight.

And no fucking shit "Just because a crime has a mens rea requirement, does not mean it necessarily has a specific intent requirement." Why do you keep repeating the obvious or points that I already made?

Why did I do use specific intent? Well let me help you out further, senor pedant: Megaflounder was dismissing the proximate cause argument used by Nevermore60, in a conversation revolving around murder charges for the Garner case, stating "that's true for tort where there is no mens rea requirement." Do you get it yet? I used specific intent because proximate cause would still apply when something like involuntary manslaughter is the charge. So Nevermore60's line of reasoning is not only "true for tort where there is no mens rea requirement." Proximate cause arguments still apply criminally.

I was referring specifically to the argument being made and not making an overarching statement that mens rea only included specific intent.

That's your fucking problem...you miss the trees for the forest because you enjoy being a know it all.

I'm guessing that you still don't get it? Do I need to make a chart?

Don't downvote me because you have no idea what you're talking about.

Don't worry, I'm downvoting you because you're a pedantic ass who adds nothing to the discussion.

Source: an attorney that doesn't sit online all day being an annoying fuckwad.