Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: shawn Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv Subject: Re: GUILTY. All 34 counts. Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2024 07:38:51 -0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 58 Message-ID: References: <2i106j5tq2qsid3lsoh39enf1c53slqn52@4ax.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2024 13:38:52 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="64731f48cd82b81af6a5ce93bc00d592"; logging-data="1013411"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19H+ec2qSpDTPVDnvynGR6KvDgXtk8Tn8c=" User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272 Cancel-Lock: sha1:ZfcWXBr6Ob10nVEENYZRo4s3NRM= Bytes: 4005 On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 07:36:16 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" wrote: >shawn wrote: >>Tue, 04 Jun 2024 22:20:33 -0700, BTR1701 wrote: >>>shawn wrote: >>>>On Wed, 05 Jun 2024 02:06:04 +0000, BTR1701 wrote: >>>>>Jun 4, 2024 at 5:59:11 PM PDT, Dimensional Traveler : >>>>>>On 6/4/2024 9:00 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote: >>>>>>>Dimensional Traveler wrote: >>>>>>>>On 6/3/2024 7:31 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote: > >>>>>>>>>Can one intend to commit a crime be proven without the crime having >>>>>>>>>been committed? The intent is the criminal act for the purpose of the >>>>>>>>>criminal charge of fraud based on proving intent in the underlying >>>>>>>>>crime? > >>>>>>>>>I don't get it. > >>>>>>>>Possession of tools to commit burglary. > >>>>>>>I'm going to need a little more here to understand what the state must >>>>>>>prove. Do the police need to find evidence of what property was about to >>>>>>>be burgled? Otherwise I don't see how intent to commit the crime of >>>>>>>burglary could be proved. > >>>>>>I was meaning to point out that possession of the tools used to commit >>>>>>burglaries is, in and of itself, illegal in most jurisdictions. There >>>>>>is no need to prove that there was a burglary committed or even an >>>>>>intent to commit one. Just having the tools to do so is illegal. > >>>>>There has to be more than mere possession because every typical American >>>>>household contains the tools to commit burglary. > >>>>Isn't it an issue of having the tools on your person while outside the >>>>home? So it doesn't matter what you have at home. > >>>Well, I carry a crowbar and bolt cutters as standard equipment in the >>>back of my car, yet I've never burglarized anything. > >>As I said in my other post the issue isn't tools that might be used >>for burglary but have other normal uses like a crow bar. Now having >>lock picking tools on your person is where you might get into trouble >>since those are don't really have a use outside of picking locks. So >>unless you are a lock smith I can see it being an issue. > >We have all sorts of statutes in which the state is expected to prove >its case without proving the underlying crime or intending to commit a >crime. Does this violate the rights of defendants at trial? Should it? > >Or are these all Guantanamo Bay scenarios in which we are assured by >Donald Rumsfeld that we only have the worst of the worst captured, >interrogated, and will never come to trial, and we shouldn't ask >any questions and just take his word for it because government never >violates rights at arrest and at trial? and there's no innocent men in prison, right? There's never a mistake made so there's no reason to question what the government does.