Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Adam H. Kerman" Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv Subject: Re: GUILTY. All 34 counts. Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 16:43:36 -0000 (UTC) Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 88 Message-ID: References: <4jj06jdu823ji8mc92iq2jkv7nej8mu396@4ax.com> Injection-Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2024 18:43:36 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e0f50297c20d9b0ca53d85e880ae47bb"; logging-data="1103830"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+TICEYsJwKkVpiGyHCNlR2piuzY19H04g=" Cancel-Lock: sha1:W2Qw9j6X98mfiZxonB09SFkwTBw= X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010) Bytes: 5131 shawn wrote: >Wed, 5 Jun 2024 07:24:22 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman wrote: >>shawn wrote: >>>Wed, 5 Jun 2024 16:14:44 +1200, Your Name wrote: >>>>On 2024-06-05 02:26:33 +0000, shawn said: >>>>>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: >>>>>>>>>>>. . . >>>>>>>>>>Ok. The point BTR1701 made here has bothered me for days. I >>>>>>>>>>didn't track down the language of the criminal statute Trump >>>>>>>>>>was charged under, but I found descriptions of what the charges >>>>>>>>>>were. I'll assume it's consistent with the law, else Trump >>>>>>>>>>would have gotten the charges thrown out. >>>>>>>>>> In New York, in order for the charge of falsifying business >>>>>>>>>> records to be bumped up to a felony, one must commit the crime >>>>>>>>>> of falsifying business records when the "intent to defraud >>>>>>>>>> includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal >>>>>>>>>> the commission thereof." >>>>>>>>>>https://www.factcheck.org/2023/04/whats-in-trumps-indictment/ >>>>>>>>>>To provide the case, the state doesn't prove that there was >>>>>>>>>>a violation of the underlying law. The state proves intent >>>>>>>>>>to commit another crime, or to aid or conceal the commission >>>>>>>>>>thereof. >>>>>>>>>>The state must prove intent to commit the crime without, in fact, >>>>>>>>>>proving that the underlying crime was committed? >>>>>>>>>>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. >>>>So how would you get your newly purchased hammer back home from the store?? >>>>It's a ridiculous "law", if indeed it is actually one ... which >>>>wouldn't surprise me in the least, since it *is* America, which is full >>>>of rather ridiculous laws. >>>A hammer wouldn't be an issue. Having lock picking tools would be an >>>issue. >>shawn, look for a fabulous series of videos on YouTube by the >>Lockpicking Lawyer. You'll change your mind. >I don't get what you mean. I know of those videos and it shows why >some people are so afraid of anyone having such tools on their person >is a risk. Of course he also manages to pick many locks with much more >common items like paperclips but his skill is something that takes >dedication and time that most criminals don't seem willing to dedicate >to their craft. Which is why they end up being caught. Mere possession of lockpicks without being a licensed locksmith isn't sufficient evidence of intent to commit burglarly. He isn't a burglar; the locks he picks are his own property. He is addressing manufacturer's claims of unpickability. >Personally I think the laws are a bit of an over reach but I see how >we ended up here. Lazy policing?