Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>
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: <kfj06j5ekt61qr1d9g5up45udvfnneiv0t@4ax.com>
References: <v3aqcf$1rrag$1@dont-email.me> <f5jv5jpna2biv39j32ubogdeihne3kl46h@4ax.com> <atropos-3C9D65.22203304062024@news.giganews.com> <2i106j5tq2qsid3lsoh39enf1c53slqn52@4ax.com> <v3p4hg$s8sh$3@dont-email.me>
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"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>Tue, 04 Jun 2024 22:20:33 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>>On Wed, 05 Jun 2024 02:06:04 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>Jun 4, 2024 at 5:59:11 PM PDT, Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net>:
>>>>>>On 6/4/2024 9:00 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>>>>Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> 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.