Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
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: <v3q4jo$11lum$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v3aqcf$1rrag$1@dont-email.me> <eg106j5p8p3av1c36movkh9k0sqt2tqnk7@4ax.com> <v3p3r6$s8sh$2@dont-email.me> <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 <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>Wed, 5 Jun 2024 07:24:22 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>Wed, 5 Jun 2024 16:14:44 +1200, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
>>>>On 2024-06-05 02:26:33 +0000, shawn said:
>>>>>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:

>>>>>>>>>>>. . . 

>>>>>>>>>>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?