Re: GUILTY. All 34 counts.

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?