Re: GUILTY. All 34 counts.

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?