- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: In case missed it, Comey admits that Huma broke the law, but couldn't prove intent...
Posted on 5/4/17 at 3:45 am to MizzouBS
Posted on 5/4/17 at 3:45 am to MizzouBS
quote:
Like Trump University or more than the 3 thousand lawsuits filed against Trump?
Are you really so damned stupid that you don't know the difference between a civil case and a criminal case? You're a typical lib. Dumb as hell.
0
Posted on 5/4/17 at 4:01 am to finchmeister08
I wonder if I could use that argument if I ever got in legal trouble? Yes this is proof that I committed a crime ,but that was not my intention.
Posted on 5/4/17 at 4:05 am to kingbob
quote:
This would be true if the crime they're accused of had an intent element. Hint: it doesn't. They bring people behind the woodshed for even accidental exposures.
I see somebody gets it.
Posted on 5/4/17 at 4:07 am to udtiger
quote:
Funny...because there's not an intent requirement for the statute at issue. And, Comey's bullshite explanation that there has to at least be an appreciation they shouldn't be doing this fails BECAUSE HUMA AND HILLARY HAD TO SIGN FORMS ACKNOWLEDGING PROPER AND IMPROPER PROCEDURES FOR HANDLING CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.
Well done. Either Comey is a crook or completely incompetent.
Posted on 5/4/17 at 5:34 am to TennesseeFan25
quote:Proof? Comey still has his job.
There is something in D.C. that everyone but the common folk are in on.
Posted on 5/4/17 at 6:55 am to ChexMix
quote:
You cant prove that i intended to speed officer! I am not liable for that speeding ticket
Next time I get oullednover for speeding I'll tell him I didn't know I was speeding.
I wonder if hell let me off
Posted on 5/4/17 at 6:58 am to finchmeister08
"Intent" is a figment entirely created inside his mind
Watch what happens if a Republican ever does one tenth of what these assholes did
Watch what happens if a Republican ever does one tenth of what these assholes did
Posted on 5/4/17 at 8:08 am to kingbob
quote:
This would be true if the crime they're accused of had an intent element. Hint: it doesn't. They bring people behind the woodshed for even accidental exposures.
Post the statute that you accuse her of committing.
This post was edited on 5/4/17 at 8:09 am
Posted on 5/4/17 at 8:13 am to thejudge
quote:
Next time I get oullednover for speeding I'll tell him I didn't know I was speeding.
I wonder if hell let me off
Speeding is a strict liability.
I hope you aren't a judge in real life.
Posted on 5/4/17 at 8:15 am to Wolfhound45
quote:
Intent is not an element of a crime. It is a considered after conviction during the penalty phase (presented as matters of extenuation and/or mitigation).
Huh?
Posted on 5/4/17 at 8:17 am to stelly1025
quote:
I wonder if I could use that argument if I ever got in legal trouble? Yes this is proof that I committed a crime ,but that was not my intention.
Uh yeah, this happens all the time everyday across America.
Posted on 5/4/17 at 9:01 am to KosmoCramer
quote:
If you can't prove all the elements of the crime then it's not a criminal offense.
If the person refuses to admit that they intended to commit the crime then it is almost impossibl to prove criminal intent.
However, some crimes don't require proving that the person intended to commit the crime in order to find them guilty. All that is required is that the person committed the crime.
For example, if you get stopped for exceeding the speed limit, it is unnecessary to prove criminal intent. The mere fact that you exceeded the speed limit is all that is needed to find you guilty.
Posted on 5/4/17 at 9:04 am to DawgfaninCa
quote:
If the person refuses to admit that they intended to commit the crime then it is almost impossibl to prove criminal intent.
How do people accused of capital murder but don't take the stand and didn't confess get convicted? This is an extremely untrue statement.
quote:
However, some crimes don't require proving that the person intended to commit the crime in order to find them guilty. All that is required is that the person committed the crime.
For example, if you get stopped for exceeding the speed limit, it is unnecessary to prove criminal intent. The mere fact that you exceeded the speed limit is all that is needed to find you guilty.
These are called strict liability offenses. I responded to a poster about this in this thread previously.
Posted on 5/4/17 at 9:12 am to finchmeister08
So let me get this straight. I can go ahead and break any law I want to, long as I didn't intend to get caught... err, I mean, as long as I say I meant no harm?
Posted on 5/4/17 at 9:13 am to JawjaTigah
quote:
So let me get this straight. I can go ahead and break any law I want to, long as I didn't intend to get caught... err, I mean, as long as I say I meant no harm?
Are you people just ignorant or being intentionally obtuse? I'm not sure which is worse.
Posted on 5/4/17 at 9:14 am to kingbob
quote:
The crime they're accused of lacks an intent requirement. Just doing it, even accidentally is a felony.
If that's true then all they need to prove is Fraudulent Intent which is that she committed the crime.
Posted on 5/4/17 at 9:17 am to DawgfaninCa
quote:
Fraudulent Intent
What does this even mean?
If there's no mens rea, then it's a strict liability unless there's an overarching statute or case law that would supercede the lack of a mens rea when one isn't present.
Posted on 5/4/17 at 9:30 am to KosmoCramer
quote:
If the person refuses to admit that they intended to commit the crime then it is almost impossibl to prove criminal intent.
quote:
How do people accused of capital murder but don't take the stand and didn't confess get convicted? This is an extremely untrue statement.
Those cases usually require some kind of direct evidence such as finding evidence on the accused person's computer that the person intended to commit the crime or finding forensic evidence that links the person to the crime.
If that evidence is not found then it is very rare for someone to be found guilty of murder based on circumstantial evidence alone.
quote:
These are called strict liability offenses. I responded to a poster about this in this thread previously.
Most crimes don't require proving Criminal Intent in order to prove someone is guilty of committing the crime. They only require proving General Intent which is that the person committed the crime.
Are you certain that in this case Criminal Intent must be proven in order to find Huma or Hillary guilty?
This post was edited on 5/4/17 at 12:33 pm
Posted on 5/4/17 at 9:32 am to finchmeister08
What happened to "ignorance is no excuse of the law"?
I guess that only applies to the plebians
I guess that only applies to the plebians
Posted on 5/4/17 at 9:35 am to KosmoCramer
quote:
Fraudulent Intent
quote:
What does this even mean?
Your friend is a legal dictionary.
I suggest you look up the term, "Fraudulent Intent" in Black's Law Dictionary.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News