T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
So, you too believe that someone should be charged and convicted of thought crimes hum?
For you idiots, the alleged crimes!
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
More justification of being able to charge and convict someone of a thought crime.
I guess next you'll want to start hiring thought police to keep everyone safe from unpure thoughts...
I’m not arguing should or shouldn’t, I’m pointing out what is.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
Your version is justification for a thought crime. Your version is essentially, Trump is guilty if he THOUGHT about doing this for political gain, even if he did actually go through with it...
QP!
Verified User
That is NOT accurate.
If you are found and arrested in the backyard of someone private property you can be charged with trespassing.
If you are found and arrested in the same yard, but with tools to break in to the house, and with duck tape, handcuffs and other such material a jury can ALSO find you guilty of the much more serious crimes related to break and enter, abduction and other.
The Prosecutor DOES NOT need to prove you were going to do any of those crimes beyond a shadow of a doubt for the jury to find guilt.
QP!
Verified User
Terry just stop. You do not understand the law and your guesses are garbage.
Read my above post and understand that Trespassing is a misdemeanor.
But if you are caught trespassing but have the other tools i mention, the Jury can find you guilty of a felony crime, without the Prosecutor actually specifying specifically what crime you were there to do. The jury can choose from felony crimes related to 'break and enter', or 'abduction' or other crimes.
You guys are simply wrong, that the prosecutor needs to say 'he was there to abduct or rob' specifically and then prove that.
The crime is enhanced to a felony depending on intent, this is very common, never heard a complaint from a Trumpper until now.
Lie, lame and laughably stupid. You are making shit up you've been fed by MSNBC and trying to pretend this case is serious and has merit.
Dumb analogy and not the same.
Really? So, what evidence suggests that Trump even committed a crime?
That's a fascinating, yet incredibly wrong and stupid claim.
Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Amdt14.S1.5.5.5 Guilt Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
Absent a guilty plea,1 the Due Process Clause requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt before a person may be convicted of a crime. The reasonable doubt standard is closely related to the rule that a defendant is presumed innocent unless proven guilty.2 These rules help to ensure a defendant a fair trial3 and require that a jury consider a case solely on the evidence.4 The Supreme Court has explained:
The reasonable doubt standard plays a vital role in the American scheme of criminal procedure. It is a prime instrument for reducing the risk of convictions resting on factual error. The standard provides concrete substance for the presumption of innocence—that bedrock “axiomatic and elementary” principle whose “enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law.” 5
For many years, the Court presumed that “reasonable doubt” was the proper standard for criminal cases.6 However, because the standard was so widely accepted, it was not until 1970 that the Court expressly held that due process required the standard. That year, the Court held in In re Winship that the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments protect the accused against conviction “except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged.” 7
Guilt Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
This from a guy who claims the prosecutor does not need to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Wow.
This is not a trespass case. This is about trumping up a misdemeanor that is beyond the statute of limitations, to a felony based on a crime not even mentioned by the Prosecution in a court case.
This is about malfeasance and duplicity interfering in an election because they guy they hate is kicking Biden's ass.
Then what is the felony? Where is the intent?
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
Jarod thinks Trump is guilty, therefore Trump is guilty...
I have no idea if Trump is guilty.
Of course that is NOT a felony - but you Stalinists have nothing but contempt for the rule of law.
The statute calls it a felony!
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
No, it states the opposite.
Only when used to conceal or further ANOTHER CRIME (which you Stalinists can't manage to come up with) would it be charged as a felony.
Law has nothing to do with what is going on in New York - which is in fact the brutal rape and murder of American Jurisprudence - as you cheer with glee while watching.
Not in a legitimate court of law - but this is a lynching.
QP!
Verified User
You are wrong and stupid as always when it comes to commenting on the law.
If you are caught at a private home on private property the charge will be a misdemeanor trespass. Nothing more.
If you are caught however with tools to break and enter, and a gun and handcuffs that misdemeanor can and will be elevated to a felony based on a number of other crimes the Prosecutions DOES NOT need to prove.
Are you there simple to Break and Enter? To commit theft? To kidnap? To rape? To murder? All are potential and the prosecution DOES not have to stipulate which one you were there to do. The felony Trespass can be found by a jury if they find it reasonable that you were there to do any one (or maybe all), without having to focus on one.