Incomplete Crime...


anatess2
 Share

Recommended Posts

I don’t quite follow the point you’re trying to make.

If you think there’s such a thing as being punished for an “incomplete crime” in the US . . . Good.  So does Rep. Swalwell, and I don’t understand why you’re reaming into him since he was fundamentally right in principle (if not in terminology or in application).

If you don’t think there’s such a thing as being punished for an “incomplete crime” in the US . . . then you’re wrong.  We convict for attempted murder, attempted rape, attempted battery, attempted DUI, attempted extortion . . . and on, and on, and on.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I don’t quite follow the point you’re trying to make.

If you think there’s such a thing as being punished for an “incomplete crime” in the US . . . Good.  So does Rep. Swalwell, and I don’t understand why you’re reaming into him since he was fundamentally right in principle (if not in terminology or in application).

If you don’t think there’s such a thing as being punished for an “incomplete crime” in the US . . . then you’re wrong.  We convict for attempted murder, attempted rape, attempted battery, attempted DUI, attempted extortion . . . and on, and on, and on.

Dude... you are going WAAAAAY off of what I was illustrating.  OF COURSE, there's inchoate crime.  OF COURSE.  Why is that the question??? 

BUT to say that the shoe bomber was put in jail because of an incomplete crime shows a COMPLETE LACK of understanding of the laws of carrying bombs in airplanes.  On the other hand, the fact that Swalwell thinks that Trump is guilty of an incomplete crime (WHAT CRIME???) shows a COMPLETE LACK OF understanding of the laws of conducting foreign policy with Ukraine.  

This is a LAWMAKER saying these things.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Dude... you are going WAAAAAY off of what I was illustrating.  OF COURSE, there's inchoate crime.  OF COURSE.  Why is that the question??? 

BUT to say that the shoe bomber was put in jail because of an incomplete crime shows a COMPLETE LACK of understanding of the laws of carrying bombs in airplanes.  On the other hand, the fact that Swalwell thinks that Trump is guilty of an incomplete crime (WHAT CRIME???) shows a COMPLETE LACK OF understanding of the laws of conducting foreign policy with Ukraine.  

This is a LAWMAKER saying these things.

Now, I'm starting to wonder if you're still sooo anti-Trump that you're driven to be an apologist for Swalwell.

Put the knives away, @anatess2; we’re generally on the same side here.  I don’t support impeachment; and I couldn’t even tell you what party or state Swalwell is from without looking it up.  I have no idea if Swalwell is someone worth apologizing for or not.  

All I “know” is that you suggested Swalwell had betrayed a lack of even middle-school level knowledge of civics.  Now, you clarify by stating that it’s because Swalwell obviously didn’t know the precise nature of Richard Reid’s convictions.  I’ll let the readers judge for themselves as to whether Reid’s specific rap sheet is indeed a matter of standard middle school civics curricula; though I will note for the record that Wikipedia claims Reid went down on eight convictions (to which I have added some emphasis in bold)

Attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction,

Attempted homicide,

—Placing or transporting an explosive or incendiary device on an aircraft or public mass transportation vehicle,

Attempted murder,

—2 counts of interference with flight crew members and attendants on an aircraft

Attempted destruction of an aircraft or public mass transportation vehicle

—Using a destructive device during and in relation to a crime of violence, and

Attempted destruction of an aircraft

Thus, only three of eight convictions were completed crimes; and Reid would be cooling his heel in a federal pen with or without those particular convictions.  

(And yeah, Swalwell’s discussion of “crime” is obviously inapposite, since one can theoretically be impeached without committing any crime at all.  The salient point is that if someone tries to do something bad, and fails; that doesn’t mean we should overlook the fact that they tried to do a bad thing.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Put the knives away, @anatess2; we’re generally on the same side here.  I don’t support impeachment; and I couldn’t even tell you what party or state Swalwell is from without looking it up.  I have no idea if Swalwell is someone worth apologizing for or not.  

All I “know” is that you suggested Swalwell had betrayed a lack of even middle-school level knowledge of civics.  Now, you clarify by stating that it’s because Swalwell obviously didn’t know the precise nature of Richard Reid’s convictions.  I’ll let the readers judge for themselves as to whether Reid’s specific rap sheet is indeed a matter of standard middle school civics curricula; though I will note for the record that Wikipedia claims Reid went down on eight convictions (to which I have added some emphasis in bold)

Attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction,

Attempted homicide,

—Placing or transporting an explosive or incendiary device on an aircraft or public mass transportation vehicle,

Attempted murder,

—2 counts of interference with flight crew members and attendants on an aircraft

Attempted destruction of an aircraft or public mass transportation vehicle

—Using a destructive device during and in relation to a crime of violence, and

Attempted destruction of an aircraft

Thus, only three of eight convictions were completed crimes; and Reid would be cooling his heel in a federal pen with or without those particular convictions.  

(And yeah, Swalwell’s discussion of “crime” is obviously inapposite, since one can theoretically be impeached without committing any crime at all.  The salient point is that if someone tries to do something bad, and fails; that doesn’t mean we should overlook the fact that they tried to do a bad thing.)

Just to be the one that throws the monkey wrench into the salad...for the proverbial theoretical nonsense exercise of what should we consider inchoate or not in the reality of what is written in the law...

Attempting to do something can be a crime in and of itself, which is why it is punishable under the Law.

For example, Attempted Murder under Georgia Law would be defined as

Quote

O.C.G.A. 16-10-32 (2010)
16-10-32. Attempted murder or threatening of witnesses in official proceedings


(a) Any person who attempts to kill another person with intent to:

(1) Prevent the attendance or testimony of any person in an official proceeding;

(2) Prevent the production of a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or

(3) Prevent the communication by any person to a law enforcement officer, prosecuting attorney, or judge of this state of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a criminal offense or a violation of conditions of probation, parole, or release pending judicial proceedings

shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than ten nor more than 20 years.

(b) Any person who threatens or causes physical or economic harm to another person or a member of such person's family or household, threatens to damage or damages the property of another person or a member of such person's family or household, or attempts to cause physical or economic harm to another person or a member of such person's family or household with the intent to hinder, delay, prevent, or dissuade any person from:
 

Which is a crime and as such can be convicted of such. 

Thus, it is NOT an Incomplete crime specifically as it fulfills the note of law for a completed crime (though, obviously this is just an exercise, in reality one would still see it as an incomplete crime as the perpetrator did not accomplish/complete the actual crime they had in mind).

In Utah...we also see similar codes

Quote

76-4-102.  Attempt -- Classification of offenses.

(1) Criminal attempt to commit:
(a)
(i) a capital felony, or a felony punishable by imprisonment for life without parole, is a first degree felony;
(ii) except as provided in Subsection (2), an attempt to commit aggravated murder, Section 76-5-202, which results in serious bodily injury, is punishable by imprisonment for an indeterminate term of not fewer than 15 years and which may be for life;
(b) except as provided in Subsection (1)(c) or (d), a first degree felony is a second degree felony;
(c) any of the following offenses is a first degree felony punishable by imprisonment for an indeterminate term of not fewer than three years and which may be for life:
(i) murder, Subsection 76-5-203(2)(a);
(ii) child kidnapping, Section 76-5-301.1; or
(iii) except as provided in Subsection (1)(d), any of the felonies described in Title 76, Chapter 5, Part 4, Sexual Offenses, that are first degree felonies;
(d) except as provided in Subsection (3), any of the following offenses is a first degree felony, punishable by a term of imprisonment of not less than 15 years and which may be for life:
(i) rape of a child, Section 76-5-402.1;
(ii) object rape of a child, Section 76-5-402.3; or
(iii) sodomy on a child, Section 76-5-403.1;
(e) a second degree felony is a third degree felony;
(f) a third degree felony is a class A misdemeanor;
(g) a class A misdemeanor is a class B misdemeanor;
(h) a class B misdemeanor is a class C misdemeanor; and
(i) a class C misdemeanor is punishable by a penalty not exceeding one half the penalty for a class C misdemeanor.

Which brings to mind as though they are determined as incomplete crimes, as the actual offense is now listed under the criminal code and one can be specifically convicted of that attempt as a crime itself, is the crime the attempted crime, or is the crime the actual law they are being convicted of?

Just a silly mental exercise to be the anti-authority argument here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Just to be the one that throws the monkey wrench into the salad...for the proverbial theoretical nonsense exercise of what should we consider inchoate or not in the reality of what is written in the law...

Attempting to do something can be a crime in and of itself, which is why it is punishable under the Law.

For example, Attempted Murder under Georgia Law would be defined as

Which is a crime and as such can be convicted of such. 

Thus, it is NOT an Incomplete crime specifically as it fulfills the note of law for a completed crime (though, obviously this is just an exercise, in reality one would still see it as an incomplete crime as the perpetrator did not accomplish/complete the actual crime they had in mind).

In Utah...we also see similar codes

Which brings to mind as though they are determined as incomplete crimes, as the actual offense is now listed under the criminal code and one can be specifically convicted of that attempt as a crime itself, is the crime the attempted crime, or is the crime the actual law they are being convicted of?

Just a silly mental exercise to be the anti-authority argument here.

No, I was toying with some of the same questions.  But I believe these statutory innovations are mostly tracking/formalizing the common law approach to inchoate offenses.  It’s been a few years since I took Criminal Procedure, though. ;) 

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Just_A_Guy said:

No, I was toying with some of the same questions.  But I believe these statutory innovations are mostly tracking/formalizing the common law approach to inchoate offenses.  It’s been a few years since Criminal Procedure, though. ;) 

I agree, but once it has become written into law as practiced in the US (though in the UK I believe they still practice some items in reference to common law ideas) formally, rather than informally, is it not then become a formal law which is being infracted rather than simply an attempt with an incomplete crime.  They have punishments written in accordance specifically with the crime of attempt, rather than the incomplete crime they were attempting to accomplish.

:roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is my understanding that Trump asked a corrupt government to investigate weather or not Biden's son was involved in their internal corruption.  Dah!! I think it is most interesting that the Democrats think that to ask such a thing - is itself a HIGH crime?

I am thinking that any excuse of withholding US citizen's hard earned tax $$$$ from a country known to be corrupt and misusing the $$$$ would be a virtue not a crime?  But then it was Obama that actually withheld the $$$$ -  And so I am left wondering who is more guilty of misusing American tax funds - the Republicans or the Democrats?

The rest of the world must be laughing themselves senseless because the only looser in all this (so far) are the American tax payers.  Our two party system is worse than any depiction of Keystone cops in the old silent movies. 

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

It is my understanding that Trump asked a corrupt government to investigate weather or not Biden's son was involved in their internal corruption.  Dah!! I think it is most interesting that the Democrats think that to ask such a thing - is itself a HIGH crime?

This is not quite accurate.  Trump asked the new President of Ukraine who was elected on a campaign of anti-corruption to investigate Crowdstrike and the Ukrainian involvement in the 2016 Presidential Election.  The President of Ukraine asked about Biden's potential corruption and Trump said that yes, that also needs to be investigated. 

My analysis is that the Democrat's shampeachment process is fueled by their desperate attempt to bury the investigation to the 2016 Presidential Election and hopefully find a way to get rid of Trump so those events will never ever be forced into the mainstream consciousness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've made not secret that I don't really like Trump, and there's really no way I want to vote for him in the next election.  I probably won't.  I have no inclination to.

However, the Democrats are trying very hard that I don't want to vote for the Democrat Candidate either.  I think there are many never-Trumper's out there that are feeling just as unhappy with how the Democrats have been conducting themselves in Congress for the past several years.

Right now there are problems with escalating housing prices again, the college debt is out of control (and I have grandkids that are college age and I can't send them to college, at this point it is too expensive for me to even send them...and I covered most of my kids in college a few decades ago if that speaks anything about inflation of costs vs. income), medical bills are rising (and make me worried all the time, I am one major medical problem away from bankruptcy), and worse of all, in the world scheme I feel there are those in Hong Kong trying to preserve their freedom right now and instead of focusing on something very serious occurring over there...we are all watching the Democrats make political theater once again.

They aren't tackling any of the issues I'm concerned about in favor of...once again...going on their tirade to try to impeach Trump.

 

PS: The irony about the complaint of College Course is that I of course am working in the system.  I admit my pay has risen over the years (but not enough to pay for all my grandkids college), but most of the rise in costs aren't to the professors in my opinion.  Instead I constantly see needless construction on campus (I have no idea why they keep on renovating building in no need of renovation and tearing down perfectly fine buildings to make room to build a new multi-million dollar facility that does the same thing in it's place) and massive costs flowing to the administration or heads of the universities.  That's what is causing the rise in costs so dramatically in my estimation).

Edited by JohnsonJones
Added PS:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
Just now, JohnsonJones said:

I've made not secret that I don't really like Trump, and there's really no way I want to vote for him in the next election.  I probably won't.  I have no inclination to.

However, the Democrats are trying very hard that I don't want to vote for the Democrat Candidate either.

Amen. I didn't vote for Trump the first time, and I probably won't in 2020 either. Unless the nominee is Sanders, who I find so offensive that I'll vote for Trump just to not vote for Bernie, but anyway. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Amen. I didn't vote for Trump the first time, and I probably won't in 2020 either. Unless the nominee is Sanders, who I find so offensive that I'll vote for Trump just to not vote for Bernie, but anyway. 

 

You probably wouldn't appreciate that I'm a Bernie Sanders type of guy then...but the distaste is growing so foul to me in regards to the Democrats recently that if they continue down this path of ridiculous Political circus stunts I'm may avoid voting for ANY Democrat no matter how much I like them (doesn't mean I'd vote for Trump either, probably an independent or someone like that).  I think the Democrats feel these things will help them politically and it might.  ON the otherhand there might be a LOT MORE people that feel like me than what they've actually estimated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
6 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

You probably wouldn't appreciate that I'm a Bernie Sanders type of guy

Actually, my brother is a Bernie Sanders type of guy. 
One of my best friends is a Bernie Sanders type of guy....

So JJ, I do appreciate it. I'm one of those crazy people who can be friends with people who disagree with me, and I show it by...being friends with people who disagree with me. I'm awesome like that. 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/15/2019 at 5:40 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

Put the knives away, @anatess2; we’re generally on the same side here.  I don’t support impeachment; and I couldn’t even tell you what party or state Swalwell is from without looking it up.  I have no idea if Swalwell is someone worth apologizing for or not.  

All I “know” is that you suggested Swalwell had betrayed a lack of even middle-school level knowledge of civics.  Now, you clarify by stating that it’s because Swalwell obviously didn’t know the precise nature of Richard Reid’s convictions.  I’ll let the readers judge for themselves as to whether Reid’s specific rap sheet is indeed a matter of standard middle school civics curricula; though I will note for the record that Wikipedia claims Reid went down on eight convictions (to which I have added some emphasis in bold)

Attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction,

Attempted homicide,

—Placing or transporting an explosive or incendiary device on an aircraft or public mass transportation vehicle,

Attempted murder,

—2 counts of interference with flight crew members and attendants on an aircraft

Attempted destruction of an aircraft or public mass transportation vehicle

—Using a destructive device during and in relation to a crime of violence, and

Attempted destruction of an aircraft

Thus, only three of eight convictions were completed crimes; and Reid would be cooling his heel in a federal pen with or without those particular convictions.  

(And yeah, Swalwell’s discussion of “crime” is obviously inapposite, since one can theoretically be impeached without committing any crime at all.  The salient point is that if someone tries to do something bad, and fails; that doesn’t mean we should overlook the fact that they tried to do a bad thing.)

I edited the post as I figured you might truly have a hard time putting your lawyer hat away when reading tweets addressed to the masses.

Eric Swalwell, Democratic Representative of the San Francisco Bay Area... the guy who proposed a national gun buyback program ($200 per gun) and criminalize those who do not comply... when challenged with "why would you expect people to peacefully hand over their guns for $200?" he replied - because people follow the law (hello... people who shoot up schools follow the law, ya think?  Idiot!) and when challenged with, "you're going to have to wage war to take it from me..." he replied with, "it's going to be a short war.  The government have nukes.".  Yeah.  THAT Stupid Swalwell.

Now, read the tweet as a regular American citizen.  Shoe bomber - incomplete crime.  You're not gonna have to go open the case file to swallow that BS - you know from the many times you have to submit to a demeaning strip search at the airport that hiding a bomb in your shoe is A COMPLETE CRIME.  Now, contrast that with his next statement alleging that Donald Trump committed an INCOMPLETE CRIME.... WHAT CRIME did not get completed?  The narrative they're floating is quid pro quo... where is it?  What was offered and what was asked in return that is outside the bounds of the Executive Office and the international agreements with Ukraine?  They've backed off on that and are now going with Bribery... where is that???  What was bribed???

Once again... Swalwell displays how people who can't spell LAW can become Congressmen.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

You probably wouldn't appreciate that I'm a Bernie Sanders type of guy then...but the distaste is growing so foul to me in regards to the Democrats recently that if they continue down this path of ridiculous Political circus stunts I'm may avoid voting for ANY Democrat no matter how much I like them (doesn't mean I'd vote for Trump either, probably an independent or someone like that).  I think the Democrats feel these things will help them politically and it might.  ON the otherhand there might be a LOT MORE people that feel like me than what they've actually estimated.

I am 100% convinced this political theater is not about 2020.  This political theater is about burying crimes committed by the swamp - and that is why Republican pushback is mediocre because... they're complicit in the crimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, anatess2 said:

I edited the post as I figured you might truly have a hard time putting your lawyer hat away when reading tweets addressed to the masses.

Eric Swalwell, Democratic Representative of the San Francisco Bay Area... the guy who proposed a national gun buyback program ($200 per gun) and criminalize those who do not comply... when challenged with "why would you expect people to peacefully hand over their guns for $200?" he replied - because people follow the law (hello... people who shoot up schools follow the law, ya think?  Idiot!) and when challenged with, "you're going to have to wage war to take it from me..." he replied with, "it's going to be a short war.  The government have nukes.".  Yeah.  THAT Stupid Swalwell.

Now, read the tweet as a regular American citizen.  Shoe bomber - incomplete crime.  You're not gonna have to go open the case file to swallow that BS - you know from the many times you have to submit to a demeaning strip search at the airport that hiding a bomb in your shoe is A COMPLETE CRIME.  Now, contrast that with his next statement alleging that Donald Trump committed an INCOMPLETE CRIME.... WHAT CRIME did not get completed?  The narrative they're floating is quid pro quo... where is it?  What was offered and what was asked in return that is outside the bounds of the Executive Office and the international agreements with Ukraine?  They've backed off on that and are now going with Bribery... where is that???  What was bribed???

Once again... Swalwell displays how people who can't spell LAW can become Congressmen.

 

Oh, I see.  You aren’t taking issue with the idea of “incompleteness”, you’re taking issue with the fact that it’s being characterized as a “crime” (complete or otherwise):

That said, we all know that in libspeak “crime” is basically shorthand for “the act of not being one of us”.  I’d default back to my earlier statement that “Swalwell’s discussion of ‘crime’ is obviously inapposite, since one can theoretically be impeached without committing any crime at all.  [His] salient point is that if someone tries to do something bad, and fails; that doesn’t mean we should overlook the fact that they tried to do a bad thing.”  

In other words—just because Swalwell said “crime” doesn’t mean he MEANT crime.  (Gee, a politician who says something he can’t possibly mean literally, in order to tap into a deeper shared emotional experience with his audience.  Weird.  Maybe he’s playing four-dimensional chess or something.  If only there were a scripture warning Americans, specifically, about the dangers of voting for politicos who say stuff they don’t mean . . . )

But as for impeachment and so-called “crimes”:  The Dems would love if they could show Trump broke a law; but in their minds, all they really think they need to do is persuade us (well, really, Collins and Romney and a couple of other GOP senators) that Trump tried to do something “wrong”—which in their minds, is automatically “impeachable”.  

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

That said, we all know that in libspeak “crime” is basically shorthand for “the act of not being one of us”.  

:joker:

So, going to some communications fundamental skills here, I want to make sure I understand what you are saying...

To reiterate...

You are saying that most of you guys are criminals?

:bornlate:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

:joker:

So, going to some communications fundamental skills here, I want to make sure I understand what you are saying...

To reiterate...

You are saying that most of you guys are criminals?

:bornlate:

 

:Shrug: Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Oh, I see.  You aren’t taking issue with the idea of “incompleteness”, you’re taking issue with the fact that it’s being characterized as a “crime” (complete or otherwise):

No, I'm taking issue with a Lawmaker who can't spell LAW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

No, I'm taking issue with a Lawmaker who can't spell LAW.

I don’t understand.  The word “law” does not appear in that tweet, misspelled or otherwise.  Was there another tweet where he spelled it with an extra “w”, or something?

Or are you simply being metaphorical to make a larger point about an elected official being insufficiently articulate on a matter that demands precision covfefe?

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I don’t understand.  The word “law” does not appear in that tweet, misspelled or otherwise.  Was there another tweet where he spelled it with an extra “w”, or something?

Or are you simply being metaphorical to make a larger point about an elected official being insufficiently articulate on a matter that demands precision covfefe?

Insufficiently articulate?  That's what you think?  He was simply insufficiently articulate?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Insufficiently articulate?  That's what you think?  He was simply insufficiently articulate?  

Well, *you* apparently think that either a) Swalwell literally can’t spell the word “law”, or b) that it’s OK to say stuff that isn’t quite factually true, in order to score a rhetorical/emotional point.  

What *I* think is that people who spent the last four years making excuses for all of President Trump’s myriad factual misstatements should probably consider that they don’t carry a lot of credibility when they get all morally or semantically outraged about a Democrat who used the word “crime” as a sort of synonym for “wrongful act”.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share