"Look, Officer. I did not INTEND to shoot that illegal stealing my car...I didn't intend to leave a cartridge in my shotgun..and I didn't intend to go off when I saw my car belong stolen...and I'm sure that the Mr. Gonzalez did not INTEND to get in the way of the buckshot...from a gun I didn't KNOW was loaded....and i'm sure that he didn't KNOW that the car belonged to me and did not INTEND to steal it." Ahem....
All of those would actually be defenses, if (and it's a huge if) the jury believed you. In this case, the trial judge told the jury that the defendant was guilty if he used someone else's SSN whether or not he knew it belonged to someone else or intended to commit identity theft. If the Supreme Court reverses, there will probably be a new trial, but the jury will be instructed that the defendant is not guilty unless he intended to steal someone else's identity.
To: Lurking Libertarian
All of those would actually be defenses, if (and it's a huge if) the jury believed you.
So why don't they acquit drunk drivers who accidentally kill someone? Very few drunk drivers actually intend to kill or injure. The "principle" you are claiming really doesn't sound right.
posted on 02/26/2009 11:47:39 PM PST
(I want to "Buy American" but the only things for sale made in the USA are politicians)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson