- 70,049
- 24,223
umm intent is VERY hard to prove.I can't tell if you're trolling or not. You're putting way too much weight on the "intent." Intent is not hard to prove at all. No one in their goddamn mind, not even the worst 1st year, public defender would go into court and base that dude's defense on the lack of intent. Any type of furtive behavior, and every fact of the situation is taken into account when determining one's intent. If you don't think a judge would find intent where the suspect has been seen by multiple eyewitness, including the store's clerks (which, by itself, typically suffices in shoplifting cases) to have (1) shoved a candy bar (or a box of candy bars) down his pants; (2) attempted to bolt out the door when confronted; (3) shouted that he didn't have "anything else"; and (4) apparently also threw the box of candy bars at one of the clerks, and punched him, then I don't know what else to tell you--maybe that you attend law school or avoid the legal profession altogether.You are really confused as to what intent is, aren't you?
No, that's the act.
You again described the act according to the law and according to 7/11, but you are yet to prove intent.
Do you understand how hard it is to prove intent (well you obviously don't)?
Intent isn't written down as law. And it can't be found through a google search.
I don't know what fantasy world you're living in where you think criminals are going to broadcast their intentions before committing an act. Maybe the suspect wrote in his diary earlier that night that he was going to the 7-Eleven for the purpose of committing petit larceny.
this is why most drug cases end up dropping intent to sell charges first, because JUST because someone has a few baggies of trees in they're pocket, doesn't
mean they were going to actually sell em, it can be personal use.