>>5655256 (pb)
>Intent
>Intent is a legal term and needs two things to be proven. Guilty mind and guilty act. Combined it is Intent.
Think about it. If someone absently pockets a pen that was borrowed and walks away, that was a guilty act, but not a guilty mind. Thus, that was not Intent.
If the person considered the pen and stealing it and then did so, that fills both requirements and it is with Intent.
Not a lawyerfag, but one who works in a legal field that deals with Intent.
Okay, but anyone can plan. It is thoughts. Once the act is committed, Intent is proven, but not until then.
I was reading /pb and saw an anon thoughts on the Page testimony and how she had to deal with Intent. It bugged me. There is proven Intent with HRC. Money. The pay to play funding to CF.
HRC planned to sell SAPs. She did so. Intent.
Thanks anon. Maybe my OP was unclear. I was indeed discussing being able to be charged with Intent vs simple definition of Intent.
It is actually a good thing. If Intent was purely showing one entertained an idea, that would really be bad. A thought crime. Some people have criminal minds but do not act on that. It makes for a very creative person.
> after being discovered as part of another undercover operation investigating unrelated crimes.”
That means some links exist between the college p2p op and other people. There will be crossover. What are/were the FBI investigating that found this?
Intent is needed to be proven to charge the crime though. Without Intent there is no crime.
The charges that exist that are Intent to distribute, etc, are odd to me because they cloud the term of Intent in the process of proving a crime in other charges.