Quote:
Originally Posted by NoJabbaNoBogRoll
One key element of the crime was false, making the crime impossible to commit. The attempted criminal was the only one not aware of this fact. I'm sure even you can see the similarities.
You're really clutching at straws here. For the sake of argument, let's say you give me the address to a vacant building, set up by the police department, and set up a dummy in the living room. I attempt to shoot the dummy through the window, believing it to be you.
Or, since you're so real... The person you have claimed to be online.
|
I'm gonna elaborate my reply to your previous scenario, which would appear to be a nice gambit, but flawed still - since this post of yours above doesn't add anything to your point (no offense).
You had a good set up, fake gun by an undercover cop - but the major difference is I'm a real guy you have desire to kill.
Now:
If
I was a cop myself, who met you under the
sole purpose of getting you to hate me enough to kill me, and the scenario went as you said -
you go free. These are the sorts of details defense attorneys masturbate to, because instead of looking at a seemingly crucial element ("He went to the house!"), they examine and tear about the
process of the event step by step. If one step is out of whack, then the case is lost: And the fact is I would have goaded you into wanting to kill me. You're no more a danger to society than an antagonist in some elaborate stage play.
Yes, it would appear that you have intent to kill if so pushed, but because we set you up - it's an unfortunate detail we can't arrest you for.