07-26-2018, 06:40 PM
(07-26-2018, 06:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Not this again.
Because there was no mental state of willfullness; however, a law was broken. It's the same thing the FBI decided with Hills. They recognized laws were broken; however, a crime was not committed because it was not done through gross negligence; simply carelessness.
No folks can (and have) argue all day if the FBI was wise in their findings; however, no one argues that laws were not broken.
This may seem like meaningless semantics to you, but it really isn't. If intent is an element of a crime then no law is broken without intent.
A law is not broken everytime a car hits another car because the law says intent (or gross negligence) is required. Just because one car hits another that does not mean a law was broken.
