5 ms·

So... they’re trying to prosecute two guys and have not only zero evidence of, but an awful lot of counter-evidence of mens rea. America has a serious problem

by moomin 7y ago

So... they’re trying to prosecute two guys and have not only zero evidence of, but an awful lot of counter-evidence of mens rea. America has a serious problem with prosecuting people it’s pretty sure are innocent.

JoeAltmaier 7y ago
They broke into a county building with no authorization. Even the purported state authorization didn't permit any of the activities they performed (defeating locks; operating at night; interfering with the alarm). 'Zero' is hyperbole, since 4 significant charges is greater than zero. Its true they have no evidence of intent to harm. But its hardly a harmless mistake that they, after a few drinks, broke into the wrong building without permission. During the night (supposed to be during the day). A judicial building.
- moomin 7y ago
  The prosecutors could have laid down 1,000 charges and they still would have no evidence that the people concerned didn’t think they had authorisation. And, ironically since I’m usually pointing out the opposite, just because it’s serious doesn’t mean it’s criminal.
- dillonmckay 7y ago
  ‘Even the purported state authorization didn't permit any of the activities they performed (defeating locks; operating at night; interfering with the alarm).’ This is incorrect. One of the three documents indicated this, however, the other documents allowed those tactics. Are the documents in conflict? Yes.
  - JoeAltmaier 7y ago
    The documents prepared before the contract supported all sorts of activities. But the contract signed by the state, did not. It spelled out exactly what was allowed. That the organization advertises it is capable of other physical testing is interesting, but not relevant.
- SCHiM 7y ago
  The contract is published online. It certainly describes "circumventing physical security measures", such as locks. The contract is signed by an authority for which there was no reasonable doubt that they were not authorized to approve the work. The signatures are on the contract describing the scope and type of work performed.

by moomin 7y ago

JoeAltmaier 7y ago

They broke into a county building with no authorization. Even the purported state authorization didn't permit any of the activities they performed (defeating locks; operating at night; interfering with the alarm). 'Zero' is hyperbole, since 4 significant charges is greater than zero. Its true they have no evidence of intent to harm. But its hardly a harmless mistake that they, after a few drinks, broke into the wrong building without permission. During the night (supposed to be during the day). A judicial building.

moomin 7y ago
The prosecutors could have laid down 1,000 charges and they still would have no evidence that the people concerned didn’t think they had authorisation. And, ironically since I’m usually pointing out the opposite, just because it’s serious doesn’t mean it’s criminal.
dillonmckay 7y ago
‘Even the purported state authorization didn't permit any of the activities they performed (defeating locks; operating at night; interfering with the alarm).’ This is incorrect. One of the three documents indicated this, however, the other documents allowed those tactics. Are the documents in conflict? Yes.
- JoeAltmaier 7y ago
  The documents prepared before the contract supported all sorts of activities. But the contract signed by the state, did not. It spelled out exactly what was allowed. That the organization advertises it is capable of other physical testing is interesting, but not relevant.
SCHiM 7y ago
The contract is published online. It certainly describes "circumventing physical security measures", such as locks. The contract is signed by an authority for which there was no reasonable doubt that they were not authorized to approve the work. The signatures are on the contract describing the scope and type of work performed.