3 ms·

Timeframe, proof of intent, and motive are not what the commenter I replied to said, and they most certainly have those three pieces of information when attribu

• sudosysgen 6y ago
  That's how I understood their comment, and in general, no, concordance of time frame and proof of intent are not proven. I think you underestimate the "proof" part of proof of intent. You not only have to prove conclusively that they did it, but back it up by proving that they intended to do so.
  • TameAntelope 6y ago
    That's not a bar that's reached in the vast majority of criminal cases tried in the United States, or anywhere else for that matter, so it seems odd (approaching disingenuous) to try and establish that level of certainty here.
    • sudosysgen 6y ago
      If the American justice system doesn't attempt to prove that the person actually conclusively commited the crime and has mens rea as well as a motive and a congruent time-frame to commit it, then something is terribly wrong.
      • TameAntelope 6y ago
        > Documentation verifiably obtained from the attacker about the intent to attack, the methods used, the results and people involved. Just to remind you where we started, as a contrast to the new goalposts you've established.