Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Solomon

(12,617 posts)

5. The thing the "you have to prove intent" people are missing is that intent can be inferred.

Reply to elleng (Reply #3)

Sun Jan 9, 2022, 12:32 AM

Jan 2022

This idea that you can't prove intent is driving me up the wall. Reminds me of how people kept saying "he didn't say quid pro quo so there was no quid pro quo".

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

6 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Lawyers: Can the "but-for" concept in the law of negligence relate to tfg's role [View all] LuckyCharms Jan 2022 OP

Has nothing to do with what was in his head, elleng Jan 2022 #1

That's what I'm trying to say... LuckyCharms Jan 2022 #2

Maybe; intent may be irrelevant. elleng Jan 2022 #3

The thing the "you have to prove intent" people are missing is that intent can be inferred. Solomon Jan 2022 #5

Right, and 'intent,' 'mens rea', is relevant in criminal trials, elleng Jan 2022 #6

"But for..." certain conduct a result would not have come about Scottie Mom Jan 2022 #4