Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It was not fraudulent intent (the sign was fraudulent, so if anything he was anti-fraud, LOL) I don't think it was criminal intent.
I agree, there most certainly was not fraudulent intent. But, he came back to the sign, three days after kicking it, in the dead of night with tools used to start a fire. It was premeditated. He intended to commit a crime. He trespassed on someone else's property. And, he set ablaze someone else's object, using the tools he brought, on that someone else's property. He intended to do everything he did.
Merriam-Webster defines criminal intent as: the design or purpose to commit a wrongful or criminal act. The fact that he showed up with the necessary tools shows he designed to commit a wrongful act.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myghost
It was a childish person acting out, no different than someone's ex-spouse burning their cloths in the front lawn. They can pursue arson, but I don't think it matches the intent.
Again, I think the act was childish, and illegal. I am not saying it definitely CAN NOT be arson, just that I don't think it meets the definition that you quoted.
I'm not sure his intent necessarily matters, when deciding his innocence or guilt of arson, as he's on video doing it, premeditation included. His intent may matter when deciding the degree of arson. I believe North Carolina has two degrees of arson. I am not sure of the specifics that constitute which degree this act would fall under.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myghost
I hate that the guy is being repeatedly mentioned as a cyclist. Him being on a bike has nothing to do with him being a cyclist.
Why? I agree that being a cyclist is irrelevant with the act that occurred. This seems like an odd thing to be bothered by. It's not as though all cyclists do this sort of thing.
In the news report, they mentioned how he blogged or tracked his rides, which is how they were able to identify him, in the first place. I imagine this has something to do with the "cyclist" label.
I agree, there most certainly was not fraudulent intent. But, he came back to the sign, three days after kicking it, in the dead of night with tools used to start a fire. It was premeditated. He intended to commit a crime. He trespassed on someone else's property. And, he set ablaze someone else's object, using the tools he brought, on that someone else's property. He intended to do everything he did.
Merriam-Webster defines criminal intent as: the design or purpose to commit a wrongful or criminal act. The fact that he showed up with the necessary tools shows he designed to commit a wrongful act.
I'm not sure his intent necessarily matters, when deciding his innocence or guilt of arson, as he's on video doing it, premeditation included. His intent may matter when deciding the degree of arson. I believe North Carolina has two degrees of arson. I am not sure of the specifics that constitute which degree this act would fall under.
Why? I agree that being a cyclist is irrelevant with the act that occurred. This seems like an odd thing to be bothered by. It's not as though all cyclists do this sort of thing.
In the news report, they mentioned how he blogged or tracked his rides, which is how they were able to identify him, in the first place. I imagine this has something to do with the "cyclist" label.
Put down Merriam-Webster and read the NC Act.
Intent IS material to the discussion.
[quote=Some Law Office In Charlotte]Under the common-law definition of arson, a “dwelling house†means an inhabited house. A person “inhabits†a house for purposes of arson if that person dwells, lives, resides, stays, or rests at the house. Mobile homes, manufactured-type houses, and recreational trailer homes can be considered “dwelling houses†if they are inhabited.
A person can be convicted of arson without burning a victim’s actual dwelling house. Arson may be established if the burning takes place anywhere within the “curtilage†of the dwelling house. “Curtilage†is defined as including the yard around the dwelling house as well as the nearby area occupied by barns and other outbuildings.
In addition, the house must be the dwelling house “of another.†A house is the dwelling house “of another†if someone other than the arson defendant lives there.
To sum up common-law arson in North Carolina, a person is guilty if they (a) willfully and maliciously (b) burn (c) the dwelling house (or areas within the home’s curtilage) (d) of another person.
The guy on the bicycle willingly and maliciously burned the another person's sign in another person's yard (curtilage). He's on video doing it. He showed up with the necessary equipment. According to this law firm, the perpetrator's actions fit the description of someone who can be found guilty of arson perfectly.
Under the common-law definition of arson, a “dwelling house†means an inhabited house. A person “inhabits†a house for purposes of arson if that person dwells, lives, resides, stays, or rests at the house. Mobile homes, manufactured-type houses, and recreational trailer homes can be considered “dwelling houses†if they are inhabited.
A person can be convicted of arson without burning a victim’s actual dwelling house. Arson may be established if the burning takes place anywhere within the “curtilage†of the dwelling house. “Curtilage†is defined as including the yard around the dwelling house as well as the nearby area occupied by barns and other outbuildings.
In addition, the house must be the dwelling house “of another.†A house is the dwelling house “of another†if someone other than the arson defendant lives there.
To sum up common-law arson in North Carolina, a person is guilty if they (a) willfully and maliciously (b) burn (c) the dwelling house (or areas within the home’s curtilage) (d) of another person.
The guy on the bicycle willingly and maliciously burned the another person's sign in another person's yard (curtilage). He's on video doing it. He showed up with the necessary equipment. According to this law firm, the perpetrator's actions fit the description of someone who can be found guilty of arson perfectly.
Am I missing something?
Yeah. You are missing a concept called "Justice System Reality."
There will not be a felony charge or conviction, or an arson charge or arson conviction. Ain't nobody got time for that.
Misdemeanor and minor slap on the wrist, if anything.
Why? I agree that being a cyclist is irrelevant with the act that occurred. This seems like an odd thing to be bothered by. It's not as though all cyclists do this sort of thing.
Far too many motorists blame cyclists just for existing....no matter if they are angelic law abiding citizens. Plus a certain segment of the population in the US are more prone to intentionally harm cyclists.
I was out riding today and purposely stayed within ToC limits.
In the news report, they mentioned how he blogged or tracked his rides, which is how they were able to identify him, in the first place. I imagine this has something to do with the "cyclist" label.
Remember when it was good enough to just roll our eyes and laugh behind someone's back for being stupid?
Now it seems we need to light things on fire or shoot them. SMDH
Charging him with a crime is one thing. I suspect the perp's in for a greater surprise once his employer gets wind of this.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
