Type4_PTS
Diamond Invictus SP
Cross-Posted from WWP:
30 Minutes Ago
http://forums.whyweprotest.net/328-...sed-court-set-sept-10-a-70277/42/#post1303223
tikk
Member
Location: nyc
Re: Sparrow charged - attempted stalking. Released. Court set for Sept. 10
As some have already astutely questioned, "Attempted Stalking: WTF?" I'll try to exlain why the crime itself makes no sense under any law.
Every crime is comprised of two components: a 'mens rea' (state of mind) and an 'actus reus' (an act). You can't prove a crime without showing that both elements were present. For example, in a typical first degree homicide statute, the mens rea is 'intent to kill' and the actus reus is the physical act, e.g., stabbing, shooting, etc. If you shot someone but didn't intend to kill them, you are not guilty of first degree homicide.
With regard to stalking, per the D.C. statute, the mens rea is the intent to cause (or not intend but reasonably understand would cause) a person to fear for their safety, become frightened, or to suffer emotional distress. The actus reus refers to the course of conduct engaged in--typically stalkers follow, surveil, call, etc.
The essential nature of an "attempt" crime is that the mens rea (state of mind) is present but the actus reus is not. Thus, a defendant guilty of attempted homicide intended to kill but whose shot, for instance, failed to do so.
Here, attempted stalking means that the prosecution must show that Sparrow intended to cause Belotte to fear for her safety, etc., but failed to complete the actus reus--i.e., he failed, for example, to repeatedly follow, surveil, and/or call Belotte, but nevertheless attempted to do so.
It should be apparent, then, why "attempted stalking" makes so little sense here. Sparrow never attempted (and thus failed) to commit the actus reus. His acts, protesting the Org and exchanging words with Belotte, are either stalking or they are not. There was no attempt.
30 Minutes Ago
http://forums.whyweprotest.net/328-...sed-court-set-sept-10-a-70277/42/#post1303223
tikk
Member
Location: nyc
As some have already astutely questioned, "Attempted Stalking: WTF?" I'll try to exlain why the crime itself makes no sense under any law.
Every crime is comprised of two components: a 'mens rea' (state of mind) and an 'actus reus' (an act). You can't prove a crime without showing that both elements were present. For example, in a typical first degree homicide statute, the mens rea is 'intent to kill' and the actus reus is the physical act, e.g., stabbing, shooting, etc. If you shot someone but didn't intend to kill them, you are not guilty of first degree homicide.
With regard to stalking, per the D.C. statute, the mens rea is the intent to cause (or not intend but reasonably understand would cause) a person to fear for their safety, become frightened, or to suffer emotional distress. The actus reus refers to the course of conduct engaged in--typically stalkers follow, surveil, call, etc.
The essential nature of an "attempt" crime is that the mens rea (state of mind) is present but the actus reus is not. Thus, a defendant guilty of attempted homicide intended to kill but whose shot, for instance, failed to do so.
Here, attempted stalking means that the prosecution must show that Sparrow intended to cause Belotte to fear for her safety, etc., but failed to complete the actus reus--i.e., he failed, for example, to repeatedly follow, surveil, and/or call Belotte, but nevertheless attempted to do so.
It should be apparent, then, why "attempted stalking" makes so little sense here. Sparrow never attempted (and thus failed) to commit the actus reus. His acts, protesting the Org and exchanging words with Belotte, are either stalking or they are not. There was no attempt.
