quote: "Tea Party Organizers clearly gave intent when they put out the address and asked the followers to "provide a personal touch to their anger"."
Under law, one does not "give" intent. One must have "formed specific intent" to commit a crime. That is the only way it works. Giving out addresses is not a crime, so your doofus interpretation of intent is all wet.
Under the common law there is a distinction between specific and general intent crimes. The basic difference between the two is that specific intent crimes require the individual who commits the crime to have a certain intent or purpose when the crime was committed, where as general intent crimes don't. Some jurisdictions have done away with this distinction.
What Is a Specific Intent Crime?
If you are accused of a specific intent crime, the prosecution must prove that when you committed the crime you had the requisite intent or purpose. This intent will be listed in the statute that defines the crime. If you didn't act with this intent or purpose, then you cannot be convicted of the crime.
Then What Is a General Intent Crime?
A general intent crime only requires that you intend to perform the act. That is, you don't need any additional intention or purpose. For example, assault is usually a general intent crime. You only need to intend your actions, not any particular result. General intent crimes are easier to prove because it is not necessary to show that you had some particular purpose
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, davie...this is not any legal prose at all...and by these words you posted, you will never convict anyone for giving out an address. (ie: laughed out of court).
By your definition alone, a guy who starts a bar fight that turns into a brawl is a domestic terrorist. But then agin...you have already defeated yourself. You started posting what you called US code. Now you're grabbing anything to try and side with your argument. The internet is a wonderful thing, davie, but one has to know what he doing inside the law. The first 4 words in your post here proves you know nothing. We are not talking about "common law"....we were talking US Code, at your insistance. Too bad you don't know the difference. And again, one does not "give intent"...
Keep reaching, though, davieboy...I know being wrong is consuming you, as always. And again, thanks for admitting you are our long lost davieboy by posting to a post made directly to davie.