From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 12:10:37 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

Personally, I think the law should be more along the lines of granting
bail to first time offenders - except when they clearly and
intentionally used violence - but that bail for offences committed when >someone is already out on bail or has a previous criminal record should
be refused automatically.

I don't agree at all.

There was a 2024 case in Vancouver where a Dad with a 3 year old at
the outdoor patio at Macdonalds asked a guy at the next table who was
vaping and blowing towards the 3 year old to vape in a different
direction - and the vape-er immediately fatally buried his concealed
knife in the Dad's neck. The vape-er was definitely a first time
offender and was believed to have acted immediately and without
premeditation.

By your definition ('clearly and intentionally used violence') the
killer doesn't meet your definition and therefore should get bail.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 22:47:38 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

I could be wrong though. I wish I knew someone more familiar with the
day to day workings of the legal system that I could approach for
reliable information on this. I don't want to find that I've been
bringing the legal system into disrepute when it's actually working >properly.

If a suspect had a record of violating bail conditions why would they
expect to get bail? In certain parts of Vancouver it is common for a
perp to commit 10-20 assaults or robberies between release on bail and
trial and that appalls me since committing another crime while on bail
clearly violates bail conditions.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

On Fri, 22 Aug 2025 10:19:20 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

I actually meant the opposite, that the prejudice is IN FAVOUR of the >migrants. That, at least, is the strong opinion of a great many Brits.
For instance, in the wake of the Southport riots - the ones that
followed the murder of those three little girls at the dancing class -
gangs of Muslims carrying machetes were wandering the streets. When the >police approached them, they begged the Muslims to put their machetes in
the nearest mosque and that was all. Whites that were out and lashing
out at migrant hotels - the offender was initially thought to be living
in a migrant hotel - were rounded up, arrested, charged, tried, and in >prison, literally within hours as Starmer launched a series of immediate >trials for the whites. I believe that was the initial act that got him >labelled "two-tier Keir".

Bottom line is that Starmer should understand the justice system quite
well as his last job before entering politics was as a "Crown Counsel"
which in American terms would be "State's Attorney" - e.g. a high
level prosecutor.

Someone with that career into politics has no excuse for
misunderstanding how the legal and policing systems work.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

On Fri, 22 Aug 2025 18:20:05 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

Breaking and entering plus theft had been elements of the crime of burglary >to prove to bring burglary charges. Criminal codes have been modernized
state by state to eliminate these as elements to prove. The theft is >thwarted, so there's no crime beyond trespass? There was trespass
without having broken in? That wash't justice. I'm guessing the burglary >charge in English criminal law has been modernzed too but I have no
idea.

With all due respect "breaking" in the phrase "breaking and entering"
doesn't require the door to be locked and/or the window closed.

If you're inside without invitation you're "breaking"
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

Fri, 22 Aug 2025 18:20:05 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:

Breaking and entering plus theft had been elements of the crime of burglary >>to prove to bring burglary charges. Criminal codes have been modernized >>state by state to eliminate these as elements to prove. The theft is >>thwarted, so there's no crime beyond trespass? There was trespass
without having broken in? That wash't justice. I'm guessing the burglary >>charge in English criminal law has been modernzed too but I have no
idea.

With all due respect "breaking" in the phrase "breaking and entering"
doesn't require the door to be locked and/or the window closed.

If you're inside without invitation you're "breaking"

You are not correct. Breaking required that a secured barrier to entry
be broken. Entering without permission through an unlocked door is not "breaking". Once inside, it's trespass.

To prove burglary, then, withint breaking, the cops had to prove intent,
which is done through ordinary police work like investigating and
questioning to the suspect to see if he'll admit that he intended to
steal.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

Thu, 21 Aug 2025 12:10:37 -0400, Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com>:

Personally, I think the law should be more along the lines of granting >>bail to first time offenders - except when they clearly and
intentionally used violence - but that bail for offences committed when >>someone is already out on bail or has a previous criminal record should
be refused automatically.

I don't agree at all.

There was a 2024 case in Vancouver where a Dad with a 3 year old at
the outdoor patio at Macdonalds asked a guy at the next table who was
vaping and blowing towards the 3 year old to vape in a different
direction - and the vape-er immediately fatally buried his concealed
knife in the Dad's neck. The vape-er was definitely a first time
offender and was believed to have acted immediately and without >premeditation.

By your definition ('clearly and intentionally used violence') the
killer doesn't meet your definition and therefore should get bail.

Of course it was a crime of intent and that would meet Rhino's criteria.
He should be held in pre-trial custody.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

On Aug 26, 2025 at 11:58:49 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com>
wrote:

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

Fri, 22 Aug 2025 18:20:05 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:

Breaking and entering plus theft had been elements of the crime of burglary >>> to prove to bring burglary charges. Criminal codes have been modernized
state by state to eliminate these as elements to prove. The theft is
thwarted, so there's no crime beyond trespass? There was trespass
without having broken in? That wash't justice. I'm guessing the burglary >>> charge in English criminal law has been modernzed too but I have no
idea.

With all due respect "breaking" in the phrase "breaking and entering"
doesn't require the door to be locked and/or the window closed.

If you're inside without invitation you're "breaking"

You are not correct. Breaking required that a secured barrier to entry
be broken. Entering without permission through an unlocked door is not "breaking".

Not true. Common law recognizes, as a constructive burglarious breaking, entries obtained by fraud, threats, trickery, artifice, or pretense.

Also, many a thief has been convicted of burglary by coming down a chimney, despite there being no secure barrier or lock or any other device that was 'broken'. As have thieves who have knocked on a resident's door, then pushed in, once the resident opened it for them.

"The law will not suffer itself to be trifled with by such evasions,
especially under the cloak of legal process."
--In Cooley Blackstone, Book IV, ch 16, p 226-227

Also, many states have amended their penal codes to eliminate the need for actual breaking of a door or barrier. For example, Oregon's statute reads:

"Every unlawful entry of any building, booth, tent, railroad car, vessel,
boat, or other structure or erection mentioned in ORS 164.240, with
intent to steal or commit any felony therein, is a breaking and
entering of the same within the meaning of ORS 164.240."

The legislature added "every unlawful entry" to the definition, making an actual breaking of a lock or barrier unnecessary.

To prove burglary, then, withint breaking, the cops had to prove intent, which is done through ordinary police work like investigating and
questioning to the suspect to see if he'll admit that he intended to
steal.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

Aug 26, 2025 at 11:58:49 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

Fri, 22 Aug 2025 18:20:05 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:

Breaking and entering plus theft had been elements of the crime of burglary >>>>to prove to bring burglary charges. Criminal codes have been modernized >>>>state by state to eliminate these as elements to prove. The theft is >>>>thwarted, so there's no crime beyond trespass? There was trespass >>>>without having broken in? That wash't justice. I'm guessing the burglary >>>>charge in English criminal law has been modernzed too but I have no >>>>idea.

With all due respect "breaking" in the phrase "breaking and entering" >>>doesn't require the door to be locked and/or the window closed.

If you're inside without invitation you're "breaking"

You are not correct. Breaking required that a secured barrier to entry
be broken. Entering without permission through an unlocked door is not >>"breaking".

Not true. Common law recognizes, as a constructive burglarious breaking, >entries obtained by fraud, threats, trickery, artifice, or pretense.

Thanks for the correction; it's broader than I said. But trespass, which
was at issue here, isn't breaking. More than trespass is required for
burglary.

Also, many a thief has been convicted of burglary by coming down a chimney, >despite there being no secure barrier or lock or any other device that was >'broken'. As have thieves who have knocked on a resident's door, then pushed >in, once the resident opened it for them.

I would assume that entering through an unlocked window is breaking,

"The law will not suffer itself to be trifled with by such evasions, >especially under the cloak of legal process."
--In Cooley Blackstone, Book IV, ch 16, p 226-227

Also, many states have amended their penal codes to eliminate the need for >actual breaking of a door or barrier. For example, Oregon's statute reads:

"Every unlawful entry of any building, booth, tent, railroad car, vessel,
boat, or other structure or erection mentioned in ORS 164.240, with
intent to steal or commit any felony therein, is a breaking and
entering of the same within the meaning of ORS 164.240."

The legislature added "every unlawful entry" to the definition, making an >actual breaking of a lock or barrier unnecessary.

That's what I've been discussing! In a modernized burglary statute, if
intent to commit theft is proven, then it's a burglary. It's interesting
that Oregon found it necessary to expand the definition of "breaking"
with intent to commit a crime.

Of course the incident in question was a burglarly, but there was no
charge of burglary given the cops' refusal to properly investigate the
crime.

To prove burglary, then, withint breaking, the cops had to prove intent, >>which is done through ordinary police work like investigating and >>questioning to the suspect to see if he'll admit that he intended to
steal.

Given that the man had trespassed multiple times that day, would that
fact alone be sufficient to prove burglary after the first instance of trespass?
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2