Warning: Some posts on this platform may contain adult material intended for mature audiences only. Viewer discretion is advised. By clicking ‘Continue’, you confirm that you are 18 years or older and consent to viewing explicit content.
I think generally anything that is considered an attempted <whatever>, the judicial system takes into account the intent of the person who is being accused. If the intent was to assassinate Trump, and the person had everything they needed to do it, and would have done it if they had not been stopped, then a real attempt was made.
I think generally anything that is considered an attempted <whatever>, the judicial system takes into account the intent of the person who is being accused. If the intent was to assassinate Trump, and the person had everything they needed to do it, and would have done it if they had not been stopped, then a real attempt was made.
So the state has to prove that they would have done it not stopped and the defence has to prove the opposite (or something like that)?