I literally provided you with the introductory text into understanding the very question you're asking. You are not capable of understanding the answer to your own questions until you've bothered to read the basics of what that word means in the context of the law.
You're getting angry because you're too thick headed to recognize information when it's put in front of you.
A scholar's interpretation? It's a intro to criminal law textbook. That's like saying a high school chemistry textbook is just some scholar's interpretation of covalent bonds.
You're asking a stupid question and I'm trying to teach you how to ask a smarter one. Clearly your intent is to go through life as the dumbest version of you that could possibly exist.
What do you really know? NOTHING. SO SHUT UP!Neat! Your copy pasta skills meet the criteria for spreading liberty at the behest of Uncle Sugar.
Although you still haven't described how one individual could possibly know another individual's intent.
But don't mind that.
This really is a personal ax for you to grind, isn't it? What'd you get stuck with? Who hurt you?Cutesy.
So once again (for like the 25th or something) time. How do you know another person's "intent".
Please, this is getting laborious. Stick to the question please. How do you know another person's intent?
The only ones talking about a civil war are the fascists.
And another thing.....if any of you ever disparage interpretive dance again, me and my boys gonna posse up and I guarantee you'll be praying to any God you can find it ends quicker than its gonna.
I... just.. I don't get it.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...s-lawyer-use-lie-detectors-on-the-white-house