Muscatine

Oooopsy

I think you overlooked these Weeman.

713.1 Burglary defined.
Any person, having the intent to commit a felony, assault or theft therein, who, having no right, license or privilege to do so, enters an occupied structure, such occupied structure not being open to the public, or who remains therein after it is closed to the public or after the person's right, license or privilege to be there has expired, or any person having such intent who breaks an occupied structure, commits burglary.

713.2 Attempted burglary defined.
Any person, having the intent to commit a felony, assault or theft therein, who, having no right, license, or privilege to do so, attempts to enter an occupied structure, the occupied structure not being open to the public, or who attempts to remain therein after it is closed to the public or after the person's right, license, or privilege to be there has expired, or any person having such intent who attempts to break an occupied structure, commits attempted burglary.

714.1 Theft defined.
A person commits theft when the person does any of the following:
1. Takes possession or control of the property of another, or property in the possession of another, with the intent to deprive the other thereof.
2. Misappropriates property which the person has in trust, or property of another which the person has in the person's possession or control, whether such possession or control is lawful or unlawful, by using or disposing of it in a manner which is inconsistent with or a denial of the trust or of the owner's rights in such property, or conceals found property, or appropriates such property to the person's own use, when the owner of such property is known to the person.

So you see Weeman my argument is a basic argument on the law of breaking and entering. Any defense attorney would argue down the ''what if'' burglary was nothing more than breaking and entering. Thereby, reducing the crime from 1st and 2nd degree burglary, Class C & D felony, to the misdemeanor charge of breaking and entering.

Sorry Weeman but no District Court judge is going to rule your ''what if'' scenerio constitutes burglary when there is no theft or endangerment of an individual.

I guess I win again don't I?

Dumb and dumber



All one has to have is the intent to commit a crime once inside, numbskull, for burglary. The crime inside does not hace to occur.

Can't read what you copy and paste, eh?

But the whole point to the original post was the officer shirked his duty and did not investigate to see what crime, or even if a crime had been committed; and additionally placed a potential risk back on the community and property owner.

Once again, you've proven you are not an attorney. Anyone can copy and paste code. But not everyone has studied criminology and the merits of specific intent. That's obvious now.

Win.

Wrong again dew drop

How do you prove intent Weeman? Are you going to stand tall before the bency and jury espousing you know for an absolute certainty what the defendant was thinking at the time he was caught? What if his intent was to merely use the bathroom? Is that burglary?

No Weeman, you and your curb side lawyering, your continued use of facts that support nothing more than your own ignorance which defies all logic and credibility, you are the one in the end who loses.

Damn how I love to get you in court Weeman and turn you loose before a jury trial. You'd last about 15 seconds before the Judge would have to declare a mistrial due to your sheer stupidity.