03-01-2016, 06:36 PM
It's foolish to keep arguing that the only reason the boy wouldn't be prosecuted is because there isn't enough evidence, Gunnar.
The charge under consideration does not require knowledge of criminal intent on the part of the recipient. The boy knew he was not legally permitted to give the gun to the minor girl, regardless of why he decided to do so. The evidence against him for "illegal transfer (LOAN, sale or gift) of a firearm to a minor" is uncontested and he's confessed to that crime. That doesn't mean the DA is required to prosecute, however.
And, when someone takes belongings from others without authorization and tries to conceal it, I call it stealing, which is not misleading. I did not call the boy a criminal thief.
The charge under consideration does not require knowledge of criminal intent on the part of the recipient. The boy knew he was not legally permitted to give the gun to the minor girl, regardless of why he decided to do so. The evidence against him for "illegal transfer (LOAN, sale or gift) of a firearm to a minor" is uncontested and he's confessed to that crime. That doesn't mean the DA is required to prosecute, however.
And, when someone takes belongings from others without authorization and tries to conceal it, I call it stealing, which is not misleading. I did not call the boy a criminal thief.