6 ms·

You still have to prove who had the gun in the first place

NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
No, actually. Let's say that you've been given a key for a locker at Grand Central Station and told there's a gun inside. We agree that I'll use the gun to shoot someone. You give me the key and I go to collect the gun. In fact, the locker is empty. The gun doesn't even exist and yet there's still a conspiracy to commit murder.
- gamblor956 6y ago
  No, actually, you need additional steps to achieve conspiracy to commit murder in that hypothetical.
  - NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
    What's the legal basis for that? The "overt steps" are you giving me the key, and me going to the locker.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - ggrrhh_ta 6y ago
      You could get the gun to prevent the conspiracy from taking place.
    - Dylan16807 6y ago
      Does the overt act not have to further the conspiracy?
      - NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
        Yes: but don't you think that going to collect the weapon furthers the conspiracy to commit murder? There'd inevitably be argument over whether it met the required standard, which differs by jurisdiction. e.g. did it advance the conspiracy substantially? did it take the conspiracy past the point of no return?
        Dylan16807 6y ago
        > Yes: but don't you think that going to collect the weapon furthers the conspiracy to commit murder? Well arguably that didn't happen. > There'd inevitably be argument over whether it met the required standard, which differs by jurisdiction. e.g. did it advance the conspiracy substantially? did it take the conspiracy past the point of no return? I'd say that going to a place where you would get equipment is not something that substantially advances the conspiracy, even if there was a gun! It's actually getting the equipment that might do so, depending on what the equipment is. And if you're still collecting necessary equipment, or especially doing a prerequisite to collecting equipment, you're nowhere near the point of no return.

No, actually. Let's say that you've been given a key for a locker at Grand Central Station and told there's a gun inside. We agree that I'll use the gun to shoot someone. You give me the key and I go to collect the gun. In fact, the locker is empty. The gun doesn't even exist and yet there's still a conspiracy to commit murder.

gamblor956 6y ago
No, actually, you need additional steps to achieve conspiracy to commit murder in that hypothetical.
- NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
  What's the legal basis for that? The "overt steps" are you giving me the key, and me going to the locker.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - ggrrhh_ta 6y ago
    You could get the gun to prevent the conspiracy from taking place.
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    Does the overt act not have to further the conspiracy?
    - NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
      Yes: but don't you think that going to collect the weapon furthers the conspiracy to commit murder? There'd inevitably be argument over whether it met the required standard, which differs by jurisdiction. e.g. did it advance the conspiracy substantially? did it take the conspiracy past the point of no return?
      - Dylan16807 6y ago
        > Yes: but don't you think that going to collect the weapon furthers the conspiracy to commit murder? Well arguably that didn't happen. > There'd inevitably be argument over whether it met the required standard, which differs by jurisdiction. e.g. did it advance the conspiracy substantially? did it take the conspiracy past the point of no return? I'd say that going to a place where you would get equipment is not something that substantially advances the conspiracy, even if there was a gun! It's actually getting the equipment that might do so, depending on what the equipment is. And if you're still collecting necessary equipment, or especially doing a prerequisite to collecting equipment, you're nowhere near the point of no return.