Quote:
|
Exactly how do you establish intent if not by inference?
|
A matter of usage, unfortunately.
Infer is used in various contexts and my context is this:
Quote:
in·fer
/ɪnˈfɜr/ Show Spelled [in-fur] Show IPA verb, -ferred, -fer·ring.
–verb (used with object)
1.
to derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence: They inferred his displeasure from his cool tone of voice.
2.
(of facts, circumstances, statements, etc.) to indicate or involve as a conclusion; lead to.
3.
to guess; speculate; surmise.
4.
to hint; imply; suggest.
–verb (used without object)
5.
to draw a conclusion, as by reasoning.
|
While you apparently were using it as such:
Quote:
in·fer
/ɪnˈfɜr/ Show Spelled [in-fur] Show IPA verb, -ferred, -fer·ring.
–verb (used with object)
1.
to derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence: They inferred his displeasure from his cool tone of voice.
2.
(of facts, circumstances, statements, etc.) to indicate or involve as a conclusion; lead to.
3.
to guess; speculate; surmise.
4.
to hint; imply; suggest.
–verb (used without object)
5.
to draw a conclusion, as by reasoning.
|
I simply don't think a jury should be guessing at the intent of the accused without hard evidence to back it up. I don't believe that the rule the gun show imposed does that. The sale was
legal to do regardless of the gun show rule. What made it
illegal was the immigration status of the person who instigated the sale and who now walks free.
If they are going to go after the seller they should
ALSO go after the straw purchaser. Otherwise, it makes a mockery of the law. All parties to the crime should be prosecuted, not those who are merely
selected for prosecution.
Perhaps once it happens to you or someone you know you will agree with the preceding paragraph.