WildAlaska said:
Read the statute again, Ken. All that is required is that you possess dry ice with the intent to cause injury... to another person. A dry-ice burn/frostbite is an injury. It is plausible that just the
attempt to drop it into someone's clothing could justify charges, depending on the size of the piece of dry ice.
WildAlaska said:
Really? So in your view inchoate offenses should not be allowed, nor posessory offenses that can form the underlying basis of a malum in se act ?
I did not say that. I said that it seems the trend (of the last 3 decades of the 20th Century at least) of legislatures has been to ban the possession of many items rather than to prohibit or punish acts committed with the specific items.
If the same MS-13 members, in AZ, carry the same materials -
a dozen glass quart jars, nails and a note saying Here's a gift for you white guys substituting a gallon of water and 2 pounds of calcium carbonate, could they be charged with an offense?
You betcha, but only if the police officer knew that calcium carbonate in water produces a lot of flammable gas. At the very least, he has probable cause to detain and investigate these individuals. The same would apply to the dry ice.
One of my local hardware stores sells dry ice, especially for early morning fishermen heading south. So, if I decide today I'm going to wire in new cabinet lights in the kitchen and purchase a pound of sheet rock screws, wire, some mason jars for the wife's pickle project and 10 lbs of dry ice to keep the fridge cold while I work, a police officer might believe your theory of possession forming "intent" for some
malum per se act.
Further, can you emprically demonstrate this purported "trend" absent reference to the ever increasing technological means of doing harm.
Probably, given some time and as part of a different thread.