Originally Posted by
Gordiep
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that this is not true. I think that malicious intent while committing vandalism might aggravate the charge, but [as in the case of murder, assault, etc] not committing a crime 'intentionally' doesn't excuse one from culpability...regardless, as you said, both are technically a crime.
yeah this is just an exercise in somewhat-legal semantics.
I'm me ain't no lawyer neither, i'm be a *****-fied english major.
wiki calls it "the conspicuous defacement or destruction of a structure, a symbol or anything else that goes against the will of the owner/governing body" and that conspicious word is where the intention comes in. they go on to say that in criminal stuff, "Private citizens commit vandalism when they
wilfully damage or deface the property of others or the commons"
the nature of whether or not it's a crime is different, obviously intention doesn't matter on whether or not the destructive act is a crime or not, it's just a different crime and not called vandalism.
like i said, semantics.