<p>Incomplete attempt laws are typically explained as laws that exist to justify timely law enforcement intervention. Such explanations may well provide good reasons for the laws based on harm prevention rationales, but they do not address the question whether a person who has, say, “cocked and aimed the pistol” has actually attempted to kill and is blameworthy for having done so. It turns out that this question is notoriously difficult to answer. This Article describes the challenge of defining incomplete attempt and of identifying and articulating its wrongfulness as a general theoretical matter. This Article then argues in favor of conceptualizing incomplete attempt as an offense of disobedience of the state, as opposed to an offense the wrongfulness of which stems from trying to engage in a morally wrongful act. Such reconceptualization can then serve as a basis for building a more clearly articulated account of blameworthiness of incomplete attempts.</p>