Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[iam416]

Crash:

I'm sure there are criminal provisions that cover mailing "fake" bombs. It would mean, however, that he can't be charged with attempted murder, which I assume he'd get nailed with all day if the bombs were real. To be clear, I haven't heard one way or the other if they were real or fake, and trusting you for information is a fool's errand.

Good god, man. Must you denigrate everything?

Correct.

[AlabamAlum]

[Ghengis Jon]

If I use my finger in my pocket to give the illusion of gun possession and rob a store, I will be charged with armed robbery, regardless if all I had was my finger. I would imagine that same principle would apply in the case of bombs as well. A fake bomb is the same as a dud bomb. I don't believe statutes call out "fully functional" bombs.

[Kapture1]

newsEngin.21176103_DSCN0441obama-shopped-3.jpg

The synagogue murders are Trump's fault. If only he could be more like President Obama. Here is Barack Obama with noted Jewish rights activist Louis Farrakhan.

[iam416]

If I use my finger in my pocket to give the illusion of gun possession and rob a store, I will be charged with armed robbery, regardless if all I had was my finger. I would imagine that same principle would apply in the case of bombs as well. A fake bomb is the same as a dud bomb. I don't believe statutes call out "fully functional" bombs.

That's correct. And there's no doubt he's liable for criminal acts. I said he wouldn't be criminally liable for attempted murder. To carry the example you provided further, you are liable for armed robbery if you use a fake gun, but you're not liable for attempted murder if you squeeze the trigger of that fake gun because it's simply not possible. The "armed" aspect of the law is aimed at coercing your victim with a threat of force, so if your victim reasonably believes you have a weapon, then you're criminally liable for armed robbery regardless of whether you have a weapon or not.

In this case, it's easy to imagine something like "mayhem" -- it doesn't matter if the bomb is real or not, if you're intending to terrorize someone you're going to jail. It does matter for attempted murder, though.

Also correct.

[froot loops]

Its considered a federal hate crime because it violates the 1968 Civil Rights Act. Sometimes the jurisdiction of the federal government in deploying the statute is tenuous but it certainly isn't in this case. It is tailor made for this law. It has nothing to do with interstate commerce.

[iam416]

Every federal law has to have something to do with interstate commerce or another enumerated power. Full stop.

Accorinding to the DOJ release, the federal complaint alleges that Bowers committed the following crimes on or about October 27, 2018, in the Western District of Pennsylvania:

The charges under the 1968 Civil Right Act are 18 USC 924(c) charges. The full text is here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/247.

A requirement of prosecution under 247, most germanely:

(a)Whoever, in any of the circumstances referred to in subsection (b)religious real property, because of the religious character of that property, or attempts to do so; or
(2) intentionally obstructs, by force or threat of force, any person in the enjoyment of that personhe circumstances referred to in subsection (a) are that the offense is in or affects interstate or foreign commerce

So, any prosecution under the 1968 Civil Rights Act Section 247(a) requires that the offense AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE.

And, indeed, the Complaint filed by the DOJ (https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdpa/pr...05371/download) specifically states:

Title 18, United States Code Sections 247(a)(2) makes it a crime to intentionally obstruct, or attempt to do so, by force or threat of force, any person in the enjoyment of that person's free exercise of religious beliefs, and said offense is in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce

Because, well, you need to prove up the interstate commerce element.

[hack]

I genuinely thought your position on Sessions was insightful and interesting. I'm glad I asked for clarification and I thanked you at the time for providing it. I thought that that was a good example of the kind of patient exchange we ought to have around here.

[froot loops]

Are you arguing that Federal hate crimes are unconstitutional like George Will is arguing?

[iam416]

Sessions' DOJ is relying on this allegation for the interstate commerce hook:

ATF confirmed that these firearms were not manufactured in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and, at some point after manufacture, these firearms traveled in interstate commerce to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

So, he used guns that weren't made in Pennsylvania, so that can support Federalization of what is essentially a state law crime.

[Kapture1]

Every federal law has to have something to do with interstate commerce or another enumerated power. Full stop.

Accorinding to the DOJ release, the federal complaint alleges that Bowers committed the following crimes on or about October 27, 2018, in the Western District of Pennsylvania:



The charges under the 1968 Civil Right Act are 18 USC 924(c) charges. The full text is here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/247.

A requirement of prosecution under 247, most germanely:


So, any prosecution under the 1968 Civil Rights Act Section 247(a) requires that the offense AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE.

And, indeed, the Complaint filed by the DOJ (https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdpa/pr...05371/download) specifically states:



Because, well, you need to prove up the interstate commerce element.

I thought the interstate commerce bit was to pass constitutional muster with SCOTUS. I don't think a crime has to interfere with actual interstate commerce for the feds to charge it.

[Kapture1]

sSVN5B-CmCamW_Zfr1VN51dQHlccnpfyKpyomn62Hsw.png?width=500&auto=webp&s=0aa6e04ec754abfbe05313ab34174c304c3e9688.png

[iam416]

Are you arguing that Federal hate crimes are unconstitutional like George Will is arguing?

I'm stating definitively and unequivocally that the notion that these charges "[have] nothing to do with interstate commerce" is entirely and completely wrong. The statute is crystal clear as is the Constitution. There HAS to be an interstate commerce element to the crime or it can't be Federal. So, it quite clearly has SOMETHING to do with interstate commerce.

As written the statute is constitutional, IMO, because it requires a showing that there is an affect on interstate commerce in order to support the charges. The pleading, however, IMO, may be dismissed because the allegations that meet that element are really, really thin.

[AlabamAlum]

I genuinely thought your position on Sessions was insightful and interesting. I'm glad I asked for clarification and I thanked you at the time for providing it. I thought that that was a good example of the kind of patient exchange we ought to have around here.

[Kapture1]

LvvML6-4WpZWzA9bYQ2C3TZuvlW83hndKZaoN0ECYKY.jpg?width=960&auto=webp&s=7ebac0731f7b0dffca8b62a656603c983d776b38.jpg