Rep. Giffords of Arizona shot

#901
#901
BigPapaVol said:
I think we're getting at the mens rea end of our legal system for that particular crime. Did he knowingly assassinate a federal judge or did he kill a guy who happened to be there?

I'm a legal simpleton, but that's my understanding.
Click to expand...

he killed a 9yr old girl. enough said. no reason to split hairs.
 
#904
#904
BigPapaVol said:
Yes. However, it boggles my mind that the two would carry different penalties. It's not as if the shooting itself was anything but premeditated and the murder equally unlawful.
Click to expand...

dunno - I can see it either way. Intent clearly enters in to crime definition; if he didn't intend to kill a Federal judge that could be legally different than if he did. On the other hand, dude was still an FJ whether the killer knew or not.
 
#905
#905
volinbham said:
dunno - I can see it either way. Intent clearly enters in to crime definition; if he didn't intend to kill a Federal judge that could be legally different than if he did. On the other hand, dude was still an FJ whether the killer knew or not.
Click to expand...

but does the intent to kill a FJ outweigh the intent to kill anyone? That's what I'm getting at. Seems ridiculous to me that penalties would be different.
 
#906
#906
volinbham said:
dunno - I can see it either way. Intent clearly enters in to crime definition; if he didn't intend to kill a Federal judge that could be legally different than if he did. On the other hand, dude was still an FJ whether the killer knew or not.
Click to expand...

I don't think there was any intent to kill him bc he was a federal judge, just to kill. Not sure how that works out in the courts but ill be shocked if they don't go after and get him in federal court as well.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#907
#907
BigPapaVol said:
Yes. However, it boggles my mind that the two would carry different penalties. It's not as if the shooting itself was anything but premeditated and the murder equally unlawful.
Click to expand...

I agree. Mind is boggled. I guess the Federal case would have more standing for the death penalty, though. And it would likely occur much more quickly than on death row in a state (except maybe a few), but I don't understand making the distinction, and why that even exists to begin with.
 
#909
#909
volinbham said:
dunno - I can see it either way. Intent clearly enters in to crime definition; if he didn't intend to kill a Federal judge that could be legally different than if he did. On the other hand, dude was still an FJ whether the killer knew or not.
Click to expand...

That it does.

In the laws eyes, does it change since the premeditated target survived but others not linked (so far) to the premeditated angle do not?
 
#910
#910
tigervol9802 said:
I don't think there was any intent to kill him bc he was a federal judge, just to kill. Not sure how that works out in the courts but ill be shocked if they don't go after and get him in federal court as well.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

In order to make it a Federal case, and not just a state case, it has to be a violation of Federal law. If Federal law distinguishes between whether or not the judge was on or off duty, then the Federal case has less "bite." Double jeopardy and all that, withstanding, you want to prosecute at the level you have the most chance of victory.

The States cover normal homicide, but it becomes Federal if a Federal law is broken. There is no doubt Arizona could convict, but then dude sits on death row for 20 years. (Not sure if that is a true amount of time, or not, just throwing it out there).

The article also mentioned mass murder as Federal, but if we take into account "intent," maybe several of those murders were unintentional, and therefore his intent was not to commit mass murder, but to kill a single target, and things happened after.

So, the Federal case loses a bit more of its luster. Obviously, this case needs to be Federal, so that distinction between Federal judge on duty or off duty just boggles the mind, because it seems like it hinders the Federal case.
 
#912
#912
volinbham said:
dunno - I can see it either way. Intent clearly enters in to crime definition; if he didn't intend to kill a Federal judge that could be legally different than if he did. On the other hand, dude was still an FJ whether the killer knew or not.[/QUOTE]

True, but let's say some nutcase was sorely disappointed in his creme brulee and demonstrates his displeasure by intentionally crashing his car through the establishment's front window. (maybe after saying "I'll be back." in an Austrian accent) Several patrons are killed, one of whom is a FJ.

For openers I don't much like the idea that killing a FJ holds any special importance over, say, killing my mother. I suppose I can grasp, strictly as a matter of law, that killing a person because they were a federal judge might be viewed differently but I'm not sure if they can make that case here.

Honestly I think the guy is toast regardless.
Click to expand...
 
#913
#913
fl0at said:
In order to make it a Federal case, and not just a state case, it has to be a violation of Federal law. If Federal law distinguishes between whether or not the judge was on or off duty, then the Federal case has less "bite." Double jeopardy and all that, withstanding, you want to prosecute at the level you have the most chance of victory.

The States cover normal homicide, but it becomes Federal if a Federal law is broken. There is no doubt Arizona could convict, but then dude sits on death row for 20 years. (Not sure if that is a true amount of time, or not, just throwing it out there).

The article also mentioned mass murder as Federal, but if we take into account "intent," maybe several of those murders were unintentional, and therefore his intent was not to commit mass murder, but to kill a single target, and things happened after.

So, the Federal case loses a bit more of its luster. Obviously, this case needs to be Federal, so that distinction between Federal judge on duty or off duty just boggles the mind, because it seems like it hinders the Federal case.
Click to expand...

I get what you are saying and see how the law reads (I think). I just dont see any way the feds don't go after this.

I also didn't think fed and state trials constituted double jeporady. Am I wrong?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#914
#914
hndog609 said:
For openers I don't much like the idea that killing a FJ holds any special importance over, say, killing my mother. I suppose I can grasp, strictly as a matter of law, that killing a person because they were a federal judge might be viewed differently but I'm not sure if they can make that case here.

Honestly I think the guy is toast regardless.
Click to expand...

This was the gist of my point.
 
#915
#915
BigPapaVol said:
This was the gist of my point.
Click to expand...

Then in agreement we be.

Apologies if I missed this coming up earlier but wouldn't the fact Giffords is a member of Congress already make this a Fed crime, or would it only make that particular part of the overall crime Fed? If so would they be tried separately?
 
#916
#916
tigervol9802 said:
I get what you are saying and see how the law reads (I think). I just dont see any way the feds don't go after this.

I also didn't think fed and state trials constituted double jeporady. Am I wrong?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

A question I asked myself a few minutes ago while on a walk about, and I don't know the answer. So I Googled it, and you are very correct. It is not double jeopardy.

I found this, on a blog, though:

"More than half the states have enacted statutes that generally forbid a state prosecution to be based on the same conduct as an earlier federal prosecution."

Not sure if Arizona is one of those states, though.
 
#917
#917
If I understood a report on TV a few days ago, the Federal case will only be for the killing of the judge, the congresswomans aid, and attempted murder of Giffords.

The state case would be for all the others killed or wounded.

The Feds case being 1st.
 
#918
#918
hndog609 said:
Then in agreement we be.

Apologies if I missed this coming up earlier but wouldn't the fact Giffords is a member of Congress already make this a Fed crime, or would it only make that particular part of the overall crime Fed? If so would they be tried separately?
Click to expand...

If she had died, it wouldn't matter. But she didn't die, so they can't prosecute, Federally, on homicide. They could bring lesser charges, which hold jail time, but not capital punishment.

And, I don't think killing a Federal judge should have any more importance than killing anyone else. That wasn't my point, so I apologize if I came off that way.

My point was that a Federal case has more "bite" than a case at the State level, which is why the distinction is important. Not that the two should be, in anyway, more tragic than any other murder. Simply for the point of who gets to go after the scumbag first.
 
#919
#919
fl0at said:
A question I asked myself a few minutes ago while on a walk about, and I don't know the answer. So I Googled it, and you are very correct. It is not double jeopardy.

I found this, on a blog, though:

"More than half the states have enacted statutes that generally forbid a state prosecution to be based on the same conduct as an earlier federal prosecution."

Not sure if Arizona is one of those states, though.
Click to expand...

Even if they are i would think enough damage was done to where both jurisdictions could go after him on separate counts and it not overlap. JMO
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#920
#920
tigervol9802 said:
Even if they are i would think enough damage was done to where both jurisdictions could go after him on separate counts and it not overlap. JMO
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I'd just rather have the Federal case stick to begin with, for sure. I'm not certain, but I would assume there are less chances for appeal in a Federal case. Which means less time on death row awaiting appeals and less cost we have to provide to allow this dude to survive until his injection.
 
#921
#921
fl0at said:
If she had died, it wouldn't matter. But she didn't die, so they can't prosecute, Federally, on homicide. They could bring lesser charges, which hold jail time, but not capital punishment.

And, I don't think killing a Federal judge should have any more importance than killing anyone else. That wasn't my point, so I apologize if I came off that way.

My point was that a Federal case has more "bite" than a case at the State level, which is why the distinction is important. Not that the two should be, in anyway, more tragic than any other murder. Simply for the point of who gets to go after the scumbag first.
Click to expand...

First off by no means did I think you were insinuating that this person's life is more important than that of another. I was pretty much with BPV in that there being such a distinction, even if only a legal one, can be a bit bewildering if not outright unpalatable.

As to the rest of it I appreciate the input.
 
#922
#922
dupnik_trained_by_barney_fife.jpg
 
#924
#924
And the stories of insanity keep piling in:

Pictures of alleged Tucson gunman Jared Lee Loughner have arisen, reportedly showing the suspect brandishing a Glock 9mm handgun next to his nude body, occasionally covered only with a "bright red g-string."

The New York Times reports:

The photos were turned over to the police by Walgreens, where Mr. Loughner had taken them to be developed. In some of the photos he is holding the gun near his crotch, and in others, presumably shot in a mirror, he is holding the gun next to his buttocks, the police said. It was not yet clear when the photos were taken or whether Mr. Loughner had ordered any prints.

The gun in the photo appears to be a Glock 19 semiautomatic handgun, the same type of weapon that Loughner bought legally last November at a sporting-goods store and the same type of gun that was used in Saturday's shooting.
Click to expand...
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top