Jared Loughner has been charged with 49 federal counts in connection with the slaughter in Tucson in January. As the Post notes, the indictment employs a novel legal argument. Forty-six of the counts rely on construing the Safeway parking lot where the shootings took place as “protected federal ground, as if it happened inside Congress.”
I’ll leave it to the discretion of the far, far abler legal minds here to comment on the wisdom of that tactic.
talk about setting yourself up for an "Aquitted on 46 Counts" headline ...
whats the matter with the good old fashioned murder and attempted murder charges ? can the feds not charge you with that ?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere's no way he won't be found guilty. The trial is a formality.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI doubt even the government could screw this one up. Federal judges don't look to kindly on killing other federal judges.
More importantly, it isn't the number of charges that matter. So long as one of those remaining charges says "murder" or something similar than it doesn't matter if 46 get knocked out on a technicality.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhen pursuing a capital case, why would the prosecution try to complicate things? Isn't complication in a DP case the last thing you'd want (assuming of course you want to put the guy to death)?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is really a state murder and attempted murder case, and that case will follow.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo, are they saying that wherever a Congressman goes that property automatically becomes federally protected ground? How does that actually work? Is the entire property thus federally protected ground or is just an approximate vicinity to the Congressman, say, a thirty foot diameter? Does this only apply to elected officials, or is it extended to the officials' aides as well? If it does apply to the aides, will this also extend to when they are not working in their official capacity as a Congressional aide?
Doesn't that charge open up an even larger can of worms?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy are they trying anything "novel" in what should be a clear conviction?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseObviously, they want him in a Federal court rather than State, and this is a way to do that. Not a particularly bright or effective way, though.
Should be a state trial, as murder is a state offense.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe wandering "federal ground" is baloney. It serves the purposes of those who want to restrict gun rights by requiring a 1,000 ft margin of protection around any federal official, even when they are mobile.
Unbelievable. Border patrol agents get beanbags for ammunition, but the same people who limit the self-protection of those agents want to travel with a prosecutable bubble of inaccessibility.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTypical power grab by the federal government.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusewere any of the charges Terrorism? No? well I guess the Justice Dept. can make a distinction.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@Mojo - "Obviously, they want him in a Federal court rather than State, and this is a way to do that."
Actually, the state and the federal government are separate sovereigns and for this reason, double jeopardy doesn't attach. So, irrespective of whatever federal charges are brought and tried against Loughner, the state can (and surely will) exercise its sovereignty and prosecute the appropriate crimes in state court.
This is another reason the federal government is needlessly complicate its prosecution.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseStupid. Why do they feel they have to goof with the justice system in such an obvious case?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI believe the Post is wrong. Read the indictment. It's 18 USC 245(b)(1)(B), which just says it occurred during a congressional event. There's no reference here to the location. The provision at issue says this:
b) Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, by force or threat of force willfully injures, intimidates or interferes with, or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with—
(1) any person because he is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from—
...
(B) participating in or enjoying any benefit, service, privilege, program, facility, or activity provided or administered by the United States[.]
Seems like this fits in that category, no?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think the concept is that if my home is my castle, then my Safeway is my Congress.
And, my beer parlor is my Queen of Hearts. Off with their heads!
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse