|
Bustycops posted:man, why can't it ever be bad pizza places like dominos that get accused of sex having with children. Frankly, what they already do is worse than international child sex-slavery.
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 01:05 |
|
|
Two toppings medium for five dollars!
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 16:28
|
|
|
Jose posted:being that disconnected from reality must be nice there has to be some level of freedom to it, right? Like I can't imagine a guy who makes a big thing about how the illuminati are making secret pedo monuments to just kinda generally brag about the fact that they're loving kids has to worry too much about stuff like their bills and house repairs and poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
the guy who "investigated" the restaurant with a gun is facing federal charge of "interstate transportation of a firearm with intent to commit an offense or with knowledge or reasonable cause to believe that an offense would be committed". The maximum sentence for that is ten years in prison but no way a jury will convict He was facing local charges of assault with a dangerous weapon, unlawful discharge of a firearm, carrying a rifle in public, and carrying a pistol in public without a license, but the prosecutor dropped all the local charges when federal charges were filed
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
he will get off completely free because firing a gun on someone else's property is federally protected free speech now
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
That one juror from the Bundy hick case will magically turn up on this one too
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
Lord of Pie posted:That one juror from the Bundy hick case will magically turn up on this one too crisis acting is a small word, after all
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
here's the criminal complaint against that dude https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3237677/Welch-Edgar-Federal-Complaint-Dec-2016.pdf
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:the guy who "investigated" the restaurant with a gun is facing federal charge of "interstate transportation of a firearm with intent to commit an offense or with knowledge or reasonable cause to believe that an offense would be committed". The maximum sentence for that is ten years in prison but no way a jury will convict Why don't you think a jury will convict in the federal charge?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 04:10
|
|
|
SMILLENNIALSMILLEN posted:Why don't you think a jury will convict in the federal charge? Malheur
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 04:12
|
|
|
I though being caught with an unregistered firearm in DC meant automatic transport to Guantanamo Bay. Why would the city give up a slam dunk case?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 04:38
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Malheur I thought about that for a sec, but then again it's a federal case with DC residents as jurors
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 04:46
|
|
|
theflyingexecutive posted:I thought about that for a sec, but then again it's a federal case with DC residents as jurors point is that if they couldn't get a conviction for all that Y'all Qaeda poo poo they won't be able to convict this rear end in a top hat either
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 05:14
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:point is that if they couldn't get a conviction for all that Y'all Qaeda poo poo they won't be able to convict this rear end in a top hat either
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 05:26
|
|
|
How likely do people think we are to see a buddy cop comedy starring the pizza place lunatic and the rhodesian black church shooter before 2020?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2016 05:40
|
|
|
SMILLENNIALSMILLEN posted:Why don't you think a jury will convict in the federal charge? "intent to commit an offense" isn't really supposed to be used as a standalone charge. it's the kind of thing a prosecutor is supposed to use when they're already pretty drat sure their target is going to prison but want to add a few extra years to the sentence - it's hard for a jury to rationalize convicting on other charges and acquitting on the "intent" charge, and it's an incredibly broad charge that can be applied to a wide variety of situations, so it's essentially a freebie. But those attributes can backfire. Since they're not charging him with actually committing any crimes, it's easier to convince the jury to acquit on the "intent to commit a crime". And although the "reasonable knowledge" bit usually covers that angle, that's still up to the jury's interpretation of the accused's intentions and state of mind some time before the crime was actually committed - and as the Malheur case demonstrated, juries are willing to cut defendants a lot of slack on that judgement if they have light skin, tell a heroic story filled with only good intentions, and insist they never meant any harm. I think that on the local charges, a jury probably would have convicted. Even if they're sympathetic to his story and don't believe he meant any harm, "gun without a permit" and "unlawful discharge" are nice binary bright-line charges that apply regardless of intent. On the other hand, the federal charges are going to get Malheured to hell - they'll listen to his sob story about just wanting to save the children and ask the judge if he can end the trial right there so they can hurry up and acquit on the "intent to commit a crime" charge.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 16:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 01:05 |
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:"intent to commit an offense" isn't really supposed to be used as a standalone charge. it's the kind of thing a prosecutor is supposed to use when they're already pretty drat sure their target is going to prison but want to add a few extra years to the sentence - it's hard for a jury to rationalize convicting on other charges and acquitting on the "intent" charge, and it's an incredibly broad charge that can be applied to a wide variety of situations, so it's essentially a freebie.  freedom fries isnt free
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2016 16:16
|
|