Reuters: US Supreme Court leans toward Jan. 6 rioter in obstruction case, with Trump implications ( www.reuters.com )

The justices heard arguments in Joseph Fischer's appeal of a lower court's ruling rejecting his attempt to escape a federal charge of corruptly obstructing an official proceeding - the congressional certification of President Joe Biden's victory over Trump that the rioters sought to prevent on Jan. 6, 2021.

timewarp ,
@timewarp@lemmy.world avatar

They did ask some good points. I would like to see justice served here but he is facing multiple charges and the one they are questioning involves trying to prevent official proceedings under specific conditions... Which could potentially apply to pulling a fire alarm, protesting, etc. I'm not sure all the specifics, but it does seem unusual to try to use this charge when it has not been applied in other instances.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Which could potentially apply to pulling a fire alarm, protesting, etc.

Unless you specify, as you should, that this happened IN THE CAPITOL BUILDING.

timewarp ,
@timewarp@lemmy.world avatar

Where do you think Democrat Rep. Jamaal Bowman pulled the fire alarm, or that the Ocasio-Cortez protesters that stormed Pelosi's office?

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

I think that Bowman was in the building legally and I don't know anything about the other event, so I can't comment.

timewarp ,
@timewarp@lemmy.world avatar

Was it legal for Bowman to be there though if he had the intention of committing a crime? Do people with access to their workplace, have the right to go there with the intention of committing a crime?

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Yes, just like it's legal for you to be in a bank if you have the intention of robbing it because it isn't a crime until you actually do it. Breaking into and occupying the Capitol is in itself a crime.

timewarp ,
@timewarp@lemmy.world avatar

So what about unlawful purpose and abuse of right doctrines?

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

If I'm supposed to know what those are, I don't, but do they make occupying the capitol not a crime? Do they make intending to pull a fire alarm a crime before you pull it? Because otherwise, I don't know how they would be relevant to either scenario.

timewarp ,
@timewarp@lemmy.world avatar

So you admit to not knowing law but then make some statement saying that going to a bank with the intention of robbing it is fine until you actually rob it?

Yes they can mean that you don't have a legal right to be somewhere if you went there with the intention of committing a crime.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

I know enough about the law to know that no one has ever been arrested for intending to pull a fire alarm, but many people have been arrested for actually breaking and entering.

Just scoffing about my not knowing what you're talking about doesn't explain how they are relevant to these two examples.

timewarp ,
@timewarp@lemmy.world avatar

People get arrested all the time for planning to commit crimes, even before they actually carry them out. I'm not sure why the fire alarm part is suddenly relevant here. Someone argued that because he had a legal right or what they though to be a legal right to be in a building meant that he can't be charged with disrupting proceedings because he didn't enter the building illegally. I was saying, no that isn't correct... that if he went there with a specific intent it is likely he didn't have a legal right to be there.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

I’m not sure why the fire alarm part is suddenly relevant here.

You brought it up!

timewarp ,
@timewarp@lemmy.world avatar

Yeah, cause it is literally what the article is about. Did you read it or you just here to talk about the weather?

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

You one post ago:

I’m not sure why the fire alarm part is suddenly relevant here.

You now:

Yeah, cause it is literally what the article is about.

Make up your mind.

timewarp ,
@timewarp@lemmy.world avatar

Uh, yeah I was talking about "People get arrested all the time for planning to commit crimes, even before they actually carry them out" which I say right before that... the fire alarm part is not relevant to what crime they were planning on committing. Are you even going to discuss in good faith or just try to paint the picture you already have made up in your head?

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Ah, I see, you were moving the goalposts. Gotcha.

timewarp ,
@timewarp@lemmy.world avatar

Okay QAnon. Bye bye. Don't talk to me anymore since you can't be honest with yourself or anyone else.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • news@lemmy.world
  • test
  • worldmews
  • mews
  • All magazines
    •