Quick Identification Guide

[unixronin]

A quick-reference identification guide for those unclear on the concepts:

Tea party

Deranged killer

Any questions?

---

I do, actually, have a related question from the BBC article sourcing the Loughner photo above:

When asked, [Loughner] said he understood that he could get life in prison or the death penalty for allegedly killing federal Judge John Roll on Saturday in Tucson, Arizona.

Mr Loughner was charged with five crimes - the attempted assassination of a member of Congress, the first degree murder of two federal employees and the attempted murder of two federal employees.

Not even a mention, it appears, of the nine-year-old girl he also killed, or the dozen or more people wounded.

So, explain something to me here.  Why should it be that the murder of a Federal employee is a distinct, and more serious, crime from the murder of anyone else?  No personal disrespect to Judge Roll, but ... does their shit magically stop stinking when they get a Federal appointment, or something?¹

More to the point, are the rest of us second-class citizens who don't matter as much or have less rights?²  Because if we are, there's something very badly wrong.  This is the United States of America.  We're not supposed to have an aristocracy.

"All pigs are equal, only some are more equal than others."

Photo links courtesy of writerspleasure

[1] Not singling out judges here; I'm asking this question about all Federal employees, appointees or elected officials.  They are not better than us; they are "us" ... or they're supposed to be.  Too many appear to forget that.

[2] Yes, this is a rhetorical question. Yes, I'm quite well aware of the answer. Are you?

Comments

[robhansen]

The murder of a federal employee is distinct only because it involves a crime against the federal government directly. As it currently stands, the evidence appears that Laughner was deliberately targeting Giffords due to her work as a Congresswoman. Hence, it's a crime against Congress: federal jurisdiction.

It appears John Roll was an incidental target. If Laughner had no knowledge Roll was a federal judge, then Laughner cannot be prosecuted for the murder of a federal official: he would be prosecuted in state court for the murder of "John Roll, citizen of Arizona." However, since according to eyewitnesses Roll was there to greet Giffords -- an old friend of his -- and she greeted him as "Judge Roll" and introduced him to some of her constituents, it may be argued Loughner knew Roll was another federal official and targeted him for that reason: bam, crime against the federal judiciary.

Basically, if you are targeting a federal official, or the family of a federal official, because of what that official does in a governmental capacity, it is considered to be an attack on the government and the jurisdiction of the federal government to get involved.

As a real-world example: in high school when a Colombian narcosyndicate threatened my life in order to try and influence Dad's judicial decision, that was a federal crime and the US Marshals Service hit it like a freight train. But when I was beaten half to death by a couple of classmates whom I saw stealing a car, there was no federal involvement: that was purely a local law-enforcement matter.

Hope this helps!

[unixronin]

I personally hold that murder is murder, regardless of who you kill. The minute you start making the distinction that killing members of some set of people people is a more serious crime than killing others, you set foot on a slippery slope that can eventually lead to an underclass of people whom it's not a crime to kill at all.

[robhansen]

I agree with you. The only question is in which jurisdiction it should be heard, decided and punished. If you commit a crime against Congress, you should be in a federal court. If your crime is committed against the people of a state, you should be heard in a state court.

Notice that the federal punishment for murder is death. All murder charges that wind up in federal court can be punished that way. Murder of a president, murder of a Congressman, murder of a federal judge, murder of a federal witness, murder of a postman...

[beckyzoole]

Oh, absolutely, you are correct. However, that is not an issue in this case at all. Murder is a state offense. Murder charges are normally brought in a state court.

However, murder of a federal official is a federal offense, and so charges are brought in a federal court.

Loughner has been charged in federal court for murder of two federal officials (a congressional aide and a federal judge) as well as attempted murder of two other federal officials (a second congressional aide and Rep. Giffords).

If the state of Arizona so chooses, it may charge him in state court for the murder and attempted murder of 15 other people. Arizona may decide to save the money and not do that unless something bizarre happens at the federal trial.

It's not a question of which jurisdiction is better. It's just that the feds brought charges first.