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]

I have just finished reading the federal indictment against Loughner. According to it, Judge Roll showed up to Congresswoman Gifford's event in order to speak to her about the crushing volume of federal criminal trials and how it was affecting the Judiciary. Judge Roll was not able to speak to Gifford directly (or, rather, had not yet as of the shooting), but had been speaking publicly with one of Gifford's aides about this matter.

Reading between the lines a little here --

Federal judges are required to remain out of the realm of politics, with one big exception: they are allowed to get political when it comes to subjects related to the administration of justice. They aren't allowed to say "drugs should be legalized" or "drugs should be more heavily criminalized" -- those are political questions, not justice questions -- but they are allowed to say, "Congresswoman, the Legislature is drowning us in casework, we've got judges burning out and leaving the bench, and you need to fix these problems before the carriage of justice is endangered."

Anyway.

Reading between the lines, Roll was speaking publicly at Gifford's event, in his official role as a federal judge, about a matter of general interest to the public. Hence, since Roll was visibly acting in an official capacity, his murder is being treated the same as if he had been holding court at the time of his shooting.

[unixronin]

Reading between the lines, Roll was speaking publicly at Gifford's event, in his official role as a federal judge, about a matter of general interest to the public. Hence, since Roll was visibly acting in an official capacity, his murder is being treated the same as if he had been holding court at the time of his shooting.

Works for me.