Posted on 03/12/2005 8:16:29 AM PST by Cagey
There really are no words.
Two tourists mugged, an ICE fellow murdered, the reporter mugged, in addition to the initial three murders and the mugging of his female guard.
That's how I took it...sending a message like "you tried to get out of facing these charges, and by God, you're going to face them". We'll see if they can work out the logistical problems cited. I'm not concerned too much either way but thought it an interesting ploy.
Now, while attending to other business I was mulling over the events and I started to wonder why we didn't hear about the assaulted tourists until today!
If the 'hostage' sells her story she will not be permitted to testify at any trial.
Their first goal is not law enforcement. Political power, political correctness, and getting as large a budget allocation as possible come WAY before their ostensible functions.
I ain't gonna cite criminal statutes. They've already stated he's eligible for the federal death penalty.
Many dialects.
Uh...I thought you would... Post #337 was dripping with sarcasm.
Well .. fully research this:
If you want to reply to my post #564 - then respond to it. Otherwise, do not include me in your comments.
"... so if either of you can cite me to some federal statue I've missed, I'll be happy to review my opinion"
I don't have to do any such thing - find your own cite - but you can't find one can you - and you can't prove that an off duty police officer isn't an officer - ROTFLOL!! Give it up.
Well, the feds did charge him -- with a firearms violation. The guy is in state custody now. Neither is a sign that the US Attorney feels real good about the strenght of his case.
Look at it this way. Say you and an off duty customs agent were sitting next to each other on a park bench. A rap music fan walks up and shoots both of you for the contents of your wallets. Is his death any more important than yours? I would say not, you would appear to say that it is.
I didn't write #337 - you did.
I wrote 367 - and it's a true statement - it's not sarcasm.
What is the problem ..??
"The guy is in state custody"
Sorry .. he is in FEDERAL CUSTODY. He was arrested and booked by the FBI. He may be in a COUNTY SHERIFF'S LOCKUP - BUT HE'S A FEDERAL PRISONER. I know because I have lodged federal prisoners in the Sheriff's office where I worked.
Killing the Homeland Security officer is a FEDERAL CHARGE.
"Is his death any more important than yours? I would say not, you would appear to say that it is."
His death is only more important because he was an officer of the law. Why you can't accept that is beyond me. The laws of America say that if you kill an officer of the law there is a larger penalty to pay than if you just kill a citizen. I didn't write the law. It's just what it is.
Well, Beyond, it's official: today you had the fastest fingers on FR! Amazing... 12 'they got him' posts inside of 30 seconds (8:30:21 - 8:30:49). The folks on this Ping were those 12.
I agree.
I figured he'd go out like a North Hollywood bank robber or something else Cagney-ish.
Wrong...a real bully pu$$y.
Woman raper and murderer of the unarmed.
He needs killin.
There's no problem I wrote #337; I was being very sarcastic but gave no overt indication of it. You wrote #367; you were being straight and logical. That's all. Sorry. ~SB
Okay! No problem.
BUMP!..I think the state will fight to have the prosecution for the 3 murders..and they have to finish the original trial!
Both the state and federal are death penalty cases...The feds have great resources. It would save the state a lot of money if the feds took over , otherwise I believe Georgia will fight to prosecute for the 3 deaths first...IMO Either way ..Nichols is already a dead man walking...IMO.
If she does a book, she can always do it after the trial, you know like Amber Frey.
LOL! I'd noticed that earlier myself.
Well done, Beyond!
Yes, but she cannot be seen to have a book in mind or the prosecutors will never put her on the stand.
I'll refer you back to the language of the US Code, which does not say that. See my post 537, where I quote it. What I don't know is whether there is some more recent 'Homeland Security' type legislation which has expanded coverage to federal officers killed in other circumstances, and I also don't know if they will contend that he was working at the time he was killed. (Initial reports don't seem to support that, but as we have seen in this matter, sometimes the reports are wrong.
As for who has custody and is paying for the prisoner's upkeep, the last reports I saw indicated that the US Atty's office was deferring to the state for the initial prosecutions.
At this point, I'm willing to wait to see how things shake out so that one of us can tell the other "I told you so". If things do turn out to be as you said, I'll not take offense to such a post.
Finally, per your comment, I'll try to keep my responses to you separate from my responses to others. You all seemed to be on the same side of the discussion (although you were more articulate and reasoned in your approach) and I was being lazy in aggregating the response. I'll try to avoid such with you in the future.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.