Posted on 05/23/2009 10:01:37 AM PDT by Larry381
United States Attorney Laurie Magid today announced the filing of an indictment1 against Kendall Jamal McGill and Richard Rivera Jr., charging then with conspiring to interfere with interstate commerce by robbery, attempted interference with interstate commerce by robbery, and with using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence. These offenses arise from the defendants’ participation in the October 9, 2008 attempted armed robbery of the Denim Blue Store, located at 6910 Torresdale Avenue in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, during which a store employee was shot in the leg
If convicted of all charges, each defendant faces a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, including a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years imprisonment, five years supervised release, a $750,000 fine, and a $300 special assessment. This case is part of Project Safe Neighborhoods, a federal initiative designed to identify and prosecute firearms offenders in federal court, where the defendants are likely to receive a substantial sentence upon conviction. The case was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) and the Philadelphia Police Department and is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Joan E. Burnes.
Good call. If I rob a 7-11, I will now be up on federal charges.
To do so and succeed with require complicity from the local/state prosecutor.
On the surface it looks like one more step across the line the feds are taking to reduce and homogenize states rights.
Welcome to the new United States of America.
This is yet another misuse of the interstate commerce clause. The Feds have been grabbing power over everything under the guise of regulating interstate commerce.
The answer to your question would appear to be this: “This case is part of Project Safe Neighborhoods, a federal initiative designed to identify and prosecute firearms offenders in federal court. . . .”
In other words, they’re after them because of the guns. As you say, normally this would be handled by the state. So, is it crime they are focused on—or guns? Second Amendment implications for the future?
Does this mean that “sanctuary cities” will no longer enforce armed robberies, bank robberies, and kidnappings, because their police aren’t there to enforce federal laws?
They do something like that in Oakland and other CA locales. Called Project Exile or something like that. It allows them to try the bad guy in Federal Court (and this is the important part) imprison them in a Federal facility, usually on the other side of the country and usually for a much longer term than a California judge would impose. It is a good thing because for the Mexican Mafia, Norteños and Sureños out here a jolt in California pen is nothing more than continuing education for gang bangers. It is a bad thing because no matter what good results, it is a blatant violation of constitutional principles.
The city of Philadelphia is incapable of prosecuting crminals anymore. The police have been neutered, the courts are corrupt and the criminals rule the streets.
The city and state (Fast Eddie Rendell) can only think about enacting gun laws as a solution. The city is barred from enacting gun laws via preemption and the state legislature has resisted any efforts so far.
With regard to the feds being involved here, I believe the two perps are felons and barred from posessing firearms. Second, I believe they did or were trying to take stolen merchandise across state lines, hence the commerce clause crap.
The only positive I see is that these two will more likely be removed from the streets for a longer time by the feds than if Philly tried to prosecute them.
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.