Posted on 01/10/2011 10:26:43 PM PST by dagogo redux
The news and discussions flowing out of the AZ killings has raised a question for me, one I hope some of you can help me answer.
I saw repeated references to a special set of laws pertaining to the murder or the attempted murder of Federal Officials and Federal Employees. I am wondering how this status as a "protected" class got started, and how deeply it has spread.
Is a drive-by shooting a different sort of crime, with different legal proceedings and different sentencing guidelines, if an "innocent bystander" victim happens to be an off-duty mail clerk working for the Forestry Service, compared to, say, an off-duty stock boy working for Albertsons?
Do Federal "public servants" get security guards paid for with tax-payer money, as opposed to other non-government "public servants" - say, those in the very dangerous mental health field - who must pay for their own security?
Is this another example of a two class system of citizens, where the murder of those in the privileged class counts for more than those in the other class? Is this a violation of the Equal Protection Clause?
I hope some of you in the know can answer this for me.
Yes, it is more serious to kill a Federal employee if charged in Federal court. I suspect with many laws it is the interpretation of the way the law has been written. I would guess it was written specifically to deal with a Federal employee engaged in official business but as we saw with the DC sniper case it has been used to cover any Federal employee.
I do not favor any law that treats any victim differently based on employment, race, sexual preference, etc etc. I believe Judges should be able to sentence based on the facts before them and not any special quality of the victim but unfortunately congress has felt the need many times to impose extraordinary sentences for certain crimes.
However, it does not give me heartburn to see any violent criminal thrown under the jail for harming another human being. This young man will never see the light of day but there are many in law enforcement (myself included) who would agree with you that all victims should be treated equally and the Judge and jury should be able to decide the fate of the accused based on the specific circumstances of each case.
If my dog bites the postal carrier, can I be charged with a federal crime?
In court and certainly in the press this is true. Notice in this case the murder of a Bush appointed presumably GOP Federal judge is a distant secondary interest to the injuring of a Dem legislator.
As for the common people killed, the press cares not a whit for or about them.
Tax cheat Rangle proves that there is.
You can get a Federal death penalty for killing a Federal poultry inspector. They passed that law ~10 years ago and 40 other obscure Federal jobs were included. Meaning, you kill that Federal dude, and the Feds with go after you with the death penalty
Libs are anti death penalty except when you kill a high muckety muck Federal dude
The equal protection clause is not the egalitarian protection clause. As interpreted by the Supreme Court, the equal protection clause does not prohibit the establishment of classes, nor does it require "treating things that are different in law or fact as the same."
Granted, the 14th Amendment was never property ratified in the first place, but that is another matter altogether.
Based on the AZ federal murder case hinging on whether the judge was there just to say "hello" or there to discussion official business, I have to say since both are off duty in your scenario, they'd be treated the same.
Do Federal "public servants" get security guards paid for with tax-payer money, as opposed to other non-government "public servants" - say, those in the very dangerous mental health field - who must pay for their own security?
There's capitol police, but generally a protection detail isn't provided to congressional members, unlike for a president. Security can be requested and local police can provide security for an event. I believe in those cases the congressperson's office would pay.
Is this another example of a two class system of citizens, where the murder of those in the privileged class counts for more than those in the other class?
We're seeing federal charges because Congress decided to craft laws making it a criminal to kill federal employees while they're engaged in official duties, for example. The shooter will likely be charged for the murdered civilians under AZ state law.
Is this a violation of the Equal Protection Clause?
I don't know if it's been testing in court but it does make you wonder about the equality of victims. Is the judge's life really worth more or less only due to his job and his motive for being at that location? What does that say about us as a nation? It's a bit like "hate crime" statutes. I don't really like what it says about our nation but Congress obviously wanted to discourage people from being targeted sole based on their gov't employment.
I think you just posted a great argument for Americans since we don’t believe in the UK royalty nonsense.
Duh!
Some Congressmen have state they are gonna start carrying their own firearms, ie into Federal Buildings.
However, as a mere peasant, you cannot, keep in mind DC vs Heller, upheld that animal farm belief.
The intent is to prevent the gov. employee from being the victim of anti-government violence. It isn’t unreasonable on the face of it if the attack is also an attack on the government or a policy. But it probably is not as limited as one would think.
It depends who belongs to that protected federal class.
Look at it this way. Obama called for a national moment of silence just a few days after a federal judge was killed and a congresswoman wounded in Tucson.
After a Muslim jihadist killed and wounded 43 soldiers at Ft Hood only a year ago, there was no such national remembrance ceremony announced by the Obama administration. Just another day to them.
Good Point.
“As interpreted by the Supreme Court, the equal protection clause does not prohibit the establishment of classes, nor does it require “treating things that are different in law or fact as the same.” “
What is the background for this decision? Did it involve a complaint over Civil Rights?
The concept of “Civil Rights” involves different legal treatment for different ethnic groups. For example, Holder’s Justice Dept dropped a complaint concerning the Black Panther’s intimidation of White voters at a Philadelphia polling place on the grounds that “Civil rights” were only intended to protect Black people.
I tend to agree with taxtruth several posts down - this has all the hallmarks of organized crime protecting their own with their own special brand of “justice”. That's why this caught my eye in the news reports in the first place. I can't believe this is what the Founding Fathers had in mind.
Will the proposed law or amendment I've heard about that would require all laws to apply equally to citizens and Congress-critters supercede this monstrosity, and will it extend throughout the Federal Class?
The SC has turned into the SUPREME JOKE in America.
However...
I can understand the special circumstance of killing a federal officer (not unionized government worker) who is performing his duty, such as the cliche of moonshiners killing the "revenoor" who comes to shut down your still, or killing the FBI agent who is trying to apprehend a criminal.
But not your average run-of-the-mill civil servant.
-PJ
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.