Posted on 02/15/2019 5:45:59 AM PST by true believer forever
Interestingly, while the definition doesn’t limit the death to “hanging”, it generally references a mob of people doing the deed.
“Lynching definition, to put to death, especially by hanging, by mob action and without legal authority”
“A lynching is an unlawful murder by an angry mob of people. Throughout history, dominant groups have used lynchings as a way of controlling minorities. ... Lynchings have most often involved hanging, especially during the period of racially motivated lynchings in the American South.”
“Definition of lynch. transitive verb. : to put to death (as by hanging) by mob action without legal approval or permission The accused killer was lynched by an angry mob. “
Hate is a Motive not a Crime.
Interestingly, this does NOT appear to be an anti-lynching law.
This is the operative part of the bill:
“Whoever conspires with another person to violate section 245, 247, or 249 of this title or section 901 of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3631) shall be punished in the same manner as a completed violation of such section, except that if the maximum term of imprisonment for such completed violation is less than 10 years, the person may be imprisoned for not more than 10 years.”
So rather than making a federal crime for hanging someone, this law makes it a crime to “conspire with another person” to commit a crime, even if you never commit the crime, and you will be punished just as if you actually committed the crime, and in fact can be punished for a LONGER time (up to 10 years) if the crime you conspired to commit had a punishment for less time.
The target appears to be the groups the left calls white nationalists; it appears that under a liberal reading of this law, every person at the demonstration in Charlottesville might be subject to prosecution.
It actually doesn’t deal with lynching at all, just modifies an existing federal civil rights statutue so that “conspiring with another” to commit a violation of existing statute will be a crime itself, punishable as if you did the actual crime.
So, I guess, if you are on facebook chatting with some friends, and someone says they want to do something that is construed as a violation of the law, if you don’t I guess immediately unfriend them, and turn them in, you might get labelled as a “conspirator”.
““Whoever conspires with another person to violate section 245, 247, or 249 of this title or section 901 of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3631) shall be punished in the same manner as a completed violation of such section, except that if the maximum term of imprisonment for such completed violation is less than 10 years, the person may be imprisoned for not more than 10 years.”.”
“National origin” it says. It occurs to me there might be an “illegal immigrant” connection here, especially if the charge is “conspiring” to act and not actual commission of an act.
Stupid, lazy spineless GOP types strike again
The gift that keeps on giving
The Department of Just-Us would have to choose to prosecute, so there is no risk to blacks.
They would be more likely to use the kidnapping clause to try to prosecute the president for “lynching” illegal aliens “because of their national origin”.
This is the operative part of the bill:
“Whoever conspires with another person to violate section 245, 247, or 249 of this title or section 901 of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3631) shall be punished in the same manner as a completed violation of such section, except that if the maximum term of imprisonment for such completed violation is less than 10 years, the person may be imprisoned for not more than 10 years.”
So rather than making a federal crime for hanging someone, this law makes it a crime to “conspire with another person” to commit a crime, even if you never commit the crime, and you will be punished just as if you actually committed the crime, and in fact can be punished for a LONGER time (up to 10 years) if the crime you conspired to commit had a punishment for less time.
The target appears to be the groups the left calls white nationalists; it appears that under a liberal reading of this law, every person at the demonstration in Charlottesville might be subject to prosecution.
I read your post a couple times before I actually understood the impact of what you were writing. Dems are so proficient at this kind of thing and so many people like me miss the motive and impact of their actions -- anywhere.
Thanks!
I think maybe hate is a state of soul or heart, and motive is desire to inflict pain on the object of one's hate. Either way, or any way, it is stupid semantics that dems specialize in IMHO,
And isn’t lynching already a crime? I mean, we sent people to the electric chair for it (did we hang anybody for it?)
And how many people have been actually lynched in the past 5 years? According to the interwebs, the last lynching was in 1981.
Is THIS what the democrats were elected for? To pass a lynching law making something illegal that never happens, and to give the president almost a billion and a half times more than what Pelosi promised ($1 dollar)?
As far as him likely staging it, Michael Avenatti's lawyer was on a radio show yesterday saying Smollet had retained him, that was AFTER the two Jamaican guys were released. Again, not positive about the sources. Plan to check them over the weekend if I have spare time.
I think the dems were elected because of what they promise to do for their constituents ...
As re Pelosi, I think Trump needs to quiet down and just gingerly get all his plans in place. He seems to have a lot of options ... at least to me.
The dems may be, but they will have to do a little better than they managed in the smollet performance.
Hmmmm. This has the smell of a “manufactured crisis”.
You have to remember what a powerful word lynching is, and the positive it will be in Kamala's resume. It's amazing what dems do with words and how well it works for them most of the time.
I have this recurring dream that one day republican politicians will race to the microphones to hatch back the dems with the phrases they use. But then I wake up and reality is there waiting to smack me in the face.
It doesn't and read this reply that CharlesWayneCT made to my post which is in line with exactly how the dems operate:
"Interestingly, this does NOT appear to be an anti-lynching law.
This is the operative part of the bill:
“Whoever conspires with another person to violate section 245, 247, or 249 of this title or section 901 of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3631) shall be punished in the same manner as a completed violation of such section, except that if the maximum term of imprisonment for such completed violation is less than 10 years, the person may be imprisoned for not more than 10 years.”
So rather than making a federal crime for hanging someone, this law makes it a crime to “conspire with another person” to commit a crime, even if you never commit the crime, and you will be punished just as if you actually committed the crime, and in fact can be punished for a LONGER time (up to 10 years) if the crime you conspired to commit had a punishment for less time.
The target appears to be the groups the left calls white nationalists; it appears that under a liberal reading of this law, every person at the demonstration in Charlottesville might be subject to prosecution.
i have now speculated that, if this was already law, you technically could prosecute Jussie Smollet and his two friends for “conspiring to commit lynching”.
It would be entertaining to see if someone can be successfully prosecuted for lynching themselves.
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.