Florida?
He wasn’t “just holding a gun in bushes.”
He was aiming the gun at a former president from the concealment of the bushes. Even without the confession letter, that’s plenty.
Wait … you’re a mod here?
He never had line of site to Trump
Of course thier a mod here, they need everything explained like they are five, so they went right to the source.
Ultimately they have to convince a jury that there was criminal intent, but you don’t have to pull the trigger to be trying to kill someone. They should have to show evidence of a plan and steps towards the plan, but that’s enough.
It’s ultimately up to a jury whether he was trying to kill someone or not.
Would you expect them to stand around and wait until he did fire a shot?
“Yes, sir, the subject is aiming the rifle directly at the former president.”
“Hold your ground. He hasn’t done anything illegal yet. Wait, check and see if he’s parked illegally. THEN we’d have reason to stop him!”
Not going to lie but thats what the security around Trump I think is like. Just my opinion. Why didn’t they kill them like they did the supposedly sniper?
Every shooter situation is different and complex in its own way.
… because he was stopped in the middle of the process of attempting (trying) to take a human life illegally - by his own written admission and actions that day. He was attempting to murder someone. He had picked a target, gathered intelligence, arrived with otherwise legal weaponry, written a manifesto, concealed himself and in all likelihood would have taken the shot when the opportunity presented itself. Whether he got to pull the trigger or not is immaterial - he has already begun attempting to kill someone by setting his plan in motion.
Stopping him BEFORE He pulled the Trigger is AGAINST the Second Amendment! Shall NOT Be Infringed and Arresting someone for HAVING a Gun is Infringing on that Right! ONLY if he had Taken a Shot at Trump would it have been OK to arrest him!
Intent has always been a major part of how crimes are tried.
Racism and classism have also always been a major part of how crimes are tried.
…yeah? Was there a point you were circling around or you just like saying random facts?
Yeah, just because that’s how it’s always been done doesn’t mean it’s a good way to do things.
The usual meaning behind that kind of response is “maybe the old ways aren’t good just because that’s how we’ve always done it.”
Yeah, but judging crimes by intent is not one of those things we should stop.
I’m pretty sure we should. We do not judge anything else by intent. I cannot get paid a million dollars because I intended to do a million dollars worth of work but got high and ate all the tasty, tasty wire sleeves instead.
So if Alice accidentally crashes into another car, and Bob rams another car on purpose, trying to kill the driver, they should both be punished equally?
Yes.
This kind of thinking only enables the next assassination attempt, Trump or otherwise.
That’s a bad thing how?
Better not be American, bas! That’s enough to bring FBI to your door. Also, he belongs in jail, not dead.
Every FBI agent deserves death. That aside all politicians should fear violence from those they claim to serve. When they stop fearing us is when they pull the shit theyve been pulling for a century.
The only functional free society is one wherein citizens have an absolute monopoly on violence, never the state.
You mean besides the letter he wrote confessing prior to the attempt?
Ironically in any just reality this would put precisely such policies to the test and reveal the inability of law enforcement to distinguish between a threat and a open carry gun-toting “good guy” and undermine the flawed logic that armed people reduce the likelihood of violence.
I don’t expect to in FL but would be nice.
You can be charged with anything at any time.
That prosecutorial discretion…
Means and motive. He had the tools to do the job, and had already written a manifesto explaining his reasoning for doing what he was attempting to do.
Because it’s nonsense.
