The justices heard arguments in Joseph Fischer’s appeal of a lower court’s ruling rejecting his attempt to escape a federal charge of corruptly obstructing an official proceeding - the congressional certification of President Joe Biden’s victory over Trump that the rioters sought to prevent on Jan. 6, 2021.
Fischer is accused of charging at police guarding a Capitol entrance during the attack. Fischer, at the time a member of the North Cornwall Township police in Pennsylvania, got inside and pressed up against an officer’s riot shield as police attempted to clear rioters, according to prosecutors.
SomeMost of those that work forcesHow does one get tried for treason?
Historically, firing squad.
That’s the consequence, not the trial.
Oh right. They dunk the accused in a lake (called ducking) and if they drown they are innocent, if they manage to swim to the surface they’re guilty and face execution.
Found Samuel Alito’s account.
In a pinch you can also see if they weigh the same as a duck.
That’s too much work, just build a bridge out of them.
It used to be the trial and consequence, paired together.
Bold ruling for people with official proceedings.
They did ask some good points. I would like to see justice served here but he is facing multiple charges and the one they are questioning involves trying to prevent official proceedings under specific conditions… Which could potentially apply to pulling a fire alarm, protesting, etc. I’m not sure all the specifics, but it does seem unusual to try to use this charge when it has not been applied in other instances.
Which could potentially apply to pulling a fire alarm, protesting, etc.
Unless you specify, as you should, that this happened IN THE CAPITOL BUILDING.
Where do you think Democrat Rep. Jamaal Bowman pulled the fire alarm, or that the Ocasio-Cortez protesters that stormed Pelosi’s office?
I think that Bowman was in the building legally and I don’t know anything about the other event, so I can’t comment.
Was it legal for Bowman to be there though if he had the intention of committing a crime? Do people with access to their workplace, have the right to go there with the intention of committing a crime?
Yes, just like it’s legal for you to be in a bank if you have the intention of robbing it because it isn’t a crime until you actually do it. Breaking into and occupying the Capitol is in itself a crime.
So what about unlawful purpose and abuse of right doctrines?
If I’m supposed to know what those are, I don’t, but do they make occupying the capitol not a crime? Do they make intending to pull a fire alarm a crime before you pull it? Because otherwise, I don’t know how they would be relevant to either scenario.
