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.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    191·
    2 months ago

    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.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        91·
        2 months ago

        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.

        • John Richard@lemmy.world
          213·
          2 months ago

          So you admit to not knowing law but then make some statement saying that going to a bank with the intention of robbing it is fine until you actually rob it?

          Yes they can mean that you don’t have a legal right to be somewhere if you went there with the intention of committing a crime.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            101·
            2 months ago

            I know enough about the law to know that no one has ever been arrested for intending to pull a fire alarm, but many people have been arrested for actually breaking and entering.

            Just scoffing about my not knowing what you’re talking about doesn’t explain how they are relevant to these two examples.

            • John Richard@lemmy.world
              211·
              2 months ago

              People get arrested all the time for planning to commit crimes, even before they actually carry them out. I’m not sure why the fire alarm part is suddenly relevant here. Someone argued that because he had a legal right or what they though to be a legal right to be in a building meant that he can’t be charged with disrupting proceedings because he didn’t enter the building illegally. I was saying, no that isn’t correct… that if he went there with a specific intent it is likely he didn’t have a legal right to be there.

                • John Richard@lemmy.world
                  211·
                  2 months ago

                  Yeah, cause it is literally what the article is about. Did you read it or you just here to talk about the weather?

                  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                    71·
                    2 months ago

                    You one post ago:

                    I’m not sure why the fire alarm part is suddenly relevant here.

                    You now:

                    Yeah, cause it is literally what the article is about.

                    Make up your mind.