Coup in the USA?

[Innula Zenovka]

The saddest thing is that while most of us do stupid things at that age, usually they won't destroy our future utterly.

On the subject of stupid things and one of the other alleged insurrectionists to be arrested:

 

[Innula Zenovka]

If a police officer kills a person who is attempting to commit a felony, then they can charge all of the accomplices for felony murder, as their actions resulted in a loss of life. The death of the terrorist is the necessary felony even if it was a justified police shooting.

How close does the association have to be between the defendant who actually commits the felony murder and the second defendant for the second defendant to be charged?

I mean, there's a difference between joining a group of trespassers milling round in the Capitol building taking selfies and joining with Ashli Babbit in trying to smash down a door with armed police officers behind it.

English law on joint enterprise, for what it's worth: https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/secondary-liability-charging-decisions-principals-and-accessories

 

[Soen Eber]

How close does the association have to be between the defendant who actually commits the felony murder and the second defendant for the second defendant to be charged?

I mean, there's a difference between joining a group of trespassers milling round in the Capitol building taking selfies and joining with Ashli Babbit in trying to smash down a door with armed police officers behind it.

English law on joint enterprise, for what it's worth: https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/secondary-liability-charging-decisions-principals-and-accessories

I can't speak from any basis of knowledge other than knowing it's used quite a lot to indict gang members and has been heavily used in the U.S. in at least the last 20-30 years. From that it may be a relic from the overexpansion of police powers in response to the drug war and gang problems of the 80's and 90's so it could very well be overbroad.

 

[Veritable Quandry]

How close does the association have to be between the defendant who actually commits the felony murder and the second defendant for the second defendant to be charged?

I mean, there's a difference between joining a group of trespassers milling round in the Capitol building taking selfies and joining with Ashli Babbit in trying to smash down a door with armed police officers behind it.

English law on joint enterprise, for what it's worth: https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/secondary-liability-charging-decisions-principals-and-accessories

This is an unusual situation at best, and I am not a lawyer but a case could be made for the group immediately outside of the doors of the House chamber trying to break in but probably not for someone involved in a different felony like assaulting the police that were trying to hold the crowd away from the building.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

 

[Isabeau]

...

 

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

...

PILLOW FIGHT

 

[Aribeth Zelin]

...

I need new pillows.....

 

[Free]

In regards to the Million Militia March at state houses across the country yesterday, seems the phrase 'fizzled out' isn't strong enough to describe it. Boogaloo bois usually outnumbered QAnoners etc. by wide margins, when you saw any of the latter at all.

 

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

 

[Lexxi]

...

I went to their website. Their pillows are listed as "Sold Out".

 

[Aribeth Zelin]

I went to their website. Their pillows are listed as "Sold Out".

And that is what bookmarks are for [I need a new pillow, but I've got like 20 or so... none perfect....

 

[Cristiano]

‘Million Militia March' And State Protests Fizzle As FBI Rolls Up Rioters

All of the right-wing "Million"-themed marches organized over the past several years (see December's "Million MAGA March") have numbered at most in the tens of thousands. But Sunday's planned "Million Militia March" was a failure of truly epic proportions: It seems no one showed up to march.

www.nationalmemo.com

 

[Arkady Arkright]

This all goes well in theory until some higher ups with more decorations than left sanity start bricking their laptops too often. It's an inherent problem of civil service that incompetent superiors never can get degraded or removed from office no matter how out of date they are. You only can get rid of them if their stupidity makes them commit a crime.

Yep - although experience showed me that 'higher-ups' tend to leave it to the peasants to do the work anyway, so they don't actually use the laptop themselves. I once had a CEO who insisted on an absolutely top-of-the-line PC in his office, costing at least twice as much as any other PC in the building. I put a bit of logging software on it, which showed that he never actually used it, just had it switched-on in his office every day so visitors would be amazed by his technical prowess... He was one of those people who had his secretary print-off all incoming emails, so he could scribble a reply which she then typed-in and sent.

 

[Sid]

Wim Kok the Dutch PM at the time this was filmed (1998) learns from a kid during a visit at a primary school how a mouse works.
He was an excellent PM by the way. But pretty much clueless when it came to computers.

 

[Kara Spengler]

But not without first consulting a lawyer and following the advice they receive.

Seriously, I'm all in favour of helping bust fascist insurrectionists, and subject to what his attorney says I think it would be very good if he came forward as a potential witness, but not without first talking to a lawyer who is experienced in federal criminal defence work.

Never speak to law enforcement as part of an inquiry in which you may become a person of interest without a lawyer present. Ever.

Especially if you know you're innocent.

yes of course talk to a lawyer but the problem is a lot of ppl seem to think they can decide to talk to any authority or not when they have been at an event where many crimes were committed

 

[Innula Zenovka]

yes of course talk to a lawyer but the problem is a lot of ppl seem to think they can decide to talk to any authority or not when they have been at an event where many crimes were committed

I don't quite understand.

What, in the US, what legal -- as opposed to moral -- obligations does someone who attended the rally have?

Are they obliged to volunteer the information to the FBI that they were there, and to agree be interviewed if the FBI wishes, and to offer to allow agents to examine any phones or photographic equipment they had with them?

Or if the FBI turn up at their door, are they obliged to say anything other than, "I have nothing to say to you"?

That may well arouse the agents' suspicions they have something to hide, and lead to their temporary arrest while they're held for further questioning, but if they insist on standing upon their constitutional right to silence, and their protections against unlawful search and seizure, what offence are they committing by so doing?

I know that, in the movies and tv shows, cops often threaten uncooperative witnesses with arrest for "obstruction" or similar offences, but I've always assumed that's a convenient fictional device rather than the way US law actually works in practice.

In the UK, and probably in the US as well, there are -- contentiously, in some cases -- specific circumstances in which people in particular roles have to report suspicious behaviour to the police (e.g. child welfare cases, or teachers suspecting their students are being radicalised by terrorist groups) but those are exceptions, made by specific laws creating particular obligations to disclose particular matters in particular circumstances.

Assuming there's no general rule, and I don't think there is, in the US that you must answer any questions an FBI officer wishes to ask (though it might be both appropriate and prudent so to do in any particular circumstances), when is a potential witness legally obliged to cooperate with them, or even to make himself known to them?

 

[bubblesort]

Yep - although experience showed me that 'higher-ups' tend to leave it to the peasants to do the work anyway, so they don't actually use the laptop themselves. I once had a CEO who insisted on an absolutely top-of-the-line PC in his office, costing at least twice as much as any other PC in the building. I put a bit of logging software on it, which showed that he never actually used it, just had it switched-on in his office every day so visitors would be amazed by his technical prowess... He was one of those people who had his secretary print-off all incoming emails, so he could scribble a reply which she then typed-in and sent.

Yeah, it wouldn't surprise me if those geriatric senators treat their laptops like Hillary Clinton treated hers. I mean, whatever you think about that email situation politically, I think everybody can agree that she should have at least been using PGP or something. She was violating all kinds of best practices with her computer. I don't think she's alone in that, among higher ups in Washington DC.

 

[Veritable Quandry]

As far as I know obstruction charges only happen when someone actively thawrts an investigation by, for example, destroying evidence or intimidating witnesses.

If you refuse to testify when subpoenaed and can not rely on either self-incrimination or privlided communication as a basis to prevent you from testifying, that falls under contempt of court, not obstruction.

No one has a duty to come forward if they were there or to volunteer information about others, but it can help in reducing charges and penalties if you talk to the FBI before they come to talk to you. But always talk to a lawyer first.

 

[Sid]

What, in the US, what legal -- as opposed to moral -- obligations does someone who attended the rally have?

Are they obliged to volunteer the information to the FBI that they were there, and to agree be interviewed if the FBI wishes, and to offer to allow agents to examine any phones or photographic equipment they had with them?

Here in NL we have a "report crime anonymously line" , a police phone number where you can report what you know about criminal activities, without being asked personal identity questions.
Very helpful at times, if you want to point the police in the right direction, without getting further involved.