Or charged or convicted. Why do you think that might be.
ICE told to get the eff out
- Thread starter JP_
- Start date
Or charged or convicted. Why do you think that might be.
I've been thinking about this some more. Presumably, if Renee had driven into the agent and seriously injured him, there would be some offence committed by Becca for encouraging her to drive off.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 27,234
- Reaction score
- 6,519
- Country
You think the criminal accountability is dependant on the result?
- Joined
- 7 Nov 2023
- Messages
- 18,608
- Reaction score
- 11,641
- Country
I cannot believe anyone even the loony's cannot understand this. They still think they were innocent bystanders that got shot for no reason and it was unfortunate. My god I would hate to have MNW67 as my solicitor. I would be asking for my money back..
- Joined
- 7 Nov 2023
- Messages
- 18,608
- Reaction score
- 11,641
- Country
OMG and you have had to think about that,, Jeeez. So you think you have to be seriously injured for it to be an offence to drive your car into someone.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 27,234
- Reaction score
- 6,519
- Country
I don't think he's ever been one.
- Joined
- 7 Nov 2023
- Messages
- 18,608
- Reaction score
- 11,641
- Country
I don't know, he has never told me that but it seems it certainly was not criminal law.
Applying that logic, hundreds would be dead in the Minnesotta demonstrations happening right now
- Joined
- 7 Nov 2023
- Messages
- 18,608
- Reaction score
- 11,641
- Country
Give it time
I am glad that you are so certain that you know the answer to complex criminal law questions in a foreign jurisdiction. Even in the UK, inchoate offences are often misunderstood. I am happy to admit that it is outside my experience and I had to ask for a bit of help!
AI Overview
Encouraging an offence is indeed a complex area of US law, operating at the intersection of criminal liability and First Amendment free speech protections. US law distinguishes between protected advocacy of lawbreaking and unprotected solicitation or facilitation of specific crimes.
Key areas of complexity include:
1. The Constitutional Boundary (First Amendment)
While the First Amendment is broad, it does not protect speech that is an "integral part of conduct in violation of a valid criminal statute".
- Protected vs. Unprotected: Abstract advocacy of illegal action remains protected. However, speech intended to bring about a particular unlawful act—such as a specific threat or direct instruction to commit a crime—is unprotected.
- Imminence Requirement: For speech to be criminalized as incitement, it generally must be "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and "likely to incite or produce such action".
2. Legal Theories of "Encouraging"
There are several distinct but overlapping, doctrines for holding someone responsible for the actions of another:
- Aiding and Abetting (18 U.S.C. § 2): This federal statute punishes anyone who "aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces, or procures" a crime as a principal. It requires that a crime was actually committed, and the defendant intended to facilitate it.
- Solicitation (18 U.S.C. § 373): This involves asking, inducing, or commanding another person to commit a crime of violence, even if the crime never occurs.
- Conspiracy: An agreement to commit a crime, coupled with an "overt act" in furtherance of the plan, is illegal.
3. Key Legal Distinctions
- Specific Intent: The defendant must generally have the specific intent to facilitate the crime, not just knowledge that a crime might occur.
- No Crime Needed (Sometimes): Under solicitation, the person encouraged does not have to actually commit the crime for the solicitor to be guilty. In contrast, aiding and abetting generally requires that a crime be committed.
- "Encouraging" in Statutes: Recent litigation, such as U.S. v. Hansen (2023), examined laws criminalizing the "encouraging or inducing" of illegal immigration. The Supreme Court clarified that in this context, "encourage" refers to the specific, purposeful solicitation and facilitation of illegal acts, rather than general, protected speech.
4. Exceptions and Defenses
- Victim Exclusion: A person cannot be guilty of encouraging an offence if they are part of the class of persons the law was designed to protect (e.g., a minor in certain sexual offence statutes).
- Renunciation/Withdrawal: In some cases, a person may avoid liability by taking affirmative steps to prevent the crime from being committed after they have encouraged it.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 7 Nov 2023
- Messages
- 18,608
- Reaction score
- 11,641
- Country
Exactly. Nail on the head, I haven't a clue with US law in the least, all I am doing is applying a bit of common sense to the case with a few legal bits I have read thrown in.
So making it up as you go along then...
As opposed to simply looking at the videos and coming to the conclusion that the fatal shooting was wrong...
Whatever angle you look at it from!
- Joined
- 7 Nov 2023
- Messages
- 18,608
- Reaction score
- 11,641
- Country
As said, you do not need to be an expert in US law to see through this case. Legally I doubt many , other than a US lawyer could dictate the actuall law, even a comedian is bang on the money with it. I can see how she was shot and fully understand the ICE agents actions. I am voicing my opinion so could you tell me where I am wrong on this? Two people who do know the law, one agrees with me and the other is uncertain, MBK and MNW67 are experts in comparison to me so if they are both disagreeing with each other, why have you just accused me of making it up as I go along ?
You should know that your opinion should be in line with liberal Ellas otherwise he will stick pins in his voodoo doll of you and wish you a thousand deaths…
