ICE told to get the eff out

  • Thread starter Thread starter JP_
  • Start date Start date
:oops: :oops: 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.

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.
The complexity often lies in determining whether the encouragement was a "serious effort" to produce a criminal result or simply an expression of opinion or advocacy protected by the Constitution.
 
Last edited:
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!
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.
 
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!
 
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!
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 ?
 
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?
Imo you are coming from the angle that errs on the side of enforcement of an issue that you may deem to be necessary...

As opposed to looking at the shooting from a purely human level...

In the UK there are immigration raids, and as far as I am aware there haven't been any fatalities involved, but correct me if I'm wrong...

"Latest figures reveal the number of raids have soared by 77% in the UK since the government came into power, leading to an 83% rise in arrests (July 2024 to end of December 2025)"

And so far protests against such actions must be very limited because I haven't seen mainstream reports. Have you?

Could it be that in the UK we do things with more regard to the law regarding a right to life...

I realise that many of those who condone the actions in the US may well also hold the view that the very existence of human rights legislation is an affront to their views, but nevertheless it is what largely prevents the actions in the US permeating it's way into Europe!
 
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…
So nothing to add as usual...

Btw, you went silent when asked about your views on the defence of the UK...

Very strange :rolleyes:
 
Imo you are coming from the angle that errs on the side of enforcement of an issue that you may deem to be necessary...

As opposed to looking at the shooting from a purely human level...

In the UK there are immigration raids, and as far as I am aware there haven't been any fatalities involved, but correct me if I'm wrong...

"Latest figures reveal the number of raids have soared by 77% in the UK since the government came into power, leading to an 83% rise in arrests (July 2024 to end of December 2025)"

And so far protests against such actions must be very limited because I haven't seen mainstream reports. Have you?

Could it be that in the UK we do things with more regard to the law regarding a right to life...

I realise that many of those who condone the actions in the US may well also hold the view that the very existence of human rights legislation is an affront to their views, but nevertheless it is what largely prevents the actions in the US permeating it's way into Europe!
Could we clarify something first, are you just making this up as you go along, or are you a New York lawyer?
 
Could we clarify something first, are you just making this up as you go along, or are you a New York lawyer?
Give the guy a break - he's just finished a night shift of changing bedsheets and wiping @rses and he's just clearing his bile ducts before having his dinner and going to bed.
 
Back
Top