aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

The judge dismissed the murder charge because it requires that the killing was committed during another "crime of violence." Prosecutors alleged the other crimes of violence were two stalking charges, arguing Mangione stalked Thompson online and travelled across state lines to carry out the killing.

---

Ooookaaay.

I would argue stalking for the purpose of killing a person is part of a violent crime showing premeditation. If it can be charged separately, it is a separate crime.

Crossing state lines for the purposes of committing a violent act, is itself a violation of the Travel Act.

So I really don't understand the judge's reasoning here.

---

I find this whole train of thought. Ridiculous.

The crime he committed was murder.

You could say, he stalked him, you could say, he violated his civil liberties, you could say he had hate in his heart, and that was a separate crime, you could say, he verbally abused him.

It was murder and nothing else. Quit trying to twist things to get what you want. I get so annoyed at the government going after people with all these huge charges, etc. and then in the end they hang them up on some bull**** process charge when it isn't quite working out.

We don't wanna lose so if you will just agree to plead guilty to this process charge and go to jail for two years so we can say we got a conviction then we won't keep trying to financially ruin you and put you in jail for the rest of your life .

Happens all the time and it's bull*****

This whole process crime bull**** is exactly how a tyrannical government operates.

They can't even manage to give school shooters death penalties lately. There was no way he was going to get it.

CrackerJackAg said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

The judge dismissed the murder charge because it requires that the killing was committed during another "crime of violence." Prosecutors alleged the other crimes of violence were two stalking charges, arguing Mangione stalked Thompson online and travelled across state lines to carry out the killing.

---

Ooookaaay.

I would argue stalking for the purpose of killing a person is part of a violent crime showing premeditation. If it can be charged separately, it is a separate crime.

Crossing state lines for the purposes of committing a violent act, is itself a violation of the Travel Act.

So I really don't understand the judge's reasoning here.

---

I find this whole train of thought. Ridiculous.

The crime he committed was murder.

You could say, he stalked him, you could say, he violated his civil liberties, you could say he had hate in his heart, and that was a separate crime, you could say, he verbally abused him.

It was murder and nothing else. Quit trying to twist things to get what you want. I get so annoyed at the government going after people with all these huge charges, etc. and then in the end they hang them up on some bull**** process charge when it isn't quite working out.

We don't wanna lose so if you will just agree to plead guilty to this process charge and go to jail for two years so we can say we got a conviction then we won't keep trying to financially ruin you and put you in jail for the rest of your life .

Happens all the time and it's bull*****

This whole process crime bull**** is exactly how a tyrannical government operates.

---

Wait, are you suggesting stalking is a process crime, akin to making a misstatement to the FBI?

Never heard of enhancements to a murder charge such as killing a LEO or lying in wait to kill someone?

aggiehawg said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

The judge dismissed the murder charge because it requires that the killing was committed during another "crime of violence." Prosecutors alleged the other crimes of violence were two stalking charges, arguing Mangione stalked Thompson online and travelled across state lines to carry out the killing.

---

Ooookaaay.

I would argue stalking for the purpose of killing a person is part of a violent crime showing premeditation. If it can be charged separately, it is a separate crime.

Crossing state lines for the purposes of committing a violent act, is itself a violation of the Travel Act.

So I really don't understand the judge's reasoning here.

---

I find this whole train of thought. Ridiculous.

The crime he committed was murder.

You could say, he stalked him, you could say, he violated his civil liberties, you could say he had hate in his heart, and that was a separate crime, you could say, he verbally abused him.

It was murder and nothing else. Quit trying to twist things to get what you want. I get so annoyed at the government going after people with all these huge charges, etc. and then in the end they hang them up on some bull**** process charge when it isn't quite working out.

We don't wanna lose so if you will just agree to plead guilty to this process charge and go to jail for two years so we can say we got a conviction then we won't keep trying to financially ruin you and put you in jail for the rest of your life .

Happens all the time and it's bull*****

This whole process crime bull**** is exactly how a tyrannical government operates.

---

Wait, are you suggesting stalking is a process crime, akin to making a misstatement to the FBI?

Never heard of enhancements to a murder charge such as killing a LEO or lying in wait to kill someone?

---

No, I am arguing that typically when you murder somebody it includes all of the things you do while in the process of murdering someone.

I guess I feel like it's more of a merger and not an entire entirely separate crime.

The law distinguishes between a crime of passion and a premeditated act. Premeditation the planning and following through is already the criteria used to elevate a killing to First-Degree Murder. By pulling stalking out as a separate secondary crime to justify an even harsher punishment like the death penalty, the state is double-counting the same behavior.

If the state has already elevated a charge using the premeditation of stalking/planning, then they shouldn't be able to also break it out as a separate charge.

If the stalking was the method used to commit the murder, it is an inseparable part of the act itself. Treating it as a distinct crime is a legal maneuver used to bypass the standard limits of sentencing, effectively punishing a person twice for the same sequence of events.

It's draconian…

aggiehawg said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

The judge dismissed the murder charge because it requires that the killing was committed during another "crime of violence." Prosecutors alleged the other crimes of violence were two stalking charges, arguing Mangione stalked Thompson online and travelled across state lines to carry out the killing.

---

Ooookaaay.

I would argue stalking for the purpose of killing a person is part of a violent crime showing premeditation. If it can be charged separately, it is a separate crime.

Crossing state lines for the purposes of committing a violent act, is itself a violation of the Travel Act.

So I really don't understand the judge's reasoning here.

---

I find this whole train of thought. Ridiculous.

The crime he committed was murder.

You could say, he stalked him, you could say, he violated his civil liberties, you could say he had hate in his heart, and that was a separate crime, you could say, he verbally abused him.

It was murder and nothing else. Quit trying to twist things to get what you want. I get so annoyed at the government going after people with all these huge charges, etc. and then in the end they hang them up on some bull**** process charge when it isn't quite working out.

We don't wanna lose so if you will just agree to plead guilty to this process charge and go to jail for two years so we can say we got a conviction then we won't keep trying to financially ruin you and put you in jail for the rest of your life .

Happens all the time and it's bull*****

This whole process crime bull**** is exactly how a tyrannical government operates.

---

Wait, are you suggesting stalking is a process crime, akin to making a misstatement to the FBI?

Never heard of enhancements to a murder charge such as killing a LEO or lying in wait to kill someone?

---

My first post was kind of reactionary and not thought out or stated very well. If, in your scenario, the lying and waiting is the enhancement. That is simple and straightforward. To then say we also now want to seek the death penalty because we need an additional charge and we're going to say that laying and waiting or stalking is a separate charge as well after we already used it for the enhancement. Doesn't jive.

Quote:

---

No, I am arguing that typically when you murder somebody it includes all of the things you do while in the process of murdering someone.

I guess I feel like it's more of a merger and not an entire entirely separate crime.

---

Then you would be 100% wrong under the existing law. Think what you wish but criminal law does not work that way.

Remember the 34 counts against Trump?

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

No, I am arguing that typically when you murder somebody it includes all of the things you do while in the process of murdering someone.

I guess I feel like it's more of a merger and not an entire entirely separate crime.

---

Then you would be 100% wrong under the existing law. Think what you wish but criminal law does not work that way.

Remember the 34 counts against Trump?

---

Was the government able to use the separate stalking charge to get the death penalty?

Sucks for him.

The Trump thing was dumb. Would have failed at appeal.

Exactly what I was talking about. You trying to make my point for me?

;-)

What you are missing is that garden variety "murder" is not a federal crime.

Here, the Feds tried to make murder a federal crime by use of a statute that says a murder charge can be brought by the Feds if there is an underlying separate crime of violence using a firearm.

The Judge here found that stalking is not inherently always a crime of violence, so it could not be used as the underlying crime to make this a Federal case.

Additionally, this was a motion to dismiss. The time for the District Judge to rule is now, NOT after a trial.