Zone1 If you commit a crime, should you be punished?

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Ashli Babbitt was killed while climbing through a broken window. Ashli did not break the window, one rioter, Zachary Jordan Alam, smashed a glass window beside the doors. Ashli did no damage or violence, and was not a threat while climbing through a window. If she had lived, she would have been charged with a simple misdemeanor.

There were J6ers doing time for a simple misdemeanor of trespass? I'm asking because I do not know the answer to this question.

 

[JGalt]

We are a nation of laws. We pride ourselves on the order that our legal system instills. Yet we are also a nation of mercy and compassion; however, the fundamental question arises: If you commit a crime, should you be punished? That should be an easy answer, yet some insist upon exceptions to the law.

One such exception is illegal immigration. The majority of illegal immigrants come here to find work, yet the fact remains that they have still violated the law. They have taken jobs in critical industries, like construction, childcare, landscaping, manufacturing, etc. A majority of people insist upon a path to citizenship for these people, while others insist on deportation. Some claim that since these people are well-meaning, they shouldn't be rounded up and deported mercilessly.

But my question is, when do we enact the punishment? Why can't we punish them? They broke the law. Why should they be rewarded for breaching the sovereignty of another nation?

Answering your question, yes anyone illegally entering this country should be punished.

8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien​

Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

 

[shockedcanadian]

What do you know about the lawful use of a firearm in the United States because you're not demonstrating much knowledge on the topic via your comments

You said she was armed. The man who shot her couldn't have known this. Regardless of laws, there is a moral lesson to the action. Perhaps it is in American gun culture I dont know. How many people fired a gun on this day?

 

[JGalt]

You said she was armed. The man who shot her couldn't have known this. Regardless of laws, there is a moral lesson to the action. Perhaps it is in American gun culture I dont know. How many people fired a gun on this day?

Some of the protesters exercised their Second Amendment right by carrying a firearm, and were unconstitutionally arrested. However the only gun fired was the one that murdered Ashli Babbitt.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

You said she was armed. The man who shot her couldn't have known this. Regardless of laws, there is a moral lesson to the action. Perhaps it is in American gun culture I dont know. How many people fired a gun on this day?

Armed doesn't necessarily mean "armed with a firearm", it can be "armed with some type of weapon or anything that can be used as a weapon" including a mob.

There is such a thing as "disparity of force" which means that in a situation where there is one armed individual against multiple assailants, that the conditions under which one can use deadly force changes, although a threat must still exist.

And you all seem to have completely blocked out of your minds, what or rather who was on the other side of the door the mob as trying to breach - many of our congressional members and it was Lt. Byrd's job to ensure that the mob didn't get their hands on any of them, which he did.

Why do you think no one else attempted to go through that broken out window?

If you object to what happened on moral grounds I don't know what to tell you other than I and most people that I know of, all know better than to do something that stupid so why didn't she, especially since her job while she was still serving in the military was to guard military installations?

Case law that equates a mob to a "weapon"

A classic and widely cited Supreme Court case that equates a mob with a weapon—or at least emphasizes its perilous force—is Moore v. Dempsey (1923):

​

In this landmark case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that mob-dominated trials, where an armed crowd controlled the courtroom atmosphere, deprived defendants of due process under the 14th Amendment. Justice Holmes famously noted that:

“The trials were dominated by white mobs; crowds of armed whites milled around the courthouse.”
“There was never a chance of an acquittal, as the jurors feared the mob.” youtube.com+9en.wikipedia.org+9illinoiscarry.com+9

Here, the Court essentially recognized the mob itself—the threat and intimidation from a physically present crowd—as a force equivalent to that of a weapon, nullifying legal fairness.

​

In this extraordinary case, law enforcement officers and citizens were prosecuted for contempt of court in the lynching of Ed Johnson. The Court found that:

Sheriff Shipp “not only made the work of the mob easy, but in effect aided and abetted it.” en.wikipedia.org

This statement legally recognizes the mob’s collective violence as a weaponized force compelling a legal response.

​

In Ashcraft, the defendant’s confession was deemed coerced because he was subjected to threats of mob violence and intimidation. The fact that the fear of mob retribution rendered the confession involuntary underscores how a mob can serve as a coercive weapon en.wikipedia.org+7youtube.com+7ilj.law.indiana.edu+7en.wikipedia.org.

In Sum​

These cases firmly establish that:

• A mob’s presence and intimidation—when armed or violent—functions as a weapon, undermining rights to due process and fair trial (Moore).
• Assisting or facilitating such a mob is itself legally culpable (Shipp).
• Fear of mob coercion can negate legal voluntariness (Ashcraft).

These rulings definitely predate and resonate beyond January 6, affirming your long-held understanding: a mob can indeed be treated as a weapon in law.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Some of the protesters exercised their Second Amendment right by carrying a firearm, and were unconstitutionally arrested. However the only gun fired was the one that murdered Ashli Babbitt.

You're kidding me right? Even if you have a permit to carry a firearm, federal property & installations are prohibited areas.

 

[JGalt]

You're kidding me right? Even if you have a permit to carry a firearm, federal property & installations are prohibited areas.

That's bullshit. The prohibition of carrying a weapon only extends to the carrying inside a federal facility, as well as on the Capitol grounds.

 

[Care4all]

I disagree. They understood the risk of coming here illegally. They need to understand the consequences. It is quite unfair to expect traditional consequences for legal citizens who break the law, but modified or very little consequence for those who abuse it by coming here illegally or overstaying their visas.

Any trauma and suffering that results is of their own making, Mariyam.

If they came seeking asylum it is not a crime....until they have their court hearing and an immigration judge rejects their claims to asylum. Once a judge denies them asylum, then they have committed a misdemeanor, not a felony. After deportation, if they attempt to enter again after the court asylum denial, then it becomes a felony.

Before immigration reform under GWB, less than 20 years ago, it was merely a civil offense to enter the country outside of border entry points. A civil offense is equal to a parking ticket....

Most ALL of the people being rounded up and lassoed at gunpoint by ski masked, unbadged men from their yard garden after 47 years living here, have not committed a CRIME, with a penalty of prison...or the treatment given. No civil offense, and no minor misdemeanor sends anyone to prison for their offenses...let alone being captured and deported without due process and time to liquidated what they have established and own.

What is being done to those people and their families, for a minor civil offense or misdemeanor, is unconscionable imo.

 

[EMH]

Apparently it depends... on your support for Big Government, Homosexuality, and Zionist Fascism....

It is a NATIONAL EMBARRASSMENT that W is still alive. But W checked all three boxes... and hence THE WORST TRAITOR in American History is "above the law."

 

[SweetSue92]

We are a nation of laws. We pride ourselves on the order that our legal system instills. Yet we are also a nation of mercy and compassion; however, the fundamental question arises: If you commit a crime, should you be punished? That should be an easy answer, yet some insist upon exceptions to the law.

One such exception is illegal immigration. The majority of illegal immigrants come here to find work, yet the fact remains that they have still violated the law. They have taken jobs in critical industries, like construction, childcare, landscaping, manufacturing, etc. A majority of people insist upon a path to citizenship for these people, while others insist on deportation. Some claim that since these people are well-meaning, they shouldn't be rounded up and deported mercilessly.

But my question is, when do we enact the punishment? Why can't we punish them? They broke the law. Why should they be rewarded for breaching the sovereignty of another nation?

"No one is above the law", often used by the Left, it laughingly ridiculous.

Yes, we have laws. But we also have a vast and muscular justice system which interprets and applies the law depending on the circumstance. You're going to get a different verdict from a jury if you broke into a pharmacy and shot someone to get your opioids. OTOH if you broke in to get your wife's cancer drugs, will you still be punished? yes, but probably not in the same manner.

 

[SweetSue92]

If they came seeking asylum it is not a crime....until they have their court hearing and an immigration judge rejects their claims to asylum. Once a judge denies them asylum, then they have committed a misdemeanor, not a felony. After deportation, if they attempt to enter again after the court asylum denial, then it becomes a felony.

Before immigration reform under GWB, less than 20 years ago, it was merely a civil offense to enter the country outside of border entry points. A civil offense is equal to a parking ticket....

Most ALL of the people being rounded up and lassoed at gunpoint by ski masked, unbadged men from their yard garden after 47 years living here, have not committed a CRIME, with a penalty of prison...or the treatment given. No civil offense, and no minor misdemeanor sends anyone to prison for their offenses...let alone being captured and deported without due process and time to liquidated what they have established and own.

What is being done to those people and their families, for a minor civil offense or misdemeanor, is unconscionable imo.

I wonder if you would feel differently if you saw all the things I see in the public schools. So many American children--whose parents pay taxes--going without in part because we absolutely finance illegals.

It's fundamentally unfair and most Americans agree with me.

 

[Hellokitty]

There is no exception for illegal immigration.

But if you're really worried about rewards for those who break the law...please explain your love of Ashley Babbitt; would you please?

You think illegals should be shot and killed for the crime on entering the country illegally?

 

[rightwinger]

If you commit a crime, should you be punished?​

Trump wasn’t

 

[rightwinger]

You think illegals should be shot and killed for the crime on entering the country illegally?

Trespassing

 

[the watcher]

Some of the protesters exercised their Second Amendment right by carrying a firearm, and were unconstitutionally arrested. However the only gun fired was the one that murdered Ashli Babbitt.

Laws should be enforced, fairly and consistently that is the responsibility of the state. The governing body is charged with making laws that are fair and represent all parties in good faith and not try to socially engineer a preferred status. The responsibility of citizens is to know what the laws actually are, not what they think they should be. None of the parties are operating correctly right now.

 

[candycorn]

Well that is a different question. That isnt if a crime should be punished but rather "should the punishment fit the crime or should we be a nation of extra-judicial punisment"? This would be a similiar approach to how Canada, Russia and China operate against their citizens. You dont murder an unarmed person in cold blood when your life isn't threatened by said person.

She wasn't murdered.

 

[candycorn]

Ashli Babbitt was killed while climbing through a broken window. Ashli did not break the window, one rioter, Zachary Jordan Alam, smashed a glass window beside the doors. Ashli did no damage or violence, and was not a threat while climbing through a window. If she had lived, she would have been charged with a simple misdemeanor.

Of course you're leaving out that she did it during an insurrection.

 

[TemplarKormac]

If you commit a crime, should you be punished?​

Trump wasn’t

Beside the point.

 

[OODA_Loop]

If you commit a crime, should you be punished?​

Trump wasn’t

Because the same court that convicted him unconditionally discharged at 34 counts.

 

[Dekster]

We are a nation of laws. We pride ourselves on the order that our legal system instills. Yet we are also a nation of mercy and compassion; however, the fundamental question arises: If you commit a crime, should you be punished? That should be an easy answer, yet some insist upon exceptions to the law.

One such exception is illegal immigration. The majority of illegal immigrants come here to find work, yet the fact remains that they have still violated the law. They have taken jobs in critical industries, like construction, childcare, landscaping, manufacturing, etc. A majority of people insist upon a path to citizenship for these people, while others insist on deportation. Some claim that since these people are well-meaning, they shouldn't be rounded up and deported mercilessly.

But my question is, when do we enact the punishment? Why can't we punish them? They broke the law. Why should they be rewarded for breaching the sovereignty of another nation?

Since they can make as much in a day here as they make in a week back home, there is always going to be economic pressures in favor of illegal immigrants. Of course they should be sent home, but that doesn't address the problem that we do entice them here be it with mixed political messaging or plain old greed. Perhaps the solution lies in updating our immigration system and engaging in trade deals/tax policies that encourage more development in Latin America so they can get better pay and live higher quality lives if they stay at home.