The "one stop" WHY IT DOES NOT MATTER IF IT WAS A FAKE BOMB thread

[jberryhill]

I'll just put this in one place here for reference. It has puzzled me that people think it matters one way or the other if the guy made a "real bomb" or a "fake bomb" or "a bomb intended to detonate".

I am a little less puzzled now, since having taken a look at the eejits at Freeperville, many of them seem to think there is an important distinction there.

There is not.

The MAGABOMBER is charged with these offenses:

Violations of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 1716, 879, 844(d), (e),
875, 111, and 2

The one relevant to "mailing a bomb" is this one: 18 USC 844

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/844


(d) Whoever transports or receives, or attempts to transport or receive, in interstate or foreign commerce any explosive with the knowledge or intent that it will be used to kill, injure, or intimidate any individual or unlawfully to damage or destroy any building, vehicle, or other real or personal property, shall be imprisoned for not more than ten years, or fined under this title, or both; and if personal injury results to any person, including any public safety officer performing duties as a direct or proximate result of conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be imprisoned for not more than twenty years or fined under this title, or both; and if death results to any person, including any public safety officer performing duties as a direct or proximate result of conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years, or to the death penalty or to life imprisonment.

The device had pyrotechnic material of some kind, and was sent with the intent to intimidate. Thirteen of them.

Notice that the statute does not care if the intent is:

"kill, injure, or intimidate"

The statute does not care if you made a fake bomb or a real bomb. It does not matter if your intent was to kill, or merely to intimidate. It is the same freaking statute.

A number of people have suggested this would be relevant to an "attempted murder" charge. Murder is a state crime, not a federal crime. The feds would not be charging him with murder or attempted murder anyway.

To recap - The US law that is relevant to "sending a mail bomb" doesn't care if it is intended to explode or not. Anyone that thinks this is an important distinction one way or the other is either reading the wrong sorts of things in the first place, or simply misinformed.

[joshcryer]

1. It's "OK" to intimidate people these days.

That's the new normal Trump has created and that's why this stuff is happening.

And that's how they see it.

[ProfessorGAC]

2. Intended To Detonate?

As you said, there were conflagatory materials.
The fact that the idiot didn't really know how to do it doesn't mean he wanted them to go off
He's a terrorist, he's just bad at it!

[htuttle]

6. Like the Shoebomber, for example

[world wide wally]

3. He wasn't smart enough to build a dummy bomb

Just stupid enough to build ones that didn't work

[people]

4. They were explosives

Christopher Wray described them as "IEDs" which means "improvised explosive devices." According to wikipedia this means "bomb."

[jberryhill]

15. Once again

It does not matter. The devices contained explosive materials.

[maxsolomon]

5. I've been beating back the "Fake Bomb" assertion for days.

Came out of a NYT article where they consulted "experts" who identified components that were not the hallmarks of a professional.

It's just a way to diminish the seriousness of attempted assassinations of 2 ex-presidents et al.

[sarge43]

13. No he isn't a professional, but sometimes amateurs get it right.

Fortunately this one didn't.

[Midnightwalk]

7. Legally not yet charged with attempted murder

Thanks for info. One of the charges was

3. In or about October 2018, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, CESAR ALTIERI SAYOC, the defendant, knowingly and willfully threatened to kill and inflict bodily harm upon a former President and a member of the immediate family of a former President, to wit, SAYOC mailed an IED to former First Lady Hillary Clinton, who resides with her husband, former President William Jefferson Clinton.

(Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1716(j)(2) and 2.)

I have been calling that attempted assasinations. In these discussions I think falling back to the purely legalistic terms loses the wider points about what happened. As you say, he hasn't been charged with attempted murder yet, he might even be found not guilty, but I still think he did it.

[jberryhill]

16. He will NEVER be charged by the feds for attempted murder

That is a state crime.

[blogslut]

19. He sent these devices through the US mail.

Doesn't that mean there's the possibility of federal charges? I'm asking because I don't know.

[localroger]

22. That is in fact one of the charges filed

Mailing explosives across state lines is illegal even if they aren't made into a bomb. All the charges that have been announced are federal, and they're all pretty airtight. Most likely it came as a shock to Cesar that "fake bomb" wouldn't be a get out of jail free card for him. Had any of the bombs actually gone off, there would be MORE charges related to that.

[Midnightwalk]

20. I didn't say he could be charged

By the Feds. He might be able to be charged at state level. Perhaps they would but I don't think he's going anywhere when the Feds are done.

I said what I call it which was attempted assasination. I also don't disagree with someone saying it was attempted murder in a discussion. Discussion is not just legal terminology. There are cultural and moral reasons to call it that. I know my beliefs don't matter legally.

I agree with your point about how well the device was constructed not being pertinent to the charges. Along the same lines, even in casual conversation no one should to excuse mailing explosives for that reason. It's an asinine argument any way you look at it.

[Kingofalldems]

8. The bomb was not fake, so I don't understand your headline

Ask the FBI director.

Is there another point you are trying to make?

[SunSeeker]

11. +1

[jberryhill]

18. It was not "fake" in the sense that it was a real devixe

Sent with the real relevant intent under the applicable law.

If you paid attention to what the FBI said, the guy was initially cooperative and claimed he didn’t intend for them to explode. The thing is, at that point, he had already admitted all of the elements of the crime, because whether he intended them to explode is legally irrelevant under that statute.

[Hugin]

9. KnR

Hubris and ignorance are not a good legal defense and it is all this guy has to offer.

[OilemFirchen]

10. "It has puzzled me that people think it matters one way or the other..."

Then why did you start this OP?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=11317029

[jberryhill]

17. Because it was an observation of why a clock would be on a mail bomb like that

It has nothing to do with any legally significant consequences, nor did I suggest that.

[pnwmom]

12. I think they started arguing "fake bomb" under the original "false flag" theory.

In other words, the bombs were fake, so some Democrat really sent them, because the D didn't really want to hurt any of the targets.

Now that the false flag theory has been proven wrong, they can't seem to let go of the idea that it matters if the bombs were fake.

[ProudLib72]

14. Come next month can you fill us in on why it doesn't matter if he was a fake president?

[jberryhill]

21. Ah, that's for the folks who subscribe...

...to the wacky belief in “if the president is removed, then everything that president did is reversed or undone” like erasing a disgraced pharoah’s name from the monuments.

[fescuerescue]

23. It seems like however

That if the bombs did detonate and harm people or property, that there would be additional charges beyond this one.

Such as murder, assassination or destruction of Federal or property. Those certainly have additional charges and jail time or worse. Tim Mcvee is unavailable to comment on this for example.

Your post does help explain why I keep see the news media saying he could get a max of 45 years which seems very light to me.