4 ms·
Yes, but not by the federal government. That's a BIG difference.
by enraged_camel 10y ago
Yes, but not by the federal government. That's a BIG difference.
- grzm 10y agoI'm not sure that was always the case, but for the sake of argument: what's the significant difference?
- nickpsecurity 10y agoI can't speak for what enraged_camel is thinking about. What pops into my mind is how you have the feds coming down on you in all locations. With states, you might just dodge the ones that are corrupt enough to consider your actions crimes. Keep a distance or sneak through them. If it's federal, you're screwed wherever you go with likely worse sentence on top of it. The federal cases also bring better-trained cops and equipment to the situation than many local jurisdictions.
- enraged_camel 10y agoDuring the civil rights movement, the federal government was on the side of blacks. It was the state governments that resisted things like desegregation (which the Supreme Court had found to be unconstitutional in Brown vs. Board of Education) and allowing blacks to register to vote. Having the federal government on your side is very important. The reason is simple: it has the power to enforce its will. For example, when the governor of Arkansas ordered the National Guard to prevent nine black students to attend Little Rock Central High School, President Eisenhower countermanded the order and told them to return to their barracks, then deployed elements of the 101st Airborne Division to protect the black students while they attended the school for an entire year. In contrast, Aaron Swartz had the federal government against him. He was indicted by a federal grand jury on four felony charges, which were later increased to thirteen. Unlike with the civil rights movement, he had broken federal law, and could not turn to a superior authority for justice.