6 ms·

Except ... factual impossibility is not a defense to a charge of conspiracy, or indeed most charges of inchoate offenses. If you have a gun, and we agree that

Except ... factual impossibility is not a defense to a charge of conspiracy, or indeed most charges of inchoate offenses. If you have a gun, and we agree that I will shoot someone with it, but it turns out (unbeknownst to either of us) that the gun has in fact been permanently deactivated ... that's still conspiracy to commit murder.

ColanR 6y ago
That's how the FBI has caught terrorists in the past. Agents work with the terrorist and build a dud bomb, then arrest them when it fails to go off.
- NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
  If you really want to see how crazy this can get, a quick search for 'voodoo doll attempted murder' will be eye-opening.
  - ttul 6y ago
    Canada lost a case against a couple of dimwitted "terrorists" that the mounties engaged in an expensive, drawn out plot to recruit them to build a bomb [1]. In that case, the conduct of police was judged to be entrapment based on a precedent in which it is written, "The state must conduct its law enforcement operations in a manner that is consonant with the community’s underlying sense of fair play and decency. It cannot manipulate suspects’ lives without limit, turning their day-to-day existence into a piece of theatre in which they are unwitting participants." [1] https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/judge-says-rcmp-entrapped-bc-couple-in-terror-case-overturns-guilty-verdict/article31199892/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/judge-...
    - johnyzee 6y ago
      This has happened again and again, the world over, with the purpose of playing up the perceived threat of terrorism. For example, Richard Reid, the 'shoe bomber', was mentally retarded, and caught trying to ignite the C4 he had somehow acquired, using matches.
- gonzo41 6y ago
  That seems like it sails very closely to entrapment.
  - DiabloD3 6y ago
    By any reasonable interpretation, it is entrapment, and a fair number of lawyers out there were pretty unhappy, some vocally so, with the outcome of that whole shitshow.
    - nobody9999 6y ago
      Please compare and contrast "reasonable" and "legal" interpretations. While such a comparison might rub you (and me, for that matter) the wrong way, it's the "legal" interpretation that holds in a US Article III court[0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tribunals_in_the_United_States#Article_III_courts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tribunals_in_the_Unite...
      - DiabloD3 6y ago
        My point was, it rubbed lawyers the wrong way. I'm going to listen to a lawyer when they speak of their own craft.
  - maxlybbert 6y ago
    It does. My understanding is that as long as the police don’t make the suggestion, then it’s not entrapment. If the officer asks, “hey, do you wanna bomb that building?” it’s entrapment. If you ask “would you help me bomb that building?” and the officer sells you what you think is a bomb, it’s not. Of course, the officer isn’t necessarily wearing a wire or anything, and it’s possible to phrase things carefully to suggest something without literally making the suggestion, so it comes down to the officer’s testimony (“I never suggested that he commit a crime” and maybe “I did suggest that somebody ought to pay for that behavior”) versus the accused’s.
    - ALittleLight 6y ago
- srtjstjsj 6y ago
  They show FBI radicalizes people and creates "terrorists", not catches terrorists. They act like criminals and intimidate people into compliance and then arrest them. But for some reason if you tried pretending to be a terrorist, you'd still be a criminal
  - Fnoord 6y ago
    > They show FBI radicalizes people and creates "terrorists", not catches terrorists. They act like criminals and intimidate people into compliance and then arrest them. > But for some reason if you tried pretending to be a terrorist, you'd still be a criminal That depends. The informant/infiltrator needs to "play along" till some extend. However, they should also not stimulate other people to commit crimes. It is a careful balance. So for example, if Alice asks Bob to make a bomb, and Bob complies (with a fake bomb), then how exactly did Bob (who works for the FBI) create a terrorist? They didn't. They caught one by pretending being one. Apart from the ability to safely catch Alice red-handed, Bob can also testify the intend of Alice. 2 in 1. Would you rather see it was Charlie who made the bomb, but then a real one? Of course not. Sometimes, this infiltration method is one of the few or the only viable way to catch a terrorist or criminal. It is not without risk though; it is high risk, high reward. Not the first option to be chosen; you want low risk, high reward options first. EDIT: in hindsight it would've been better to use different names, ie. Mallory. I leave the above as-is.
jpcosta 6y ago
You still have to prove who had the gun in the first place
- NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
  No, actually. Let's say that you've been given a key for a locker at Grand Central Station and told there's a gun inside. We agree that I'll use the gun to shoot someone. You give me the key and I go to collect the gun. In fact, the locker is empty. The gun doesn't even exist and yet there's still a conspiracy to commit murder.
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    No, actually, you need additional steps to achieve conspiracy to commit murder in that hypothetical.
    - NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
      What's the legal basis for that? The "overt steps" are you giving me the key, and me going to the locker.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - Dylan16807 6y ago
        Does the overt act not have to further the conspiracy?
        NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
        Yes: but don't you think that going to collect the weapon furthers the conspiracy to commit murder? There'd inevitably be argument over whether it met the required standard, which differs by jurisdiction. e.g. did it advance the conspiracy substantially? did it take the conspiracy past the point of no return?
kbenson 6y ago
It makes sense, for charges about an attempt. Presumably if you attempt to kill someone in a way that doesn't work, you may try again in a way that does later. Also, a case can probably be made that while attempted murder may not be harmful to the intended victim (in some cases), it's still harmful to society.
DoctorOetker 6y ago
it's not illegal to crack your own password hash, according to this US Gov expert witness, it's never communicated or proven what this is the hash of.
- NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
  That is the whole point. If Manning and Assange think that a recipe for fruit salad is a hash of a root password for some U.S. Government computer and then attempt to identify a collision for it, with the goal of allowing Manning unauthorized access: that's still conspiracy.
  - DoctorOetker 6y ago
    you missed the point: what if Manning remembered his old box his own password of which he forgot, then asking this "Nathaniel Frank" does not automatically involve "Nathaniel Frank" into a conspiracy, as it is plausible Manning is asking help for non-nefarious personal reasons. It's up to the prosecution to prove that J.A. == "Nathaniel Frank" (and yes, whistleblowers have a long history of leaking to multiple players in case one or more of them are in bed with the oppressor). It's up to the prosecution to prove that "Nathanial Frank" couldn't have believed he was simply helping Manning regain access to whatever non-governmental stuff Manning has legitimate access to, and hence Manning has the right to grant others permission to crack his own hash...
    - anoncareer0212 6y ago
      *her
    - tedunangst 6y ago
      The obvious defense then would be to provide the chat log where manning says hey, I forgot the password to my laptop and really want to play some counter strike, can you help me out?
      - gamblor956 6y ago
emilfihlman 6y ago
By that logic also: "If I'm God, and we agree that I will kill everyone with my God powers, but it turns out (unbeknownst to either of us) that I'm not God, that's still conspiracy to commit murder." Promising impossibility is not a conspiracy. https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladviceofftopic/comments/6le3hy/magic_intent_and_murder/ https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladviceofftopic/comments/6le3hy...
- ColanR 6y ago
  Given that someone has actually been convicted of attempted murder by voodoo doll (ridiculous as that is), that reddit discussion sounds a bit like wishful thinking. https://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2004/dec/09/attempted-voodoo-first-degree/ https://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2004/dec/09/attempted-vo...
  - emilfihlman 6y ago
    A) that sounds like a legend and b) low level judges are not the measure of law.
- NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
  I believe that what you've linked to is legally incorrect. Refer to, e.g. United States vs. Thomas: https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-united-states-v-thomas https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-u... ... which is an actual appeal court decision. The defendants were at a bar. A drunken woman collapsed. The defendants put her in their car, took her home, and had sex with her while they believed she was unconscious. In fact, the woman had died at the bar, and they had been having sex with a corpse. They could not be convicted of rape, but they could be convicted of attempted rape because they believed the woman was alive at the time. Being factually mistaken about the possibility of a crime is not a defense to a charge of attempt, conspiracy etc.
  - jacobush 6y ago
    That’s slightly charitable. They believed they raped a woman, but they actually desecrated a corpse.
monoclechris 6y ago
I'm a fairly serious Assange supporter, but there are clearly lots of children here who don't understand how much intent matters.
quelsolaar 6y ago
The problem with the analogy is that committing a murder is a crime for everyone everywhere. For a US citizen who has been given classified information it may be illegal and treasonous to leak classified US information to some one who doesn't have the clearance to get access to it. But a journalist, should have the right to ask people to come forward if they have information with a public interest, even if it is classified. If someone comes forward, they may break the law, but not the journalist. Further more, Assange is not a US citizen, and is there for under no obligation to be loyal to or protect US interests or secrets. He cant by definition be treasonous again any country besides his own. If he on the other hand, provides material support to someone committing a crime, (like helping to crack a password), then he can be tried as an accomplice. This evidence seems to imply he did not.
- doonesbury 6y ago
  Agree. Nonetheless feds are making him pay through the legal expense and stress of deflecting these charges. What I wonder more about is our own guys: how does manning and Snowden walk out the door with this info anyway? Our search procedures apparently suck. For the record my assessment of our involvement in Iraq is not kind: we should have escalated to armed intrusion to vet wmds base by base instead of invading wholesale on the reason Iraqi's were evasive. Second torture is unamerican, not reliable, and wholly wrong. Not proud at all of what we did here. Our response before after 9/11 was incompetent.
- srtjstjsj 6y ago
  If his defense against treason is that he's a foreign agent attacking the US, then he'll rightly end up in a POW prison. So he needs a better defense than that
  - simonh 6y ago
    It seems like he didn’t actively attack the US, he simply passed on information freely given to him by US citizens. It’s hard to see how him doing that, not being a US citizen and not being in the US, is any worse than anything hundreds of journalists do all over the world every day.
nobody9999 6y ago
>If you have a gun, and we agree that I will shoot someone with it, but it turns out (unbeknownst to either of us) that the gun has in fact been permanently deactivated ... that's still conspiracy to commit murder. IIUC, at least in the US, a charge of conspiracy requires an overt act by at least one of the conspirators[0]: "If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor." As such, in the scenario you present, unless those who discuss murder actually do something in furtherance of that discussed goal, it's not conspiracy. [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/371 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/371 N.B.: IANAL
- simonh 6y ago
  Well in the example they are procuring and preparing to use a gun. That’s doing an act. Incompetently perhaps because unbeknownst to the its not a functioning firearm, but they’re still acting on their intentions.
  - nobody9999 6y ago
    >Well in the example they are procuring and preparing to use a gun. The example mentions a gun, but does not mention that it was procured for the purpose of committing murder. At least in the US, having a gun (there are more guns than people here) by itself isn't very remarkable. If, however, the gun was procured specifically for that purpose, it could be construed as an overt act. Alternatively, if someone retrieved the gun from a storage facility (as was suggested by another commenter) for the purposes of committing murder, that would still be an overt act. ISTR a case where a woman contracted with someone (who turned out to be police acting on a tip from the owner of a website that claimed to put folks in touch with hit men) to kill her husband[0]. Just asking someone to do so wasn't enough. The police had to get the woman to commit an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy (in that case, paying the undercover cop). [0] https://www.wxyz.com/news/monroe-county-woman-arrested-for-trying-to-hire-hitman-to-kill-her-ex-husband https://www.wxyz.com/news/monroe-county-woman-arrested-for-t...
cmiles74 6y ago
This gun and murder analogy strikes me as being in bad taste, in this instance. Julian Assange is not being accused of murder by the US government, the particular charges in this case revolves around a hash of a password and alleged attempts to compare that hash to a table of similar hashes and, possibly, finding the matching clear text password for that specific hash value. This is a far cry from conspiracy to commit murder, with our without a functional gun.
- nobody9999 6y ago
  Actually, that particular issue (the alleged attempt to crack a password hash) isn't covered under the Espionage Act[0]. Rather, it's a separate charge under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act[1]. And that matters because the penalties are enormously more severe for the the former than the latter. >This is a far cry from conspiracy to commit murder, with our without a functional gun. Conspiracy is defined[2] as: "If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor." As such, the example was just that, an example. Would you be less butthurt if the example was conspiracy to steal office supplies from a US Post Office, and the overt act was to bring a hand-cart to the post office in order to cart away said office supplies? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act [2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/371 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/371 Edit: Fixed grammatical error

ColanR 6y ago

That's how the FBI has caught terrorists in the past. Agents work with the terrorist and build a dud bomb, then arrest them when it fails to go off.

NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
If you really want to see how crazy this can get, a quick search for 'voodoo doll attempted murder' will be eye-opening.
- ttul 6y ago
  Canada lost a case against a couple of dimwitted "terrorists" that the mounties engaged in an expensive, drawn out plot to recruit them to build a bomb [1]. In that case, the conduct of police was judged to be entrapment based on a precedent in which it is written, "The state must conduct its law enforcement operations in a manner that is consonant with the community’s underlying sense of fair play and decency. It cannot manipulate suspects’ lives without limit, turning their day-to-day existence into a piece of theatre in which they are unwitting participants." [1] https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/judge-says-rcmp-entrapped-bc-couple-in-terror-case-overturns-guilty-verdict/article31199892/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/judge-...
  - johnyzee 6y ago
    This has happened again and again, the world over, with the purpose of playing up the perceived threat of terrorism. For example, Richard Reid, the 'shoe bomber', was mentally retarded, and caught trying to ignite the C4 he had somehow acquired, using matches.
gonzo41 6y ago
That seems like it sails very closely to entrapment.
- DiabloD3 6y ago
  By any reasonable interpretation, it is entrapment, and a fair number of lawyers out there were pretty unhappy, some vocally so, with the outcome of that whole shitshow.
  - nobody9999 6y ago
    Please compare and contrast "reasonable" and "legal" interpretations. While such a comparison might rub you (and me, for that matter) the wrong way, it's the "legal" interpretation that holds in a US Article III court[0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tribunals_in_the_United_States#Article_III_courts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tribunals_in_the_Unite...
    - DiabloD3 6y ago
      My point was, it rubbed lawyers the wrong way. I'm going to listen to a lawyer when they speak of their own craft.
- maxlybbert 6y ago
  It does. My understanding is that as long as the police don’t make the suggestion, then it’s not entrapment. If the officer asks, “hey, do you wanna bomb that building?” it’s entrapment. If you ask “would you help me bomb that building?” and the officer sells you what you think is a bomb, it’s not. Of course, the officer isn’t necessarily wearing a wire or anything, and it’s possible to phrase things carefully to suggest something without literally making the suggestion, so it comes down to the officer’s testimony (“I never suggested that he commit a crime” and maybe “I did suggest that somebody ought to pay for that behavior”) versus the accused’s.
  - ALittleLight 6y ago
srtjstjsj 6y ago
They show FBI radicalizes people and creates "terrorists", not catches terrorists. They act like criminals and intimidate people into compliance and then arrest them. But for some reason if you tried pretending to be a terrorist, you'd still be a criminal
- Fnoord 6y ago
  > They show FBI radicalizes people and creates "terrorists", not catches terrorists. They act like criminals and intimidate people into compliance and then arrest them. > But for some reason if you tried pretending to be a terrorist, you'd still be a criminal That depends. The informant/infiltrator needs to "play along" till some extend. However, they should also not stimulate other people to commit crimes. It is a careful balance. So for example, if Alice asks Bob to make a bomb, and Bob complies (with a fake bomb), then how exactly did Bob (who works for the FBI) create a terrorist? They didn't. They caught one by pretending being one. Apart from the ability to safely catch Alice red-handed, Bob can also testify the intend of Alice. 2 in 1. Would you rather see it was Charlie who made the bomb, but then a real one? Of course not. Sometimes, this infiltration method is one of the few or the only viable way to catch a terrorist or criminal. It is not without risk though; it is high risk, high reward. Not the first option to be chosen; you want low risk, high reward options first. EDIT: in hindsight it would've been better to use different names, ie. Mallory. I leave the above as-is.

jpcosta 6y ago

You still have to prove who had the gun in the first place

NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
No, actually. Let's say that you've been given a key for a locker at Grand Central Station and told there's a gun inside. We agree that I'll use the gun to shoot someone. You give me the key and I go to collect the gun. In fact, the locker is empty. The gun doesn't even exist and yet there's still a conspiracy to commit murder.
- gamblor956 6y ago
  No, actually, you need additional steps to achieve conspiracy to commit murder in that hypothetical.
  - NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
    What's the legal basis for that? The "overt steps" are you giving me the key, and me going to the locker.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - Dylan16807 6y ago
      Does the overt act not have to further the conspiracy?
      - NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
        Yes: but don't you think that going to collect the weapon furthers the conspiracy to commit murder? There'd inevitably be argument over whether it met the required standard, which differs by jurisdiction. e.g. did it advance the conspiracy substantially? did it take the conspiracy past the point of no return?

kbenson 6y ago

It makes sense, for charges about an attempt. Presumably if you attempt to kill someone in a way that doesn't work, you may try again in a way that does later. Also, a case can probably be made that while attempted murder may not be harmful to the intended victim (in some cases), it's still harmful to society.

DoctorOetker 6y ago

it's not illegal to crack your own password hash, according to this US Gov expert witness, it's never communicated or proven what this is the hash of.

NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
That is the whole point. If Manning and Assange think that a recipe for fruit salad is a hash of a root password for some U.S. Government computer and then attempt to identify a collision for it, with the goal of allowing Manning unauthorized access: that's still conspiracy.
- DoctorOetker 6y ago
  you missed the point: what if Manning remembered his old box his own password of which he forgot, then asking this "Nathaniel Frank" does not automatically involve "Nathaniel Frank" into a conspiracy, as it is plausible Manning is asking help for non-nefarious personal reasons. It's up to the prosecution to prove that J.A. == "Nathaniel Frank" (and yes, whistleblowers have a long history of leaking to multiple players in case one or more of them are in bed with the oppressor). It's up to the prosecution to prove that "Nathanial Frank" couldn't have believed he was simply helping Manning regain access to whatever non-governmental stuff Manning has legitimate access to, and hence Manning has the right to grant others permission to crack his own hash...
  - anoncareer0212 6y ago
    *her
  - tedunangst 6y ago
    The obvious defense then would be to provide the chat log where manning says hey, I forgot the password to my laptop and really want to play some counter strike, can you help me out?
    - gamblor956 6y ago

emilfihlman 6y ago

By that logic also: "If I'm God, and we agree that I will kill everyone with my God powers, but it turns out (unbeknownst to either of us) that I'm not God, that's still conspiracy to commit murder." Promising impossibility is not a conspiracy. https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladviceofftopic/comments/6le3hy/magic_intent_and_murder/ https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladviceofftopic/comments/6le3hy...

ColanR 6y ago
Given that someone has actually been convicted of attempted murder by voodoo doll (ridiculous as that is), that reddit discussion sounds a bit like wishful thinking. https://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2004/dec/09/attempted-voodoo-first-degree/ https://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2004/dec/09/attempted-vo...
- emilfihlman 6y ago
  A) that sounds like a legend and b) low level judges are not the measure of law.
NovemberWhiskey 6y ago
I believe that what you've linked to is legally incorrect. Refer to, e.g. United States vs. Thomas: https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-united-states-v-thomas https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-u... ... which is an actual appeal court decision. The defendants were at a bar. A drunken woman collapsed. The defendants put her in their car, took her home, and had sex with her while they believed she was unconscious. In fact, the woman had died at the bar, and they had been having sex with a corpse. They could not be convicted of rape, but they could be convicted of attempted rape because they believed the woman was alive at the time. Being factually mistaken about the possibility of a crime is not a defense to a charge of attempt, conspiracy etc.
- jacobush 6y ago
  That’s slightly charitable. They believed they raped a woman, but they actually desecrated a corpse.

monoclechris 6y ago

I'm a fairly serious Assange supporter, but there are clearly lots of children here who don't understand how much intent matters.

quelsolaar 6y ago

The problem with the analogy is that committing a murder is a crime for everyone everywhere. For a US citizen who has been given classified information it may be illegal and treasonous to leak classified US information to some one who doesn't have the clearance to get access to it. But a journalist, should have the right to ask people to come forward if they have information with a public interest, even if it is classified. If someone comes forward, they may break the law, but not the journalist. Further more, Assange is not a US citizen, and is there for under no obligation to be loyal to or protect US interests or secrets. He cant by definition be treasonous again any country besides his own. If he on the other hand, provides material support to someone committing a crime, (like helping to crack a password), then he can be tried as an accomplice. This evidence seems to imply he did not.

doonesbury 6y ago
Agree. Nonetheless feds are making him pay through the legal expense and stress of deflecting these charges. What I wonder more about is our own guys: how does manning and Snowden walk out the door with this info anyway? Our search procedures apparently suck. For the record my assessment of our involvement in Iraq is not kind: we should have escalated to armed intrusion to vet wmds base by base instead of invading wholesale on the reason Iraqi's were evasive. Second torture is unamerican, not reliable, and wholly wrong. Not proud at all of what we did here. Our response before after 9/11 was incompetent.
srtjstjsj 6y ago
If his defense against treason is that he's a foreign agent attacking the US, then he'll rightly end up in a POW prison. So he needs a better defense than that
- simonh 6y ago
  It seems like he didn’t actively attack the US, he simply passed on information freely given to him by US citizens. It’s hard to see how him doing that, not being a US citizen and not being in the US, is any worse than anything hundreds of journalists do all over the world every day.

nobody9999 6y ago

>If you have a gun, and we agree that I will shoot someone with it, but it turns out (unbeknownst to either of us) that the gun has in fact been permanently deactivated ... that's still conspiracy to commit murder. IIUC, at least in the US, a charge of conspiracy requires an overt act by at least one of the conspirators[0]: "If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor." As such, in the scenario you present, unless those who discuss murder actually do something in furtherance of that discussed goal, it's not conspiracy. [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/371 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/371 N.B.: IANAL

simonh 6y ago
Well in the example they are procuring and preparing to use a gun. That’s doing an act. Incompetently perhaps because unbeknownst to the its not a functioning firearm, but they’re still acting on their intentions.
- nobody9999 6y ago
  >Well in the example they are procuring and preparing to use a gun. The example mentions a gun, but does not mention that it was procured for the purpose of committing murder. At least in the US, having a gun (there are more guns than people here) by itself isn't very remarkable. If, however, the gun was procured specifically for that purpose, it could be construed as an overt act. Alternatively, if someone retrieved the gun from a storage facility (as was suggested by another commenter) for the purposes of committing murder, that would still be an overt act. ISTR a case where a woman contracted with someone (who turned out to be police acting on a tip from the owner of a website that claimed to put folks in touch with hit men) to kill her husband[0]. Just asking someone to do so wasn't enough. The police had to get the woman to commit an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy (in that case, paying the undercover cop). [0] https://www.wxyz.com/news/monroe-county-woman-arrested-for-trying-to-hire-hitman-to-kill-her-ex-husband https://www.wxyz.com/news/monroe-county-woman-arrested-for-t...

cmiles74 6y ago

This gun and murder analogy strikes me as being in bad taste, in this instance. Julian Assange is not being accused of murder by the US government, the particular charges in this case revolves around a hash of a password and alleged attempts to compare that hash to a table of similar hashes and, possibly, finding the matching clear text password for that specific hash value. This is a far cry from conspiracy to commit murder, with our without a functional gun.

nobody9999 6y ago
Actually, that particular issue (the alleged attempt to crack a password hash) isn't covered under the Espionage Act[0]. Rather, it's a separate charge under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act[1]. And that matters because the penalties are enormously more severe for the the former than the latter. >This is a far cry from conspiracy to commit murder, with our without a functional gun. Conspiracy is defined[2] as: "If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor." As such, the example was just that, an example. Would you be less butthurt if the example was conspiracy to steal office supplies from a US Post Office, and the overt act was to bring a hand-cart to the post office in order to cart away said office supplies? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act [2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/371 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/371 Edit: Fixed grammatical error