5 ms·
18 U.S.C. § 372 — Conspiracy to impede or injure officer If two or more persons in any State, Territory, Possession, or District conspire to prevent, by force,
by mycodendral 8mo ago
18 U.S.C. § 372 — Conspiracy to impede or injure officer
If two or more persons in any State, Territory, Possession, or District conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof, or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave the place where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties, each of such persons shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six years, or both.
Federal felony
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- nkohari 8mo ago> by force, intimidation, or threat You seem to be glossing over the key piece of that statute. Peaceful protest is protected by the first amendment (free speech, right to assembly).
- sb057 8mo agoIf you threaten to kill somebody then follow them around for days at a time, is that intimidation?
- knubie 8mo agoIntimidation, or threat at the very least seems applicable here if you have any idea of what's going on in Minnesota and what these Signal chats are being used for.
- refurb 8mo agoBlocking law enforcement's vehicles and their person (I saw several protestors put hands on officers), when they are conducting arrests, certainly seems to fit the bill.
- zahlman 8mo ago[flagged]
- nkohari 8mo agoI haven't seen the supposed Signal logs, but I'm confident that there wasn't a conspiracy to bite someone's finger.
- zahlman 8mo agoThe point is to establish that the protest has not been entirely peaceful, which raises the possibility of conspiracy covering non-protected actions. The subthread is about what they plan to charge people with, not about exactly what actually happened and whether it meets legal standards. That's what investigations and trials are for.
- VBprogrammer 8mo agoI've seen pictures of someone with a damaged finger. Given the wild differences between video evidence and what the top levels of the administration claim happen, I think a healthy degree of scepticism is warrented. Could easily have been hurt by their own flashbang devices or caught it in a car door.
- zahlman 8mo ago> I've seen pictures of someone with a damaged finger. The finger was completely removed and pictured separately. > Could easily have been hurt by their own flashbang devices or caught it in a car door. I can't fathom either of these explaining what I saw.
- mycodendral 8mo agoThis statute defines the conditions where free speech transitions to criminal activity. You can interpret it however you like.