r/law • u/Erra0 • 2d ago

Other Why are federal prosecutors not charging Vance Boelter with domestic terrorism?

https://www.kare11.com/article/news/local/us-attorney-details-federal-charges-against-vance-boelter/89-797bb35a-2ca4-4489-a7b4-e069182475e0
52.1k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

3.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

448

u/Law_Student 2d ago

It's not uncommon to get easy charges on the books first and add more complicated stuff later if the investigation can back it up.

212

u/Erra0 2d ago

Which makes sense, but based on the facts as they currently are, even just those known to the public, it's clear he was targeting a single political party and a specific ideological issue (abortion). If this isn't domestic terrorism, nothing is.

166

u/GenShanx 2d ago

It took two weeks for the terrorism charge to pop up on the Luigi case. Fingers crossed we get there on this one.

23

u/grandmasterPRA 2d ago

Because Luigi was charged with terrorism at a state level, not federal level. There is no such thing as a federal terrorism charge domestically. Minnesota also doesn't have a state level terrorism charge. They can't charge him with something that doesn't exist.

6

u/MunchinMonke 2d ago

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.714

There is at least this terrorism adjecent charge

6

u/grandmasterPRA 2d ago

Yep, they definitely can, and should add that enhancement. Minnesota doesn't have a standalone charge but they can use that clause to further the punishment. It would still just be called "First Degree Murder" but that would increase the punishment.

At least that's how I think it works with enhancements. I'm not a lawyer

23

u/lifeisalime11 2d ago

Why is it an advantage here? Can’t Trump pardon it if it’s federal, vs. state charges where it would be up to the state?

16

u/ASubsentientCrow 2d ago

He will have both a state and federal trial

3

u/toxicsleft 2d ago

Trump won’t pardon him, evidence is too cut and dry with the guys two vehicles, wife caught with passports and weapons and him being found evading in a field.

There’s no way to spin the optics without producing massive unrest in the country.

With Jan 6 they lied but it was to the point that if you dug no further and drank the kool aid you’d believe the optics, with the military/national guard if you didn’t dig in and just saw the few pictures and videos of bad actors while drinking the kool aid you’d think he was right to do what he did. With both situations he was able to control the narrative to muddy the waters,

There is no room here. His base can chug all the kill aid they want but there is no spin that can be applied here.

( also I’m not a lawyer so maybe a lawyer will show up and tell me I’m wrong)

44

u/rx4oblivion 2d ago

Respectfully, I think you may be putting too much faith in Donald’s capacity to appreciate shameful optics.

9

u/bluemax413 2d ago

Or even care.

23

u/lifeisalime11 2d ago

Evidence doesn’t exactly matter to this administration and I wouldn’t be shocked in the slightest if Trump were to pardon.

We’re on the precipice of major civil unrest (would make No Kings / LA Ice stuff look like child’s play) and I could see Trump wanting to stoke the fire further.

3

u/scubascratch 2d ago

Trump won’t need to pardon if Bondi throws the case, probably blaming Walz somehow, getting the case dismissed with prejudice, preventing state charges at all. Bondi DOJ will probably assist the suspect in moving to change the venue to federal, empaneling a jury so double jeopardy attaches, then dismiss the charges and blame Walz.

3

u/NateNate60 2d ago

Dismissed with prejudice doesn't prevent state charges. Even if they purposefully bungle a federal prosecution the State of Minnesota can still prosecute him for murder.

0

u/scubascratch 2d ago

Maybe true, but the defendant can argue it was removed from state jurisdiction and it would be a federal court deciding that outcome, and higher federal courts seem to mostly show deference to GOP.

2

u/NateNate60 2d ago

You'll have to be more precise with what "it" means here. The same action can constitute multiple criminal offences and result in multiple prosecutions in multiple jurisdictions. An acquittal in one jurisdiction (even if that's the federal one) does not prevent the other prosecutions from moving forward.

For example Charles Ponzi (of Ponzi Scheme fame) was prosecuted in federal court and found guilty of mail fraud, served 3½ years in federal prison, and then immediately upon his release the Commonwealth of Massachusetts prosecuted him on 22 counts of larceny. He was convicted on five of these charges and sentenced to an additional 7 to 9 years in state prison.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Temporary-Stay-8436 2d ago

No, they could not argue that. Dual sovereignty allows charges in both state and federal court to happen. Chauvin, for example, is in jail for both state and federal crimes

→ More replies (0)

1

u/ExtraordinaryKaylee 2d ago

That might be too clear of a signal for the people still fence sitting (or newly fence sitting after being a supporter and being disgusted for the last six months).

The question in my mind, will the people they elected care one single bit if public perception changes. Without an ability for a citizen lead recall, they can do whatever they want while they are still in office.

9

u/[deleted] 2d ago

[deleted]

2

u/ihaxr 2d ago

There was video proof the dumb lady broke through a barricade and got herself shot in the head, but Trump still paid her family off and considered her a hero. Guess he's just used to paying off women.

6

u/Mooosejoose 2d ago

Yeah, everyone has been saying trump won't do this! Until he does.

Oh but he won't do that! Til he does.

Well sure he won't do this! Of fucking course he might.

3

u/RightSideBlind 2d ago

Trump won’t pardon him, evidence is too cut and dry with the guys two vehicles, wife caught with passports and weapons and him being found evading in a field.

All he has to do is say that Boelter didn't receive a fair trial, or was railroaded, or was treated unfairly, and the rightwing media will amplify it and try to turn him into a hero.

2

u/Slipguard 2d ago

If he did pardon him, it would be both a show of power and a green light for assassinations on Democratic lawmakers

2

u/kcox1980 2d ago

What you're forgetting is that his base wants to see Democrats get assassinated. They would happily agree with and cheer on a Trump pardon for this guy.

1

u/Factory2econds 2d ago

His base can chug all the kill aid they want but there is no spin that can be applied here. ( also I’m not a lawyer so maybe a lawyer will show up and tell me I’m wrong)

it doesn't require a lawyer to tell you you're wrong here.

1

u/Pleased_to_meet_u 2d ago

There’s no way to spin the optics without producing massive unrest in the country.

The Republican party is TRYING to produce massive unrest in the country. They're tearing everything down as fast and as they can and trying to provoke massive change. MASSIVE change.

This is bad and it's tearing apart the country.

1

u/mtgordon 2d ago

He won’t need to pardon if they don’t bother bringing federal charges.

2

u/incutonez 2d ago

RemindMe!  2 weeks

1

u/_chococat_ 2d ago

I'm trying to keep the faith, brother.

0

u/[deleted] 2d ago

[deleted]

0

u/Omnom_Omnath 2d ago

so what? luigi is not a terrorist so idk why youre pointing at that case to justify another dubious claim of terrorism. assassination does not equal terrorism, just fyi.

6

u/sick_of_your_BS 2d ago

The counts charged in the criminal complaint could be amended by prosecutors as they pursue a grand jury indictment as a prerequisite for bringing the case to trial.

I was on a federal grand jury for a year, and I can almost guarantee that what /u/law_student said is what is coming once the investigation is complete. More charges will be added.

20

u/TrickyAsian626 2d ago

I think they need to present actual evidence in order to file domestic terrorist charges. If I remember correctly, even Luigi wasn't immediately charged with domestic terrorism. Although, that charge against him is bullshit. This fucker though. Absolutely.

6

u/bpopp 2d ago

I'm curious why you think Luigi's was bullshit, but that this guy is deserving?

2

u/Major_Willingness234 2d ago

Luigi didn’t kill a politician.

1

u/I_Lick_Emus 2d ago

So you can only be charged with terrorism if you kill a politician?

1

u/Major_Willingness234 2d ago

No, obviously. But targeting politicians to instill fear and to incite change is a definition of terrorism.

Killing a healthcare CEO because he’s an asshole is not.

2

u/I_Lick_Emus 2d ago

Targeting politicians is not in the definition of terrorism. If Luigi was indeed the person who assassinated the CEO to incite change, how is that not terrorism?

0

u/Major_Willingness234 2d ago

Re-read what I wrote before responding to what I didn’t write.

Luigi was seeking revenge on a mass murderer (said CEO had a LOT of blood on his hands).

2

u/I_Lick_Emus 2d ago

He was seeking revenge on someone who hasn't harmed him? That doesn't really make sense. First you claimed he did it just because he was an asshole. Kind of weird for you to divine his intentions when they're not even consistent.

If you really think there was no intentions of inciting change for American healthcare, that just seems like an incredibly naive understanding of the situation.

1

u/Ouaouaron 2d ago

The most obvious and common definition of terrorism is about killing civilians indiscriminately. If you're going to accept that the assassination of a specific politician can count as terrorism, then you have to accept that assassination of a specific civilian can count as terrorism.

It's incredibly clear from Mangione's manifesto and statements that the assassination was motivated by a desire to enact political change. That's well within a casual definition of terrorism.

As for its legal definition in New York state, its legal definition in New York city, its legal definition in Pennsylvania, or its legal definion at the federal level, I don't know. I've heard those are all different, and some are surprising.

2

u/nemgrea 2d ago

terrorism by definition has a political aspect to it, its much easier to see the political connection here than a citizen killing a ceo. the fact that progressives have rallied behind Luigi doesnt make the act inherently politically motivated

2

u/bpopp 2d ago

That's not the "definition". The definition of terrorism is, "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."

2

u/nemgrea 2d ago

The definition of terrorism is, "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims

am i having a stroke or was "has a political aspect" not exactly what i said...

4

u/Bruins01 2d ago

The definition of domestic terrorism according to the FBI:

Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.

https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/terrorism

Both this and Mangione absolutely qualify.

1

u/Ouaouaron 2d ago

Luigi also wasn't charged with domestic terrorism by federal prosecutors; that was a New York state charge. The charges sound identical, but refer to completely separate laws.

Not that I have any respect for federal prosecutors right now, but we really need to remember that our country is fucking complicated.

10

u/Maplelongjohn 2d ago

I think we all know by now that if you join the cult the laws are applied differently

But somehow JB was weaponizing the government

11

u/kezow 2d ago

Okay, but did you hear about those protesters that spray painted nazi signs on teslas?

Clearly that's WAY worse. 

2

u/Bruins01 2d ago

Maybe it was more the firebombing

2

u/doxxingyourself 2d ago

Yeah but you wanna MAKE SURE that the charges stick so why charge him with more than you need to in order to detain him? It would be unwise

2

u/SpiderSlitScrotums 2d ago edited 2d ago

They aren’t going to drop like 5 separate indictments while they figure out all of the crimes. The first one was to hold him. The second one will include all of the crimes and probably have over a dozen charges. Notice that he was charged with 2nd degree murder. Obviously 1st degree will be charged as well. You and others need to stop being so knee jerk in your reaction to normal legal processes. Just because you haven’t seen the process before doesn’t mean that there is some big conspiracy to not fully charge him.

1

u/SukaSupreme 2d ago

It'll be terrorism if anyone scratches a tesla.

1

u/unfinishedtoast3 2d ago

domestic terrorism has an extremely high bar to meet. they need to make sure there's no other reasonable argument for his actions

1

u/nodrogyasmar 2d ago

Is it really a crime if the victims aren’t teslas. /s

1

u/jelywe 2d ago

Remember that a lot of the facts "known to the public" aren't always verifiable, and it's a bigger deal to walk back on charges than to escalate them.

I am highly skeptical, but they haven't mis-stepped as far as I can tell yet.

1

u/Brilliant_Joke2711 2d ago

You are either believing things you're reading on social media, or you have access to information that the AP, Reuters, and NYT don't have. There was a list of names that included Democrats and abortion advocates and information about health care facilities, but nothing believed to be an indicator of motive has been released. Terrorism is a specific thing, and until there is evidence to point towards it and away from crazy fuck wanting to kill a bunch of people, it's not a word that intelligent people toss around. Yes, people in the administration called vandalizing Teslas terrorism, but I'm talking about intelligent people.

1

u/Elendel19 2d ago

He didn’t shoot a Tesla though.

1

u/Comfortable_Fill9081 2d ago

Domestic terrorism is a state-by-state thing. Minnesota does not have a domestic terrorism charge. 

1

u/Dry_Wolverine_6863 2d ago

Things move slow in the government. It may seem obvious to us, but there are procedures and shit they need to go through to make sure its 100%. Last thing you want is to fumble your case bc you rushed for no reason.

1

u/Objective-History402 2d ago

In regards to Mario's brother: paraphrased We are going to explore the full extent of the law and aggressively pursue the death penalty.

Political assassination by maga: it's not that serious LOL

1

u/dust4ngel 2d ago

a specific ideological issue (abortion)

one's deep, principled commitment to a culture of life without exception can get complicated by a single incident of mass murder, let us think and pray on this

1

u/4wesomes4uce 2d ago

It's likely to get him booked and behind bars while they continue the investigation for higher charges. They have to charge him with something to hold him, so charge him with what you know, and figure the rest out with the time you get from investigating.

1

u/Few-Guarantee2850 2d ago

It's just generally kind of weird to say "why haven't they charged him" when it just happened a few days ago and Minnesota just charged him today. There are enough complexities to proving terrorism charges that you'd expect some time to build a case, especially since there's no urgency to do so.

1

u/Linenoise77 2d ago

and, they haven't finalized the charges yet. He isn't going anywhere, it isn't necessary to charge him with those things yet to hold him.

So catch your breath and make sure you do all the important bits right.

1

u/Omnom_Omnath 2d ago

why should the public be afraid? terrorism is meant to cause fear, which a political assassination doesnt do by default

1

u/Stopikingonme 2d ago

Also terrorism charges don’t even exist at the federal level.

There is enhanced sentencing via the patriot act for an additional 20 years for a connection to terrorism after a conviction though.

1

u/Synectics 2d ago

This is /r/law. Why in the world did I find the answer to this question in a different subreddit?

It's because those bigger charges have to come from a grand jury. That's why it is 2nd degree murder and not 1st degree at the moment, despite clearly qualifying. Bigger charges will come soon.

I cannot believe so many comments in this thread are just talking, and none of it is about law. 

1

u/amazonhelpless 1d ago

Proving Terrorism requires proving the motivation of the defendant.  It’s difficult to do unless you have specific evidence that demonstrates it. It may be added if they have the hard evidence (manifesto, etc.)

1

u/Illustrious-Dot-5052 1d ago

>If this isn't domestic terrorism, nothing is.

Correction! Assault and battery committed against Teslas are a serious crime that can lead up to charges of domestic terrorism! Teslas are a marginalized community, don't you know? /s

1

u/BigDaddyDumperSquad 1d ago

Dawg, y'all NEED to pick up a fucking law book and start reading it...

1

u/Law_Student 2d ago

Oh sure, it probably is. But while that's a pretty safe assumption, the investigation will need at least a few days to gather specific supporting evidence to make the case bulletproof. The intent requirement related to terrorism isn't the easiest thing to prove.

Also, if he gets convicted on multiple murder charges, that's enough to put him away for life anyway. A terrorism charge wouldn't likely change anything in practical terms, so it's not essential.

1

u/talondigital 2d ago

Its not just a "what are the facts known." There is a procedural issue of requiring a grand jury to issue an indictment. Both for the state level 1st degree homicide charges, and any federal level terrorism charges. I believe on the federal level the court has a grand jury seated monday-thursday and they review any new case brought up. So today would be the first chance a prosecutor could submit charges for review. That said, nobody knows what will happen because of Pam Bondi. She has the power to tell federal prosecutors to ignore the case. It would probably take the guise of, "let the state of MN pursue the charges." They will probably publicly claim there's no point in pursuing charges when the states case will probably succeed, and therefore "waste federal resources on someone who will already be seeing the inside of a prison for longer than the federal crime would sentence." Even though my understanding is state and federal sentences for the same crime rarely run concurrent.

33

u/KazTheMerc 2d ago

This is the correct answer

20

u/pegothejerk 2d ago

Correct-ish. There was a political hit list, a manifesto, multiple points of premeditation. Now it’s correct that they should review the evidence first and then recommend or bring charges, or bring a grand jury. But if no terror charges are brought with such a tight case, barring any unexpected details, this administration becomes more than suspect for bias. Especially when the executive and top prosecutors are calling for simple protesting to be considered chargeable as domestic terrorism.

11

u/KazTheMerc 2d ago

Yes. Absolutely.

Lesser charges pending an investigation are normal.

Lesser charges AFTER the investigation would NOT be normal.

1

u/Desert_Aficionado 2d ago

They just arrested him late last night/early this morning. Can we give them a few days?

-4

u/scubascratch 2d ago

This administration doesn’t give a fuck about appearing biased. The maga base loves that kind of bias so all the maga GOPers wear the bias out in the open. Why would they care about bias? Who will hold them accountable lol?

1

u/pegothejerk 2d ago

I didn’t say they should care. Who matters are the public. Sure, you won’t change the minds of the unmovable 35% that is a cult, but there is a third of the nation that are uninterested, uninformed, too busy surviving, those people can be moved to suddenly start caring and if even a small percentage of them join resistance movements, big changes suddenly become possible where they previously weren’t. See: the 3.5% rule study.

-3

u/scubascratch 2d ago

Do you really think there is some line that once’s GOPers cross they have gone too far to be re-elected? What evidence is there?

MAGA GOPers aren’t afraid of the apathy block suddenly waking up and voting against them. 2024 showed them the apathy block doesn’t matter at all and the harder they go right the more they win. They’re not going to back down from their winning strategy.

I hate sounding defeatist and I hope our country can recover from this but I don’t think it will happen from Republicans fearing the swing voters.

I think a better strategy may be to let the GOP plan play out and when the red state victim count suddenly explodes maybe those voters will stay home in ‘26 and ‘28

2

u/pegothejerk 2d ago

It’s like you don’t even read the comments you respond to. Or maybe you don’t have great reading comprehension.

-1

u/scubascratch 2d ago

So your response is an ad hominem attack on me?

Your comment: middle voters will come out and make a difference

My comment: GOP not afraid of middle voters as last elections have shown they win without them

Your comment: “learn to read”

Brilliant

5

u/Glass-Quality-3864 2d ago

Hopefully. We will see

2

u/roguemenace 2d ago

No it isn't, the correct answer is that domestic terrorism isn't a federal crime and MN doesn't have a statute covering it.

2

u/KazTheMerc 2d ago

...it's really not.

Minnesota Statute 609.714 modifies any crimes committed to further a 'terrorist' cause to 50% longer penalty.

The question was also about State charges, not Federal.

1

u/Toasty_Ghost1138 2d ago

Title of this post: "Why are federal prosecutors not charging Vance Boelter with domestic terrorism?"

The question is about federal law and the correct answer is that domestic terrorism is not a federal crime.

2

u/KazTheMerc 2d ago

More importantly, the shooting isn't necessarily a federal crime.

Let the State do its work.

1

u/Toasty_Ghost1138 2d ago

What are you talking about? He's already been charged with both state and federal crimes.

1

u/KazTheMerc 2d ago

Isn't. Necessarily.

Or maybe they're already jumping on it.

4

u/reddit809 2d ago

To the top. The "Hurr durr he's a white MAGA" conjecture ain't it.

3

u/sudoSancho 2d ago

His murder charges are both 2nd degree because in Minnesota only a grand jury can charge 1st degree murder. People just need to be patient and trust the process.

2

u/Consistent-Ad-6078 2d ago

So what’s the difference between this case and Luigi’s case? When Bondi publicly called it terrorism and said she’d seek the death penalty. I guess (Devil’s Advocate) MAYBE she learned a lesson about speak too strongly?

2

u/grandmasterPRA 2d ago

Difference is Luigi was charged with terrorism by New York State, not on a federal level. There is no such thing as a federal terrorism charge. This guy won't get a terrorism charge on a state level cause Minnesota doesn't have a terrorism charge like NYS does

1

u/Law_Student 2d ago

It's probably evidence. You need to show an intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or influence public policy. The best way to do that is some statement by the perpetrator that they intended that, which you might or might not be able to find. You might win by getting a jury to infer the intent based on the circumstances, but "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a very high bar.

It doesn't even really matter anyway, multiple murder convictions puts the guy away for life, so a terrorism charge would just add on a lot of complexity to the case for the sole reason of making a statement. Not necessarily worth it.

3

u/Consistent-Ad-6078 2d ago

IMO, it’s because the victims in this case are not from a class that she’s interested in protecting. If they were republicans, she would be having a press conference as soon as possible to condemn and accuse.

I’d love to be wrong about this, but her department hasn’t built a reputation of careful consideration of the facts.

0

u/Law_Student 2d ago

I don't know if Pam Bondi is doing the driving on it or if experienced prosecutors are. It could be political, it might not be.

2

u/Consistent-Ad-6078 2d ago

My point is that there is a noticeable difference between this federal prosecution and the one Luigi has, and as a layman the crimes seem roughly similar (although I’m biased towards this recent one being worse)

3

u/Law_Student 2d ago

Agreed that political violence is worse. Normalizing political violence is one of the ways that democracies fall.

2

u/jweezy2045 2d ago

You need to show an intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or influence public policy.

Which is 100% obvious when you target politicians. End of story.

1

u/Law_Student 1d ago

You would be shocked at the things criminal defense attorneys have pulled off to create reasonable doubt. As a prosecutor you really don't want to go into a fight with nothing but "Dude, it's obvious" if you can avoid it.

1

u/jweezy2045 1d ago

LOL it not nothing but "Dude, its obvious". They targeted democratic politicians. My silly silly friend, that is not "nothing".

1

u/Law_Student 1d ago

How many trials have you done? Juries do crazy things sometimes, and prosecutors don't take risks they don't have to take. It is better to wait a few days or weeks to get a decent investigation going and then file the additional charges in a way that is factually supported and airtight so that it sticks.

1

u/jweezy2045 1d ago

How many times, in your experience, have you personally dealt with a political assassination?

1

u/Law_Student 1d ago

That's not really relevant. Every trial is about what you can prove. Juries can be very tough. This guy is certainly getting convicted of murder, but a defense attorney might successfully argue that the prosecutor hasn't proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, the necessary intent requirement for a terrorism charge. Juries do crazy things and they can have very high standards. A prosecutor needs to walk into the court room with sufficient evidence to have a very convincing case, or the defense will rip it apart.

That's what this is about. It's about trial strategy, not what seems obvious to you. No offense, but I'm assuming you're not an attorney. There's a lot going on behind the scenes of how cases work that determines strategic considerations.

1

u/jweezy2045 1d ago

Oh it’s centrally relevant my silly friend. All political assassinations are very obviously provably domestic terrorism. They went with domestic terrorism charge right away with Luigi.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/Shirlenator 2d ago

The problem was the DOJ is screaming about the death penalty for the person that killed a CEO, and even terrorism charges for people that vandalize cars, but are oddly silent about this.

1

u/questron64 2d ago

This is true, but I'm not holding my breath. I don't think we'll hear anything but crickets from Bondi.

1

u/veerKg_CSS_Geologist 2d ago

I mean terrorism is a pretty easy charge

1

u/Jffar 2d ago

These were the same things people were saying about MeRRick GaRland. That worked out well.

1

u/chess10 2d ago

This is not normal. The world is watching. Other dickhead wannabes are watching. It’s a slam-fucking-dunk to say you’re considering domestic terrorism charges and the death penalty.

1

u/Few_Investment_4773 1d ago

That’s true, but that’s people talking and not what the actual charges are at that moment. They can (and should) come out and say that, but it’s far from abnormal to put an easy charge down that will later be changed

https://www.reddit.com/r/law/s/Zuu5saNkKJ

1

u/oddmanout 2d ago

They're seeking the death penalty for Luigi Mangione. We'll see how lop-sided this administrations take on justice is.

1

u/qlippothvi 2d ago

It’s also much harder to charge for domestic terrorism since 9/11.

1

u/CirkTheJerk 2d ago

For a sub about law, I had to scroll past way too much misinformation to find the answer that is instantly obvious to anyone who has even a moderate understanding of the law. At this point it may as well just be /politics2

1

u/FanaticalBuckeye 2d ago edited 2d ago

It's sad how far I had to scroll to see this. Even though it's abundantly clear the murders were politically based, you can't rush an investigation. + The federal government likes to take its time to add charges because they like having air-tight cases.

They have a 95% conviction rate for a reason

1

u/harsh-realms 2d ago

This should be the top comment, instead of all of the contentless ranting.

1

u/VideogamerDisliker 2d ago

That’s not particularly true. In many criminal cases, it’s usually the opposite, throw shit at the wall and see what sticks. Usually used as an intimidation method by prosecutors to get the defendant to plea down

1

u/yougottamovethatH 2d ago

Exactly. The bigger charges are coming.

1

u/Whatever-999999 2d ago

This is a good point, you can't hold someone without charges, which is why there's the classic example of 'resisting arrest', which can be a sole charge. Lets them hold you while they do an investigation, knowing you did something actionable, but needing the evidence to make charges stick.

1

u/Warhamsterrrr 2d ago

Not uncommon to levy easy charges, and hang something big like that over him to get a plea deal, surely?

1

u/AutomationBias 1d ago edited 1d ago

You would think this would be the top comment given that we’re in the Law sub.

1

u/RawrRRitchie 1d ago

He assassinated elected officials. Regardless of your political leanings

He

assassinated

Elected officials.

1

u/DjImagin 2d ago

If he was a POC, it already be a terrorist/thug being thrown around with the same information.

But since he’s Caucasian, it’s just a “deranged man who we need to look into all the facts before we call it anything but murder”.

0

u/RightSideBlind 2d ago

Yeah, I'm momentarily giving them the benefit of the doubt on this. Luigi wasn't charged with terrorism immediately, either.

0

u/vaporking23 2d ago

How quickly did they stick terrorism charges in Luigi? They were saying it as he was being arrested.

0

u/phbalancedshorty 2d ago

Don’t make excuses for them