Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Two charged with Federal brandishing in attempted carjacking. 18 USC 924(c)(1)(A)(ii)

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,147

    Two charged with Federal brandishing in attempted carjacking. 18 USC 924(c)(1)(A)(ii)

    http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/2...322939461.html

    Wisconsin may not have a brandishing statute, but the feds do.

    (A) Except to the extent that a greater minimum sentence is otherwise provided by this subsection or by any other provision of law, any person who, during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime (including a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime that provides for an enhanced punishment if committed by the use of a deadly or dangerous weapon or device) for which the person may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, uses or carries a firearm, or who, in furtherance of any such crime, possesses a firearm, shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such crime of violence or drug trafficking crime—
    [ ... ]
    (ii) if the firearm is brandished, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 7 years; and ...

    Brandishing defined, 18 USC §924(c)(4) For purposes of this subsection, the term “brandish” means, with respect to a firearm, to display all or part of the firearm, or otherwise make the presence of the firearm known to another person, in order to intimidate that person, regardless of whether the firearm is directly visible to that person.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    I must be more ignorant than usual this morning. Just what was the federal crime that was committed? Other than the fact that the feds could throw some more time at those two, why was this not a state crime?

    Brandishing defined, 18 USC §924(c)(4) For purposes of this subsection, the term “brandish” means, with respect to a firearm, to display all or part of the firearm, or otherwise make the presence of the firearm known to another person, in order to intimidate that person, regardless of whether the firearm is directly visible to that person.
    I wonder how my well-documented rant about the handgun not being a talisman would stand up against that? "Your honor, my client did not display all or part of his firearm in order to intimidate anybody. He carried it to have handy when he needed to shoot someone."

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  3. #3
    Regular Member Eeyore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    on the move
    Posts
    558

    Three possibilities...

    1. The article doesn't say whether the perps were already felons. If they were, mere possession would be a federal crime. But the article says they're charged with brandishing, not possession.

    2. Is it not a federal crime to use a firearm in commission of a felony (federal or state)? I thought that's how Project Exile worked in Richmond--convict them of the crime itself at the state level, then hit them with federal weapons charges to make sure they stayed gone for a long time.

    3. The dingbat "journalist" didn't get all the facts, or got the facts/charges wrong, or just omitted some facts/charges in editing.

    My vote is #3.
    Guns don't kill people. Drivers on cell phones do.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,147
    Most crimes, almost all, have parallels in state and federal statutes. Who catches is who charges, but usually the feds are too uppity to involve with community policing.

    My particular experience was with a meth-lab in my neighborhood in Mt. Pleasant, SC, where I was HOA prez. The home owner was convicted right away, but the chemist was first charged in federal court. He was on bail for too long with no action so the feds turned him over to the state because the state speedy trial law was stronger, quicker and tighter.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,147

    Chief Flynn: Police need more help from federal prosecutors. 27 Aug 2015

    "With Milwaukee experiencing surge in homicides this year, Milwaukee Police Chief Edward Flynn called for more collaboration between local police and federal prosecutors.

    Flynn spoke about the city's climbing homicide rate Thursday at "On the Issues" with Mike Gousha, distinguished fellow in law and public policy at Marquette University.

    http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/c...323158541.html

    Heeere's the answer!
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ellsworth Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,213
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    "With Milwaukee experiencing surge in homicides this year, Milwaukee Police Chief Edward Flynn called for more collaboration between local police and federal prosecutors.

    Flynn spoke about the city's climbing homicide rate Thursday at "On the Issues" with Mike Gousha, distinguished fellow in law and public policy at Marquette University.

    http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/c...323158541.html

    Heeere's the answer!
    The whole legal system there is kaput

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •