Collusion

[Pookie]

I applaud BOTH your research on the specific language of 18 U.S.C. § 2113 AND your application of U. S. v Hofus to the required element of a "substantial step" stipulated in the statute.

I am serious about that. You did well. And it certainly seems that the language applied by the Hofus court from its variously cited precedents supported the conclusion of a substantial step by the defendant Hofus in that case of sexual assault, including that the jury's factual determination of what constitutes a substantial step need not be unanimous.

So the only question remaining is, would that same language satisfy the substantial step required in the third element of 18 U.S.C. § 2113 in an attempted bank robbery?

Fortunately, we don't have to go far to find out. In discussing the substantial step element and extracting the language which comprised the legal standard which it applied to that element, the Hofus court cited three primary case precedents: Braxton v. United States, United States v. Acuna, and United States v. Nelson. Two of those cases were overturned on appeal in part because the substantial step requirement was not satisfied.

Hold onto your seat.

Braxton was appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court wherein a UNANIMOUS court reversed a Fourth Circuit Court sentence consistent with the "factual premise of" an attempted killing (the defendant had shot at entering police officers on the other side of a door) despite the fact that Braxton had only plead guilty to assault and not guilty to attempt to kill.

Nelson was convicted for attempting and conspiring to structure a money laundering transaction. Undercover government agents posing as drug dealers came to the car dealership where Nelson worked, proposing to buy a car with cash. Nelson suggested ways to structure the cash purchase of a car to avoid the dealership's requirement under federal law to report cash transactions over $10,000. Despite that activity, Nelson's conviction on the attempt was reversed on the basis of lack of a substantial step while his conspiracy conviction was upheld.

Acuna was a manufacture of methamphetamine case affirmed on appeal as to the substantial step.

So what, you may ask, has any of this to do with the substantial step element articulated in 18 U.S.C. § 2113?

In citing its precedent for the substantial step standard, the Nelson court cited the cases of United States v. Still and United States v. Buffington. The Acuna court also cited Buffington. Both Still and Buffington were cases where defendants were convicted of attempted bank robbery and whose convictions were overturned on appeal for lack of the substantial step. Ultimately, the legal standard for a substantial step in Still and Buffington found its way up to Acuna, Braxton and, finally, Hofus. But you're not going to like how that substantial step standard was applied in either attempted bank robbery case.

The Nelson court summarized those principles succinctly. Ready? Still sitting down?



In short, intent to commit armed robbery does NOT equate to a substantial step to attempt to commit armed robbery, and while I fully appreciate how your very excellent research led you to sincerely conclude that "going to the bank prepared to rob it" satisfies "the substantial step" mandated by 18 U.S.C. § 2113, two fundamental case law precedents serving as the foundation for that specific legal standard have held otherwise.

If you can find specific attempted bank robbery case law which clearly refutes my analysis of the substantial step standard, I would gladly reconsider my position, but I am not optimistic of your chances.

Until then, I would hope this settles the matter and would further hope, once again, that you will accept my affirmation that I should NEVER have made the analogy between attempted bank robbery and alleged violations of campaign finance or election laws or criminal conspiracies with foreign nationals to violate those laws.

It was a stupid move on my part and, if anything, I trust our discussion in just the last two or three posts emphasizes the importance of examining individual statutes and legal standards specifically germane to their potential violation INDIVIDUALLY and necessarily apart from inappropriate reliance on other statutes, cases and crimes no matter how "apparently" similar.

Thanks for your patience.

I applaud your research on the specific language of Braxton v. United States, United States v. Acuna, and United States v. Nelson as to the required element of a "substantial step" stipulated in the statute.

I am serious about that. You did well.

Hold onto your seat.

First, Braxton isn't applicable since there wasn't even an attempt to go to any bank to rob it.

Now let's deal with Nelson.

As for Buffington, from your quote: In Buffington, the defendants drove past a bank twice. One defendant entered a store nearby and observed the bank, while two others, one disguised as a woman, exited their car in the bank parking lot and focused their attention on the bank. All were armed. Nevertheless, because there was no movement toward the bank and no indication that defendants planned to enter, this court found insufficient evidence of attempted bank robbery.

The scenario is substantially different. The bank was open. The robbers made NO attempt to enter an OPEN bank, thus aborting the substantial step they had initiated. In Hogan v Pookie, the robber is at a CLOSED bank, for which he hadn't planned on. But unforeseen things typically happen during a crime. However, based on the wording of Hogan v Pookie, nothing has been aborted at this point. What the robber does after would indicate if he were going home or breaking through the bank door to continue the attempted robbery or waiting for the bank to reopen or whatever other action he may take. So I reject the use of Buffington in Hogan v Pookie.

Ready? Still sitting down?

As for Still, from your quote, A witness saw the defendant putting on a long blonde wig while sitting in his van with the motor running, about two hundred feet from a bank. The defendant put the van into reverse and drove off when the police arrived. Again, the substantial step was aborted by their choice. Again, in Hogan v Pookie, your robber is still sitting in the parking lot. He may or may not abort his robbery attempt. But the substantial step is still in play, based on your words. So I reject the use of Still in Hogan v Pookie.

In short, the two cases you can only attempt to depend on deal with attempted robberies that were aborted by the choice of the defendants, and while I fully appreciate how your very excellent research led you to sincerely conclude that "going to the bank prepared to rob it but voluntarily aborting the robbery" doesn't satisfy "the substantial step" mandated by 18 U.S.C. § 2113, your two fundamental case law precedents serving as the foundation for that specific legal standard do not apply to Hogan v Pookie.

I agree that you should've never made the analogy. You compounded that error by trying to defend it.

Thanks for your patience.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Okay. You make a great point. Obviously, the statutes you mentioned don't suffer from legal deficiency.

I was guilty of mixing analogies again. Speaking fees, financial relations between political entities with foreign nationals and the open market sale of critical metals or materials essential to national security MAY need strengthening depending on our moral outrage, but the proper handling of classified material SHOULD not. That problem was one of "prosecutorial discretion."

It is my impression that Hilly was ordered to turn over the emails to the FBI and that she destroyed 30,00 of them, taking great pains to be sure they were completely erased. This could have been considered to be destruction of evidence in an ongoing investigation, which is illegal.

 

[Lorilei]

That moment when you skim a Pookie post and you're like, "damn, I gotta go pee and grab another drink before I dive into this".

 

[mark_j]

It is my impression that Hilly was ordered to turn over the emails to the FBI and that she destroyed 30,00 of them, taking great pains to be sure they were completely erased. This could have been considered to be destruction of evidence in an ongoing investigation, which is illegal.

I guess you don't get it Box. The (D)'s don't care what Hilly may have done..

 

[Boxlicker101]

I guess you don't get it Box. The (D)'s don't care what Hilly may have done..

I know. My comment was directed to a specific poster in response to something he had said.

 

[Phelia]

Wow. I posted a derogatory opinion about the potential REAL criminal liability of Hillary Clinton. Why don't you go ahead and post the other times I've done so in those other posts of mine that you've saved and call that a "campaign."

I'm going to guess I'll still be beaten in the "flogging dead horses" category by the New York Times and The Washington Post.

Oh, the "potential REAL criminal liability" of Hillary Clinton? Remind me again what the DOJ concluded? Sorry, nope. That was you merrily speculating away based on your interpretation of the law - exactly what you've been attacking everyone else for since, oh, Trump was elected. And you've been wrong, again and again. Would you like me to find the posts where you screamed incredulously at anyone who thought Trump's original excuse for firing Comey was a crock? You know, before he went ahead and told us as much himself two days later. I don't keep these in some big file, by the way - they're just really, really easy to find because it's such obvious partisan hypocrisy.

And, as for you, just one last thing. Apparently your fixation on my TV viewing habits blinded you to the reality that my specific example of Hannity's reporting of the Ukrainian story lambasting the Clinton campaign was a HIGHLY CRITICAL CONDEMNATION of that very reporting.

But, hey, forget how I came to my contempt for Sean Hannity. How did YOU come by YOURS?

Please don't tell me you ACTUALLY WATCHED that slimy little bastard!!! Seriously, Phelia, how COULD you???!?!?!

(sure wish we could make these bigger... )

My fixation? I asked for your opinion, and you decided to bring up Hannity. And your "highly critical condemnation" consisted of a) elevating him to the status of a semi-legitimate news source in the first place, which is a fucking joke, and b) attempted to offer a justification in the same breath. Puh-lease.

If you're wondering why anyone with an IQ of over 50 (so AJ and Vette are excluded) seems to be annoyed by your legal analyses rather than falling over themselves with gratitude, it's probably because you're not nearly as objective as you think and we're exhausted of you browbeating anyone who disagrees with your dumb and clumsy conclusions.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Now let's deal with Nelson.

The scenario is substantially different. The bank was open. The robbers made NO attempt to enter an OPEN bank, thus aborting the substantial step they had initiated.


As for Still, from your quote, A witness saw the defendant putting on a long blonde wig while sitting in his van with the motor running, about two hundred feet from a bank. The defendant put the van into reverse and drove off when the police arrived. Again, the substantial step was aborted by their choice.

Based on your excellent research on 18 U.S.C. § 2113 and U. S. v. Hofus, I had hoped that effort indicated a sincere desire on your part to truly understand legal principles as laid down by appellate courts in their decisions. Like too many people I grapple with here however, it now appears I was mistaken in that belief, and that you simply want to cling to a philosophical construct of your own making in order to "win" an argument on the internet.

In the unlikely event I am wrong in that assumption, I would merely urge you to go online and read the specific text of the Nelson and Still opinions with regard to the specifics as to what both courts are saying about the requirement of a "substantial step" being necessary to CONSTITUTE AN ACTUAL "ATTEMPT" AT COMMITTING THE CRIME OF ARMED ROBBERY.

In neither case will you find the court asserting that a "substantial step" was "in progress and then aborted." That's nonsense. There's no such thing. Either the "substantial step" occurs or it doesn't occur, and once it occurs it cannot be aborted, suspended until later, taken back or whatever other fantasy you might like to entertain. Once the substantial step has taken place, the crime has been "ATTEMPTED" no matter what happens next. Period.

Both the Still and Nelson courts make it perfectly clear that the substantial step never occurred in the facts as presented before them. That is precisely WHY they reversed the convictions of the charge of ATTEMPTED ROBBERY.

Now obviously the police thought the elements for the commission of attempted robbery had taken place or they would not have arrested the suspects. And obviously the prosecutor agreed or the case would not have gone to trial. Ditto for the judge and jury. But as BOTH the Nelson and Still decisions make crystal clear, ALL of those people (and YOU) are WRONG and misapplied the law. Otherwise, the appellate courts would NOT have REVERSED the convictions. That's precisely why we have appellate courts -- to decide whether police, prosecutors, judges and juries have CORRECTLY APPLIED THE LAW.

Indeed, when the lower courts act "correctly" the appeals court AFFIRMS the lower court decision.

When the lower courts act "incorrectly" the appeals court REVERSES the lower court decision.

As for Hogan v. Pookie, the facts that I originally offered in my scenario were simply these: If a suspicious character in a mask with a gun and an incriminating note for the teller shows up at a bank two hours after its closed, is that "attempted robbery"?

I would have thought that anyone with a lick of common sense would understand that someone armed with a gun and an "incriminating note for the teller" was not intending to BREAK INTO A BANK two hours after it had closed.

I would have further thought that since most banks close at approximately 6 pm and don't reopen until the next morning, no reasonable person would assume that a potential robber is going to hang around the premises for the next 12+ hours in a continuation of a "substantial step" (which we now know according to the legal standard handed down in two relevant appellate cases would have still NOT occurred) merely for the purpose of allowing YOU to maintain a death grip on the most patently idiotic legal theory ever offered for consideration.

And I am still of that opinion. No reasonable person would postulate such an absurd set of circumstances, just as no reasonable person can read the legal standard for the required element of a substantial step to attempted robbery as written in Still and Nelson and believe for one moment that said required element can magically disappear after having previously existed in a moment of time thus substantiating that a criminal "attempt" had actually occurred but had since self-extinguished.

So....read the cases or don't. I no longer give half a shit. And it's the last time I am likely to engage you in a discussion of law.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Hogan v. Pookie

lol​

 

[JohnnySavage]

I applaud your research on the specific language of Braxton v. United States, United States v. Acuna, and United States v. Nelson as to the required element of a "substantial step" stipulated in the statute.

I am serious about that. You did well.

Hold onto your seat.

First, Braxton isn't applicable since there wasn't even an attempt to go to any bank to rob it.

Now let's deal with Nelson.

As for Buffington, from your quote: In Buffington, the defendants drove past a bank twice. One defendant entered a store nearby and observed the bank, while two others, one disguised as a woman, exited their car in the bank parking lot and focused their attention on the bank. All were armed. Nevertheless, because there was no movement toward the bank and no indication that defendants planned to enter, this court found insufficient evidence of attempted bank robbery.

The scenario is substantially different. The bank was open. The robbers made NO attempt to enter an OPEN bank, thus aborting the substantial step they had initiated. In Hogan v Pookie, the robber is at a CLOSED bank, for which he hadn't planned on. But unforeseen things typically happen during a crime. However, based on the wording of Hogan v Pookie, nothing has been aborted at this point. What the robber does after would indicate if he were going home or breaking through the bank door to continue the attempted robbery or waiting for the bank to reopen or whatever other action he may take. So I reject the use of Buffington in Hogan v Pookie.

Ready? Still sitting down?

As for Still, from your quote, A witness saw the defendant putting on a long blonde wig while sitting in his van with the motor running, about two hundred feet from a bank. The defendant put the van into reverse and drove off when the police arrived. Again, the substantial step was aborted by their choice. Again, in Hogan v Pookie, your robber is still sitting in the parking lot. He may or may not abort his robbery attempt. But the substantial step is still in play, based on your words. So I reject the use of Still in Hogan v Pookie.

In short, the two cases you can only attempt to depend on deal with attempted robberies that were aborted by the choice of the defendants, and while I fully appreciate how your very excellent research led you to sincerely conclude that "going to the bank prepared to rob it but voluntarily aborting the robbery" doesn't satisfy "the substantial step" mandated by 18 U.S.C. § 2113, your two fundamental case law precedents serving as the foundation for that specific legal standard do not apply to Hogan v Pookie.

I agree that you should've never made the analogy. You compounded that error by trying to defend it.

Thanks for your patience.

I'd like to bang your brains out. And I mean that in the most complimentary way.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

You want to face-fuck her?

 

[JohnnySavage]

You want to face-fuck her?

Well, duh! That's step 4 on my love script.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

lol...

 

[Pookie]

Based on your excellent research on 18 U.S.C. § 2113 and U. S. v. Hofus, I had hoped that effort indicated a sincere desire on your part to truly understand legal principles as laid down by appellate courts in their decisions. Like too many people I grapple with here however, it now appears I was mistaken in that belief, and that you simply want to cling to a philosophical construct of your own making in order to "win" an argument on the internet.

In the unlikely event I am wrong in that assumption, I would merely urge you to go online and read the specific text of the Nelson and Still opinions with regard to the specifics as to what both courts are saying about the requirement of a "substantial step" being necessary to CONSTITUTE AN ACTUAL "ATTEMPT" AT COMMITTING THE CRIME OF ARMED ROBBERY.

In neither case will you find the court asserting that a "substantial step" was "in progress and then aborted." That's nonsense. There's no such thing. Either the "substantial step" occurs or it doesn't occur, and once it occurs it cannot be aborted, suspended until later, taken back or whatever other fantasy you might like to entertain. Once the substantial step has taken place, the crime has been "ATTEMPTED" no matter what happens next. Period.

Both the Still and Nelson courts make it perfectly clear that the substantial step never occurred in the facts as presented before them. That is precisely WHY they reversed the convictions of the charge of ATTEMPTED ROBBERY.

Now obviously the police thought the elements for the commission of attempted robbery had taken place or they would not have arrested the suspects. And obviously the prosecutor agreed or the case would not have gone to trial. Ditto for the judge and jury. But as BOTH the Nelson and Still decisions make crystal clear, ALL of those people (and YOU) are WRONG and misapplied the law. Otherwise, the appellate courts would NOT have REVERSED the convictions. That's precisely why we have appellate courts -- to decide whether police, prosecutors, judges and juries have CORRECTLY APPLIED THE LAW.

Indeed, when the lower courts act "correctly" the appeals court AFFIRMS the lower court decision.

When the lower courts act "incorrectly" the appeals court REVERSES the lower court decision.

As for Hogan v. Pookie, the facts that I originally offered in my scenario were simply these: If a suspicious character in a mask with a gun and an incriminating note for the teller shows up at a bank two hours after its closed, is that "attempted robbery"?

I would have thought that anyone with a lick of common sense would understand that someone armed with a gun and an "incriminating note for the teller" was not intending to BREAK INTO A BANK two hours after it had closed.

I would have further thought that since most banks close at approximately 6 pm and don't reopen until the next morning, no reasonable person would assume that a potential robber is going to hang around the premises for the next 12+ hours in a continuation of a "substantial step" (which we now know according to the legal standard handed down in two relevant appellate cases would have still NOT occurred) merely for the purpose of allowing YOU to maintain a death grip on the most patently idiotic legal theory ever offered for consideration.

And I am still of that opinion. No reasonable person would postulate such an absurd set of circumstances, just as no reasonable person can read the legal standard for the required element of a substantial step to attempted robbery as written in Still and Nelson and believe for one moment that said required element can magically disappear after having previously existed in a moment of time thus substantiating that a criminal "attempt" had actually occurred but had since self-extinguished.

So....read the cases or don't. I no longer give half a shit. And it's the last time I am likely to engage you in a discussion of law.

The substantial steps never occurred because they were aborted. It may not be phrased in that manner or stated at all, but the result is the same. They aborted the robbery before a substantial step was completed. Simple as that. A substantial step didn't occur because it was ceased by the robber.

As to preparing for an open bank and then encountering a closed one, the robber either waits for the bank to open (which could be as little as minutes in your scenario), or change method and break In through the door, etc. Your scenario doesn't negate the possibilty because it was a fucked analogy.

You obviously think a lot of yourself. What I see is a lot of sophomoric posturing, logical fallacies, and bluster mixed in with good research. It's a shame you take that approach, but it is what it is. The post got the reply it deserved. It's why I mockingly replied to it the way I did. Your arrogant, condescending and snotty attitude got what it deserved..

Your analogy was fucked. You admitted it yourself, but continued to dive headfirst into defending it. I would have thought that anyone with a lick of common sense would stop trying to defend it. But your conceit and self-importance wouldnt allow it. I suggest you finally let it go. Or not. Your choice. I'll be happy to cater to either.

A quote of yours from your post - "you simply want to cling to a philosophical construct of your own making in order to 'win' an argument on the internet".

Oh, the irony.

Engage me or not. *shrugs*

 

[Pookie]

I'd like to bang your brains out. And I mean that in the most complimentary way.

Given my killa nature, the idea of banging brains out in any sense of it gets me all wet.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

You are all wet.


On this, we agree...

 

[Pookie]

You are all wet.


On this, we agree...

Since this is just 1 of 500 posts you'll make today, it's hard for me to get excited about it. *shrugs*

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

125 tops...

 

[contrifan32]

You are all wet.


On this, we agree...

Nothing but net

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Nothing but net

tee hee

 

[RobDownSouth]

125 tops...

edited:
115 posts by you alone so far today. Looks like a slamdunk victory for your "Post Quantity" team over your hated "Post Quality" opponents.

Ten more, chief you can DO THIS!

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson abruptly canceled his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, scheduled for July 19, after the firm was linked to the Trump Jr.-Veselnitskaya meeting.

Fusion GPS associate Rob Goldstone arranged the June 2016 meeting which included Trump Jr., former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, Jared Kushner, Veselnitskaya and Fusion GPS associate Rinat Akhmetshin.

http://www.worldtribune.com/who-is-...ups-fingerprints-all-over-russia-controversy/


We have even more collusion...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Did John McCain and a controversial D.C. lobbying group conspire to get the infamous "pee dossier" into the hands of the press?

A lawsuit making its way through court in the UK hopes to determine just what role the senator and his associates had in making the lurid dossier public.

New filings in the lawsuit, obtained by McClatchy, detail how David Kramer—employed by the nonprofit and purportedly non-political McCain Institute—acted as a representative of McCain in the Arizona senator's dealings on sensitive intelligence measures. It also reveals that McCain was one of a just few people with whom the dossier's author, ex-British spy Christopher Steele, shared a copy of his final findings. So how did they get from there to publication in Buzzfeed?

One possible—and intriguing—pathway lies with Orion Strategies, a group known for using the media and the McCain machinery to lobby on behalf of foreign governments. While the Steele suit doesn't mention Orion, a closer look at the two-man lobbying shop showcases too-close-for-comfort ties to many principal players in the dossier's leak and a long history of influencing McCain policy and press coverage when it comes to Russia-related issues.

http://reason.com/blog/2017/07/16/mccain-and-the-trump-russia-dossier



*chuckle*


And clueless Perg want to know why the NRO was dumping on Trump last week when they've been dumping on his since the first debate. He should read some of the stuff that Kevin D. Williamson wrote, stuff that would make even John Podesta blush...

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Too much is being made of the legality and impeachability. Argue it if you want but Mueller has the last word on criminality and the Congress on the action to take as a result.

The fact is the son of the President was open to willing to engage with a foreign adversary to influence the election. That makes him a complete piece of shit and it makes anyone complicit complete pieces of shit that I for one want to have nothing to do with the affairs of state.

And if you think Trump did not know about it you are fooling yourself. He is a bigger piece of shit than his son.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Your analogy was fucked. You admitted it yourself, but continued to dive headfirst into defending it. I would have thought that anyone with a lick of common sense would stop trying to defend it. But your conceit and self-importance wouldnt allow it. I suggest you finally let it go. Or not. Your choice. I'll be happy to cater to either.

I'm not DEFENDING MY GODDAMNED FUCKING ANALOGY!!!

I am simply telling you that, based on the exceedingly clear appellate decisions of two different U. S. Circuit Courts, your insistence that the "substantial step" NECESSARY to support the arrest, trial and conviction on a charge of "ATTEMPTED" ROBBERY cannot take place and then be "aborted."

Your conviction that the "The substantial steps never occurred..." because they were "aborted," "ceased" or "incomplete" is a linguistic confusion with the " MERE PREPARATION" distinction from the "Manual of Modal Criminal Jury Instructions" from Ninth Circuit Court WHICH YOU ADMIRABLY DISCOVERED AND SHARED WITH US, remember?

First, the defendant intended to use force or intimidation to take money that belonged to [specify financial institution];

Second, the deposits of [specify financial institution] were then insured by the [Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation] [National Credit Union Administration Board]; and

Third, the defendant did something that was a substantial step toward committing the crime.

Mere preparation is not a substantial step toward the committing the crime. To constitute a substantial step, a defendant’s act or actions must demonstrate that the crime will take place unless interrupted by independent circumstances.

http://www3.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/node/624

But even by your own reasoning, if a "substantial step" "never occurred" FOR WHATEVER REASON, then the the CRIME of "ATTEMPTED" robbery did NOT occur for lack of that very requirement.

BOTH "mere preparation" and a "substantial step" are overt acts, the qualifying characteristics of EACH being well within the realm of reasonable disagreement between reasonable people. That easily explains why the suspects in Still and Buffington were arrested, tried and convicted.

What is not subject to debate is the substantive legal holding both Still and Buffington HELD -- and that is that all of those incriminating facts of casing the bank, arming themselves, and donning blonde wigs, were "mere preparation" and were NOT THE OPERATIVE LEGAL DEFINITION OF A "SUBSTANTIAL STEP." BOTH cases were a reversal by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, by the way, so I'm pretty sure they correctly applied the principles behind their OWN jury instructions you were kind enough to provide.

I apologize if it seems to you that I am scathingly criticizing your intuitive judgement about what CONSTITUTES "mere preparation" versus a "substantial step." That is NOT my intent at all. I freely admit that these distinctions are confusing and counterintuitive. Personally, I was shocked when I read the facts in Braxton that shooting into a door at which police officers stood on the other side did not "qualify" as a substantial step supporting a charge of attempted murder. But that is indisputably what the Supreme Court held. And one does not have to be a lawyer to understand that.

This is not about me and you. And my outrage is NEVER about my "superior" reading of the law or analysis of the law over that of other persons.

Your guess about what an appellate court is going to do or should do in an upcoming case based on current law is every bit as good as mine.

My prickly sensitivities are only brought to the fore AFTER those courts issue their rulings and people still maintain that their personal legal biases which have been repudiated are still in tact.

Only this and nothing more.







(Edited to add: in the post above I made an erroneous reference to the case of US v. Nelson. Nelson was not a bank robbery case. The correct reference should have been Buffington and has now been corrected.

 

[Pookie]

I'm not DEFENDING MY GODDAMNED FUCKING ANALOGY!!!

I am simply telling you that, based on the exceedingly clear appellate decisions of two different U. S. Circuit Courts, your insistence that the "substantial step" NECESSARY to support the arrest, trial and conviction on a charge of "ATTEMPTED" ROBBERY cannot take place and then be "aborted."

Your conviction that the "The substantial steps never occurred..." because they were "aborted," "ceased" or "incomplete" is a linguistic confusion with the " MERE PREPARATION" distinction from the "Manual of Modal Criminal Jury Instructions" from Ninth Circuit Court WHICH YOU ADMIRABLY DISCOVERED AND SHARED WITH US, remember?

There is no linguistic confusion. My position is it can be "STARTED" and then "ABORTED" while "IN PROGRESS", thus what could have been a substantial step never actually occurring in the eyes of the Court, which is what happened in those two cases and caused them to be overturned. If the robbers in the one case had not stopped, but instead CONTINUED toward the bank, my bet is the conviction stands.

But even by your own reasoning, if a "substantial step" "never occurred" FOR WHATEVER REASON, then the the CRIME of "ATTEMPTED" robbery did NOT occur for lack of that very requirement.

But in your fucked up analogy, the substantial step had NOT been ABORTED. You left it IN PROGRESS. You left us with a cliffhanger. He's in the process of carrying out a robbery. You took him all the way to the bank to discover the bank closed. What occurs next? Does he lie in wait behind a bush near the door? Attempt to break down the door somehow? Grab the bank manager who could possible walk up to the door at that moment? Do you have the cops knowing his plan and coming out of hiding and arresting him at that moment or as he approaches the bank door with or without a tire iron he might get from the trunk of his car? Or some other suspenseful action? Or does he simply abort the robbery attempt at that point by putting the car in drive and going home? Aborting a robbery doesn't mean he had not begun a substantial step with the cops possibly intervening. We're left to wonder and speculate. You left us hanging in YOUR drama ... that you just can't let go of. The suspense is just how the robber continues. Maybe you'll tell us how it goes sometime.

BOTH "mere preparation" and a "substantial step" are overt acts, the qualifying characteristics of EACH being well within the realm of reasonable disagreement between reasonable people. That easily explains why the suspects in Still and Nelson were arrested, tried and convicted.

Agreed, and nothing about it effects my description of what occurred in Hogan v Pookie.

What is not subject to debate is the substantive legal holding both Still and Nelson HELD -- and that is that all of those incriminating facts of casing the bank, arming themselves, and donning blonde wigs, were "mere preparation" and were NOT THE OPERATIVE LEGAL DEFINITION OF A "SUBSTANTIAL STEP." The Nelson case was a reversal by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, by the way, so I'm pretty sure they correctly applied the principles behind their OWN jury instructions you were kind enough to provide.

I agree that "mere preparation" isn't a substantial step. You left out that they aborted the robbery attempt. Your analogy gave us a robber having gone to the bank PREPARED to rob it, and then leaving us in suspense with a cliffhanger. The substantial step is IN PROGRESS in your fucked up analogy that you JUST CAN"T LET GO OF because Pookie can't be correct and you incorrect with a self-admitted fucked up analogy. That's the REAL issue going on with this.

I apologize if it seems to you that I am scathingly criticizing your intuitive judgement about what CONSTITUTES "mere preparation" versus a "substantial step." That is NOT my intent at all. I freely admit that these distinctions are confusing and counterintuitive. Personally, I was shocked when I read the facts in Braxton that shooting into a door at which police officers stood on the other side did not "qualify" as a substantial step supporting a charge of attempted murder. But that is indisputably what the Supreme Court held. And one does not have to be a lawyer to understand that.

This is not about me and you. And my outrage is NEVER about my "superior" reading of the law or analysis of the law over that of other persons.

Your guess about what an appellate court is going to do or should do in an upcoming case based on current law is every bit as good as mine.

My prickly sensitivities are only brought to the fore AFTER those courts issue their rulings and people still maintain that their personal legal biases which have been repudiated are still in tact.

Only this and nothing more.

My "intuitive judgement about what CONSTITUTES 'mere preparation' versus a 'substantial step'" is of your own creation based on your bizarre view that an in progress step left as a cliff hanger JUST CAN'T BE an in progress substantial step left in suspense. OBLIGATORY BOLD CAPITALIZED TEXT ADDED TO SHOW I'M CORRECT.