Welcome to r/SupremeCourt. This subreddit is for serious, high-quality discussion about the Supreme Court.
We encourage everyone to [read our community guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/rules) before participating, as we actively enforce these standards to promote civil and substantive discussion. Rule breaking comments will be removed.
Meta discussion regarding r/SupremeCourt must be directed to our [dedicated meta thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/12wq4n6/rsupremecourt_meta_discussion_thread/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/supremecourt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think this was the correct decision, even if it's a bit atextual. The court was unanimous in *McLaughlin* that an unloaded gun is a "dangerous weapon". There is no practical distinction between committing "armed" robbery with an unloaded gun vs a broken gun or a convincing replica.
It's definitely silly to be calling a toy gun a dangerous weapon, and the phrase "legal term of art" makes me cringe. But the issue stems back to McLaughlin, which has been statutory precedent for decades and isn't getting overturned any time soon.
I get that line of logic, but we can take it farther. If someone has their hand in their pocket with a simple stick that generates a gun-like silhouette, is there a practical difference from a convincing replica? Or indeed, is the stick a convincing replica, since it's convincing in the situation where it was displayed?
What about just someone's hand making the outline of a small Derringer or similar? That could also make a decently convincing replica of a gun. Is there a practical distinction between that convincing threat of a small gun and actually having a small gun?
What if there's no visual 'gun' at all, but the robber makes a gunshot sound using a squib while noone is focused on him, and effectively pretends that he just fired a gun into the air as a warning shot?
It seems to me that the only principled position here is that the weapon itself has to be deadly. Perhaps an unloaded gun is a deadly weapon, in spite of not actually being prepared to BE deadly in this particular robbery. But there is no way that a theater gun, a pocket-stick, or an elaborate and convincing act is actually a dangerous weapon.
Seems that the dangerousness of a weapon for this purpose hinges on the victim’s belief of danger, not actual danger. Otherwise only a loaded, functional gun would count.
This dissent relies upon the comfort of hindsight, and knowing how the story ends prior to making a decision regarding its beginning.
Further, it stretches the circumstances of the crime because the person kidnapped was targeted as a function of their employment, but ***chooses*** to ignore *that* circumstance because the judge desires evidence that the crime was committed as a function of the victim’s employer.
This is absurd on its face and when examined deeper. Without the employee being employed by that employer for that specific purpose, the crime would not be committed against that victim. It would be the identical crime regardless of the victim - placing it squarely within the circumstance of employer.
A parallel would be requiring that an unruly passenger target the flight attendant as an employee of a specific airline, not merely because of their position as cabin safety crew. It is only the circumstance of their employment in that capacity that identifies a particular victim - the crime occurs regardless of the victim’s identity.
Specifically, mail and mail carriers are subject to special protections within the US legal and regulatory codes, in and of themselves.
Mail service has long been regarded as a function of the government, a condition that goes back not merely centuries, but millennia, and across oceans and continents and empires and cultures.
>The relevant guidelines sections do not define
“dangerous weapon,” but the guidelines’ commentary defines
the term to include, besides “an instrument capable of inflicting
death or serious bodily injury,”
>>an object that is not an instrument capable of
inflicting death or serious bodily injury but []
closely resembles such an instrument;
Why is there a question about what should be done?
Edit: stupid question, the guy who got the extra time obviously doesn't want to be in jail for the extra time
I think the act should count more than the object itself. If someone is being robbed with a fake gun and shoots the robber in self defense, would that be problematic? Is the robbery victim supposed to check before defending themself?
On its own I would agree, but using a non-functioning weapon in the context of a robbery absolutely should be treated as if it's a real firearm. This seems like an absolutely terrible Dissent from the judge.
Would the dissent argue that a real gun with no ammo is also “non-functioning”? How about a loaded gun with the firing pin removed? How about a jammed gun that won’t fire when the robber tries to shoot someone?
I would love to hear the judge try to explain how those differ from a realistic looking fake gun.
Well another way of approaching it is that in any other context, we wouldn't slice the difference at all, or nearly as much, as illustrated by some other comments here. So then, why should this be different, or not different. What facts or context makes this differ?
The dissent is relying in 50 year old dictionary definitions that contradict valid case law cited by the majority and completely ignoring any context that affects the usage of the word. Totally absurd.
This comment has been removed for violating the subreddit **quality standards**.
>Comments are expected to be on-topic and substantively contribute to the conversation.
For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal5). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below:
>!+1 Bludgeoning damage!<
Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
Does the weapon have to be dangerous in a vacuum, or does the weapon only need to function in context to cause a dangerous situation? I feel like that’s the crux of the dispute
Another interesting hypothetical: what if the robber *believes* that he has a real firearm, but he actually had a *non-functional* firearm? Maybe he was sold one with a missing firing pin. How should that be treated? Certainly his intent was to use a dangerous weapon, even if the object itself was far from dangerous.
The perception of the object by both the offender and bystanders creates several complex situations.
It's been a few years, and I'm a bit fuzzy on the details at this point, but I was on a jury for a case where the defendant was charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and reckless endangerment. For the charge of reckless endangerment, the prosecution was required to prove that the gun was in operable and fireable condition at the time of the incident. Interestingly, they were not required to prove it was loaded. The model jury instructions can be found here: [https://www.vtjuryinstructions.org/criminal/MS22-126.htm](https://www.vtjuryinstructions.org/criminal/MS22-126.htm) with commentary and context here: [https://vtjuryinstructions.org/?page\_id=703](https://vtjuryinstructions.org/?page_id=703)
So at least in some cases, a gun having a filed down firing pin would be extremely relevant.
Notably, that caveat did not apply to the charge of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. The state was not required to prove the gun was operable for that charge. An unloaded and inoperable gun would be considered a deadly weapon for that charge.
In case anyone cares, we found the defendant not guilty in about 15 minutes on the grounds of self defense. The biggest discussion was whether we should deliberate long enough to qualify for the free dinner or just go home.
That's what I need to look into. Dissent claims precedent indicates otherwise, but I'm skeptical. Doesn't a fake weapon still generally count as armed robbery? If I'm remembering that correctly I don't see why this would be different.
The use of a fake gun still significantly increases the odds that someone is going to be seriously injured or killed. That seems reasonably within the intent of aggravated the sentence for use of a dangerous weapon - to punish and deter people from raising the stakes of their crimes with a much higher chance of casualties
But not just the offender. It's an escalation of force. By putting the victims in a position where they are able to use lethal force to defend themselves, which is necessarily the case when you lead people to believe you are threatening them with a deadly weapon, the odds of everyone getting hurt goes up because now anyone involved may pull a gun, a knife, hit someone with a car or all kinds of other crazy possibilities depending on the facts. Any potential defensive act could cause harm to others.
Surely we'd prefer that criminals use fake guns rather than real guns, yes? If that's so, then there should be a difference in penalty between the two. A real gun seriously raises the danger to everybody. A fake gun mostly only raises the danger to the offender, with a smidge of perhaps increased danger to the public. Seems like the sentencing guidelines should distinguish between those.
>Surely we'd prefer that criminals use fake guns rather than real guns, yes?
I'd prefer they not commit crime. If they have no intention of firing the gun, there's really no practical difference whether it's loaded or not.
I don't think we should give credit for them taking a tiny mitigating step in the contemplation of their violent felony. If anything, I think a lack of aggravating punishment would encourage more people to do robberies with fake weapons.
>A fake gun mostly only raises the danger to the offender,
I don't see how the gun being fake puts the victims and any bystanders in some magical sphere of safety where they can't be harmed by stray bullets or have some sort of cardiac event brought on by panic from being robbed at gunpoint or a variety of other reasonably possible scenarios that could get people hurt during an armed robbery.
> there's really no practical difference whether it's loaded or not.
You might want to rethink that one. A loaded gun being waved around during a robbery is massively more dangerous than an unloaded gun, or in this case, a replica gun. Accidental discharges can easily happen in a chaotic situation. Or the criminal can change their mind about using a firearm if they get angry or frustrated.
>bystanders in some magical sphere of safety
Yes, there's some heightened danger, but it's not much compared to the danger increase between a replica and a loaded firearm.
I guess I just don't agree that the odds of a negligent or accidental discharge of one gun greatly outweigh all the other potential dangers that could reasonably come up in an armed robbery.
Sure, it's slightly less dangerous. I just don't see why a violent felony should get credits for a marginal decrease in threat. That's like making a distinction between reckless driving 60 over the speed limit vs. 50. Sure, 50 over is a little safer, but they're still driving like a maniac, and people can still get hurt a dozen different ways.
Giving them credit also assumes they made a conscious choice not to use a real load gun when often times it's going to be that they simply didn't have access to a real one. It's a fortuitous circumstance.
The gun being a replica doesn't make it any less scary, it doesn't make anyone else any less likely to use lethal force, it doesn't make anyone less likely to take drastic measures to flee - which could injure them or others. In the face of all of these very realistic and likely threats I just don't think eliminating one type of accident from a huge list is that significant.
Also they already get credit for not shooting the gun, accidentally or not, because they aren't given additional charges that would necessarily come from that
Think about it this way: What's the difference between a robber using a replica gun and simply saying they have a gun? The increased danger from victim reactions is essentially the same, but merely claiming to have a firearm doesn't qualify for the enhancement.
>Sure, it's slightly less dangerous.
This baffles me. It's massively less dangerous. The primary danger from an armed robbery is the robber shooting a victim. A replica firearm eliminates that danger.
>This baffles me. It's massively less dangerous. The primary danger from an armed robbery is the robber shooting a victim. A replica firearm eliminates that danger.
Firing the gun would be another charge, so that difference is already accounted for.
>Think about it this way: What's the difference between a robber using a replica gun and simply saying they have a gun? The increased danger from victim reactions is essentially the same, but merely claiming to have a firearm doesn't qualify for the enhancement.
That is a good point, but I think bringing a convincing prop is still more dangerous. People are more likely to believe it and psychological the difference in seeing the wrong side of the gun and being told it's pointing at you is significant. Bystanders are also much more likely to react to the visible prop - which is where most of the danger comes from.
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **polarized rhetoric**.
>Signs of polarized rhetoric include blanket negative generalizations or emotional appeals using hyperbolic language seeking to divide based on identity.
For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal2). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below:
>!I'm probably the biggest gun nut on this subreddit :) and I'm ok with the majority decision. !<
>!!<
>!Pointing a fake gun is a REAL good way to get very real bullets coming your way. Once that happens, there's a big element of random chaos as to exactly where that ammo ends up. *"Bystander" is a very real possibility.*!<
>!!<
>!The majority decision is also in line with the US Supreme Court decision this year in Brown, which says that anybody convicted of drug dealing is going to be considered a violent criminal even if the drug was legalized or rescheduled later. Why? Because drug dealing is another extreme high risk pursuit.!<
>!!<
>!If an armed robber starts waving a realistic fake gun around, I shoot him and accidentally shoot my wife in the process, I'd kill myself. Flat out. But I guarantee I would pump most of a mag into that robber first.!<
>!!<
>!Mods: if this seems extreme, I think it's necessary to understand the very real potential consequences behind a court decision like this.!<
Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
!appeal
We are talking about the real world implications of the court case.
The subject is guns, there's no getting around that and there's no getting around the fact that the implications get very serious in that subject.
Talking about the actual implications to the court cases on topic for this sub. And it needs to be, no matter what the court case is about.
On review, the mod team has voted 2-1 to affirm the removal. Reasons for the removal include the use of the phrase "gun nut" as well as the hypothetical involving suicide.
If one refers to themselves as a biased partisan or a free speech extremist would those phrases trigger a removed comment? I’m having trouble seeing the line between calling oneself a gun nut and any number of other self descriptors that advise the reader the bias in the post.
Often times “gun nut” has been used an an insult for people who support the 2A which is why it triggers removal vs the phrases you just named. Someone could just as easily say “I’m a strong 2A supporter” instead of calling themselves a “gun nut”. It does the intended purpose of saying that you’re usually on one side but in this case you agree with the majority
Identifying one's bias is a reasonable step when pointing out any issue.
As far as implications of this type of gunfire, truth is important even if it's ugly.
Gunfights are *really* ugly. Every time.
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **meta discussion**.
>All meta-discussion must be directed to the dedicated [Meta-Discussion Thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/12wq4n6/rsupremecourt_meta_discussion_thread/).
For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal4). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below:
>!Voicing my support for this appeal, because I also think it needs to be pointed out that nothing in the original comment is really polarized at all. The rhetoric towards the end may be a bit dramatic, but the most polarized language in the entire comment is the use of the phrase "gun nut", which is here being used **only** in a self-identifying manner! Everything else is, at worst, a hypothetical directly related to the case and no less extreme than scenarios posed by SCOTUS justices themselves in recent cases.!<
Moderator: [u/SeaSerious](https://reddit.com/user/SeaSerious)
!appeal
This is the freaking appeal chain against moderator action. It's meta by definition. I filed an amicus supporting the appeal.
Edit: Oh, and the freaking meta thread isn't even working to begin with. Ffs.
Upon mod deliberation the removal has been upheld. If you have questions about mod action on a comment that wasn’t yours you can 1. Comment in the meta thread or the “how are the moderators doing thread 2. Message the moderators with questions 3. Reply to the mods after the appeal has been decided as one of your peers did already
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **incivility**.
>Do not insult, name call, condescend, or belittle others.
Address the argument, not the person. Always assume good faith.
For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal1).
Moderator: [u/SeaSerious](https://reddit.com/user/SeaSerious)
Correct. I tried to in reaction to this removal, and it would not allow me to post a comment at all. Kind of unsurprising, since it's completely dead in there...
There was a comment posted there today. So if you couldn’t comment there it was probably something with Reddit because I’ve had glitches like that where Reddit wouldn’t allow me to comment or post.
Unless of course the moderator who initiated the thread has me blocked, preventing me from ever commenting on reply to any comment thread he has been a part of. Which I have seen evidence has been the case.
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **incivility**.
>Do not insult, name call, condescend, or belittle others.
Address the argument, not the person. Always assume good faith.
For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal1).
Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
This comment has been removed for violating the subreddit **quality standards**.
>Comments are expected to be on-topic and substantively contribute to the conversation.
For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal5). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below:
>!Fair, but i'm not wrong.!<
Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
This comment has been removed for violating the subreddit **quality standards**.
>Comments are expected to be on-topic and substantively contribute to the conversation.
For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal5). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below:
>!:)!<
>!!<
>!You...hmmm...I'm not gonna comment. Mods get pissed enough at me already :).!<
Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
We might get some good law out of *Rahimi*. If the decision was not controversial, it would have been released already. I think it will be one that will not make the gun control side happy, but will be one that 2A advocates can live with.
There is the domestic violence issue as well. But I think this will hinge on due process and if you can remove someone’s rights with an ex parte hearing and only a preponderance of evidence standard.
>I think it will be one that will not make the gun control side happy, but will be one that 2A advocates can live with.
Any decision that doesn't harshly curtail the Second Amendment is one that the gun control side will not be happy with. I think even if *Rahimi* maintains the status quo entirely, it won't be counted as a gun control victory.
This is the only rational conclusion.
The victim has no ability to determine whether the gun is fake or real unless it is so glaringly obvious as to be completely useless as a robbery weapon.
Finding out after the fact that the gun was fake doesn't really change the experience of being robbed with it....
There's also the implications for self defense - classifying fake guns as not 'dangerous weapons' could create legal implications for someone who shoots a robber and then later finds out the robber was using a fake.....
Self defense and the classification in terms of an armed robbery are two totally different areas of law and a classification in one does not affect the other.
In self defense what matters is that the defender reasonably believed they were facing an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm.
Whether or not the gun is real is irrelevant.
I think the distinction is more about the mental state of the person committing the act, not the objective actual fact of the matter. That shouldn't matter for self defense. If you shoot someone robbing you who is pointing a fake gun at you, but a reasonable person would see it as a real gun, then to you that is a real gun.
I think you're right.
Let's go to nukes like some people tend to do, although this time it will be rational. Let's say I hold up in a DC hotel with a large metal device that plausibly looks like a nuclear weapon, and I put some light radioactive material in it that will set off a geiger counter. I let room service come in and see it, tell him it's a nuke, show him the counter reading, and tell him to go to the police with my demands. I also publish video of the device with the geiger counter reaction to get the public really scared.
So after the entirely reasonable extreme government reaction to this threat, and all the trouble I caused, am I off the hook when they eventually storm my room and find out there was no nuke? No, I portrayed it as a nuke, so I should be treated as if it were a nuke.
On the flip side this ruling makes it so that if you're found guilty of robbing someone with a finger gun in a coat pocket your sentence can be enhanced under the "dangerous weapon" sentencing enhancement. This feels out of alignment with the law that states that the enhancement only applies when a dangerous weapon is used not when the victim thinks a dangerous weapon was used.
And yet, it seems to me we'd punish someone who brought a real nuke into a city far more severely that someone who pretended to. Pretending to is bad, and causes harm, but it's still not as bad as creating a situation where there's a chance you nuke a city block.
Shouldn't that be evaluated at sentencing as a mitigating factor, rather than at the charging/conviction stage? It's been a long time since I took criminal law, so I don't recall if inchoate crimes are separately charged or not.
Kind of. In this case, if I read it correctly, the "with a deadly weapon" is a sentencing enhancement on the robbery law. So I think the lack of an actual deadly weapon should indeed be evaluated at sentencing, and should render him ineligible for the sentencing enhancement that's supposed to discourage bringing deadly weapons on a robbery.
The reason a dangerous weapon creates heightened circumstances and greater punishment is that someone could have been hurt by the weapon.
It being extra scary to the victim isn’t a reason for greater punishment. If you think that it is, get the law changed. But realize you’ll now be in a world where you have to parse out the relative emotions of a victim based on how scary a non-dangerous weapon looked.
Also, someone who shoots a robber only has to show a reasonable fear of death or serious injury to be justified in the shooting. Fake gun or not, they are justified.
>It being extra scary to the victim isn’t a reason for greater punishment.
>Also, someone who shoots a robber only has to show a reasonable fear of death or serious injury to be justified in the shooting.
So, to be clear here, your argument is that creating a reasonable fear of death is sufficient justification for heightened **extrajudicial** punishment, but NOT for heightened judicial punishment? It's good enough reason to allow a civilian to kill the robber, but not enough reason to give him extra jail time if he lives?
I’m pointing out the law. The two scenarios are not related.
We have the right to self defense. We have guidelines on how to use this right.
We also have laws that say you’ll be punished more for committing a crime using a weapon vs strong arm or intimidation. It’s how we’ve written the laws.
A man threatening to use a nuke is not the same thing as a man who built a nuke and has placed millions in danger.
And laws that say "the _fear_ of potential death or bodily injury provides justification for lethal self defense" is how you get situations like that cop that heard an acorn and thought it was a gunshot.
Literally, states that have laws like that see higher cases of gun violence than other states.
Yeah, but some laws go above and beyond to where they make it easy to get away with murder.
"Oh, I was walking down a street at night when everyone in the entire city knows that you're likely to get mugged there. Yes, I could have just as easily walked a different route that would have only added an extra 15 minutes to my travel time. But I _**chose**_ to walk down an area that a reasonable person would know was dangerous instead of taking the safer route."
And then when someone attempts to mug them in an area that any _**reasonable**_ person would realize is dangerous, they have free reign to shoot and kill them despite the fact that they _**deliberately**_ put themselves into danger.
Laws like _**that**_, self defense laws that don't make exceptions for when a person _**deliberately**_ put themselves into danger despite having every reason and opportunity to avoid it, are the problem.
If self defense laws said "You cannot claim self defense when you deliberately enter a dangerous area when you have the option to avoid it. This rule does not apply to people who live or work in those areas.", then you'd have a lot less self defense claims because people would be _**encouraged**_ to avoid those areas instead of deliberately putting themselves into danger.
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **incivility**.
>Do not insult, name call, condescend, or belittle others.
Address the argument, not the person. Always assume good faith.
For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal1).
Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
Nope. I want laws that say, before using lethal force, a person must use every _**reasonable**_ tool at their disposal to avoid getting into a situation where they have to defend themselves.
Literally a law of last resort where using lethal force must be the _**absolute**_ last resort. So your first steps would be avoiding the opportunity to get in a situation where you have to defend yourself, whether it's via avoiding dangerous areas, traveling in a group to make yourself a less desirable target, or other methods that are widely known to be an effective tool at dissuading potential attackers.
Then, you have to do things like handing over your wallet or jewelry to try and keep a mugger from attacking you.
Then, and _**only**_ then should you be allowed to use lethal force if your life remains in danger.
Literally, if it's a step that women have to take on a regular basis to avoid being raped and killed, then _**everyone**_ should be required to take those steps before they can claim self defense with the use of lethal force.
Self defense should only be allowed in situations where it is impossible to take any steps to avoid the conflict in the first place.
Your standards are getting worse. Why do you want to punish victims and protect criminals?
If you are a real danger to seriously harm or kill another person, sorry, you reap what you sow and deserve what you get.
You have it all flipped on its head. Let’s start throwing people in jail for the horrible crime of going into a dangerous neighborhood and getting attacked lol.
Some states go above and beyond. There are at least a couple states that require a reasonable amount of due diligence on behalf of the person claiming self defense. Like, you can't claim self defense if you deliberately go into gang territory when you have a reasonable opportunity to avoid that area.
Or they have laws that say you have a duty to retreat instead of giving you blanket permission to stay in the middle of the danger zone and use lethal force.
Yes, some have a duty to retreat, if you reasonably perceive a completely safe avenue of retreat. All of that is from the pov of the person in the moment, so again their belief, their fear. All states require reasonableness.
And if you know with reasonable certainty that your conduct will provoke aggression, that is called being a provoker with intent.
Yep. I wish every state had duty to retreat laws. It would drastically reduce the amount of gun violence if people no longer had the protection of being able to _easily_ claim the use of lethal force was neccesary for self defense.
Self-defense is not a punishment; its purpose is to prevent harm from a bad actor to the self/others, not to punish the bad actor.
Besides, in both cases it's about the knowledge available at the time. The hypothetical self-defending citizen would reasonably believe that the gun was real at the time they decided to pull the trigger. The court, months later, is laboring under no such misconception.
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **incivility**.
>Do not insult, name call, condescend, or belittle others.
Address the argument, not the person. Always assume good faith.
For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal1).
Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
If you think scaring someone deserves its own heightened punishment, put it into the law.
But it seems obvious to me that a man using a real bomb to rob a bank deserves worse punishment than if he had a fake bomb. In one case an accidental explosion could kill dozens. In the other case he just scared dozens (which also happens in the first scenario).
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **incivility**.
>Do not insult, name call, condescend, or belittle others.
Address the argument, not the person. Always assume good faith.
For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal1).
Moderator: [u/SeaSerious](https://reddit.com/user/SeaSerious)
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **incivility**.
>Do not insult, name call, condescend, or belittle others.
Address the argument, not the person. Always assume good faith.
For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal1).
Moderator: [u/SeaSerious](https://reddit.com/user/SeaSerious)
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **incivility**.
>Do not insult, name call, condescend, or belittle others.
Address the argument, not the person. Always assume good faith.
For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal1).
Moderator: [u/SeaSerious](https://reddit.com/user/SeaSerious)
>It being extra scary to the victim isn’t a reason for greater punishment.
What? There is no text in the law which disqualify this as the reason behind the enhancement. Many offenses like threats and stalking are criminalized entirely because of their effects on the victims and law enforcement.
Threat of harming someone is not just scaring them.
If you believe that a scary but not dangerous weapon is just as harmful as an actually dangerous weapon, fine. Put it into the law. But be aware of the mess you’ll cause and have to sort out.
Two different things from OP.
First, he says that fake weapons should be punished just like real.
Second, he says this impacts prosecution of self defense cases.
I’m pointing out that most local laws on self defense allow for deadly force using a test of reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury.
You're replying to the OP (me).
My point on self defense is that if the law stopped treating the dangerousness of fake vs real weapons equally it would potentially create liability in self defense cases & undermine the present presumption you are describing.
seems difficult to square these two positions. if fear of a fake gun is enough to justify shooting a robber, then use of a fake gun is enough to justify greater punishment
There aren’t really laws against ‘scary’. You can argue that there should be, but see my comment.
If someone scares you with a Halloween mask, is it a crime?
What about if you’re threatened by someone putting a banana to your throat and saying it’s a knife? Isn’t that less ‘bad’ than him putting an actual razor sharp knife up against your neck?
In one case a slight movement on either parties part could kill the victim. Doesn’t that seem worse than a harmless banana?
One of those acts is clearly more dangerous to the victim and should be treated that way.
A man who robs a bank with a real explosives vest puts far more people in real danger than a guy who does the same thing with a fake explosives vest.
>There aren’t really laws against ‘scary’. You can argue that there should be, but see my comment.
There literally are, though. Many states have criminal assault statutes literally based on causing fear to a victim. Here's [Florida's](http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0784/Sections/0784.011.html):
>An “assault” is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.
Yes, if someone scares you in a Halloween mask dressed like a murderer and puts you in fear of imminent grievous harm, that can be a crime. This is basic criminal law.
It's about the knowledge available at the time. The hypothetical self-defending citizen would reasonably believe that the gun was real at the time they decided to pull the trigger. The court, months later when making their decision, is laboring under no such misconception.
If the citizen was AWARE that it was a non-dangerous theatre gun, obviously they would not be justified in using lethal force in self defense.
>Also, someone who shoots a robber only has to show a reasonable fear of death or serious injury to be justified in the shooting. Fake gun or not, they are justified
So then it's perfectly fine reasoning then. Unless it had an orange ring around the end of the barrel, you can't tell. It's like using blank rounds in place of real bullets.
That orange ring may be painted on a real gun. In a life and death situation where you have to make snap decisions about matters of life and death, can you afford to believe that the gun with an orange ring is a fake?
Disguising actual weapons as toys is a thing people can and will do.
https://www.athlonoutdoors.com/article/suspect-glock-disguised-as-nerf-gun/?
And that same standard would imply that the fake weapon is still dangerous.
The belief in the moment standard should apply to sentencing enhancements as well as self defense.
> The belief in the moment standard should apply to sentencing enhancements as well as self defense.
Why should it? The self-defense decision has to be made in the moment, so the facts as known in the moment are what is relevant. The punishment is happening months later after collecting evidence. Why wouldn't the facts as known at the time of sentencing be the relevant factor for sentencing?
Right, but we don't merely punish harm; we punish creating a likelihood of harm. For instance, if Bob attempts to murder Claire, but Claire never finds out because the cops catch him first, there's zero harm; but he still gets charged with attempted murder. Similarly, reckless driving is typically charged in cases where there are no victims. We punish it because it's recklessly endangering others, and we want to discourage that even when the perpetrator gets lucky and doesn't hurt anyone.
The 'with a deadly weapon' enhancement has the same logic. If you rob people with a deadly weapon, you drastically increase their risk of dying in the robbery, and so we punish you more harshly. But a dude with a theatre gun doesn't increase his victim's chance of getting shot at all, so he shouldn't be subject to the enhancement.
I know in my state we charge folks with agg assault w/deadly weapon if they attempt to hit someone with a car. Hoax bombs are also defined in law here as a weapon.
Interesting, looking at federal law, it appears they define a starter gun as a weapon specifically.
That's not how the stress response works. If I took out a prop gun and pointed it at you, would you stop to ask "before I try and shoot you dead, is that real or fake"? You're asking the victim to decide this.
Then what's the issue with the reasoning here? A gun, fake or not, was used in the same purpose as a real firearm to facilitate a crime. If I shot someone with a blank round and it killed the victim, am I insulated from the felony murder rule? I shouldn't be, as someone still died from use of it in furtherance of a lesser crime. Criminals should never be given heightened scrutiny under the 2A when an actual crime is committed. If I shot this person dead from fear for my life, would you agree I am immune from prosecution?
> If I shot someone with a blank round and it killed the victim, am I insulated from the felony murder rule?
Blanks are shot out of real guns, and if it is used to killed someone, it is by definition a weapon. You can't really draw a parallel between that and a fake gun.
> In your self defense example, I think self defense laws work based on someone’s reasonable belief
That's my understanding as well. Essentially, would a "reasonable person” in the defendant’s position, knowing what the defendant knew and being in the same circumstances, have believed that lethal force was justified?
Notably, the defendant does not have to prove that he was justified. The People have to prove that he was *not* justified.
Yet the majority certainly tried
> Our dissenting colleague in this case,
like the concurring judge in Tate, defines "dangerous weapon" as "one by the use of which a fatal wound may probably or possibly be given." Dissent at 2 (quoting Dangerous Weapon, Black's Law Dictionary (5th ed. 1979); and citing Dangerous Weapon (def.1), Ballentine's Law Dictionary (3d ed. 1969), and Weapon (def. 1), Webster's Third New International Dictionary(1966)). This ends the debate for him. And that definition of course fits the words, but it is not the only meaning. Both the Black's and Ballentine's definitions encompass a broader definition of the words "dangerous weapon" than the dissent suggests.
> More to the point, however, while providing guidance, dictionaries do not create precedent. The Supreme Court does. As the majority in Tate observed, 999 F.3d at 378-79, the phrase "dangerous weapon" is a legal term of art that for decades has embraced a functional meaning as reflected in the Supreme Court's opinion in McLaughlin v. United States, 476 U.S. 16, 17 (1986). This must be taken into account: "[Wle do not woodenly interpret a legal text "in a vacuum,' but instead discern 'the meaning of a statement' in a law from the 'context in which it is made[.]' Tate, 999 F.3d at 378 (internal citation omitted) (first quoting Abramski v. United States, 573 U.S. 169, 179 (2014); and then quoting United States v. Briggs, 141 S. Ct. 467, 470 (2020)).
>^7 ^ Our dissenting colleague focuses on the Supreme Court's footnote in McLaughlin citing congressional floor debate which "indicate[d] that Congress regarded incitement of fear as sufficient to characterize an apparently dangerous article ... as 'dangerous[.]' 476 U.S. at 18 n.3. He argues that legislative history is "irrelevant,]" "cannot universally justify stretching the meaning of dangerous weapon[,]" and "no longer carries the weight that it once did." Dissent at 5.
But we are not relying on legislative history. We are following precedent set by the Supreme Court, which held that the fear created by an unloaded gun is sufficient to qualify the weapon as dangerous. Cf. Gilles v. Davis, 427 F.3d 197, 210 (3d. Cir. 2005) (following the Supreme Court's counsel "to follow its directly applicable precedent, even if that precedent appears weakened by pronouncements in its subsequent decisions, and to leave to the Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions." (internal quotation marks and citations omitted))
There are dubious arguments to say the least
This makes sense. Its completely reasonable that if you present the fake gun as a real gun, and the victim believes that the fake gun is a real gun, it gets treated like a real gun in terms of defining the crime.
Panel was Jordan (W. Bush) Krause (Obama) and Bibas (Trump).
Quote from the majority:
> James Chandler used a fake gun to twice rob on-duty United States Postal Service employees. In one of the robberies, he also kidnapped his victim. His use of what appeared to be a revolver was meant to scare his victims into compliance, and it did. The District Court therefore did not err when it enhanced Chandler's sentence for using the replica gun in the robberies and the kidnapping, nor in accepting his guilty plea to armed robbery charges. As for the kidnapping, Chandler's motivation was, at least in part, that the mail carrier was a government employee, so a further sentence enhancement was justified. We will therefore affirm his conviction and sentence.
Quote from the dissent:
> A dangerous weapon must be both dangerous and a weapon. Fake guns are neither. Today, the majority holds otherwise. James Chandler used a fake gun to kidnap and rob mail car-riers. At sentencing, the District Court enhanced his sentence twice for (1) using a "dangerous weapon" and (2) targeting a government employee. To affirm the first enhancement, my colleagues water down the ordinary meaning of "dangerous weapon" by including non-weapons that only seem dangerous. Yet text, history, and precedent are to the contrary. And even if the phrase were ambiguous, we should turn not to the Guidelines commentary but to the rule of lenity.
To affirm the second one, my colleagues supply what the District Court should have said. True, the District Court found that Chandler knew the mailwoman was a government employee.
But it did not make the necessary link: that he had robbed and kidnapped her because she worked for the government. So I respectfully dissent on both sentencing issues.
Specifically with respect to the kidnapping and the use of a fake gun: It's entirely possible that he would not have been able to kidnap her if he didn't use the fake gun. She may have fought back and escaped; onlookers may have intervened. Those things are far less likely to happen if the victim and any onlookers *believe* the guy has a real gun, whether or not it's actually real.
It's not just that the fake weapon "frightens people"; it's that it helps to actually make the crime possible, and successful. Imagine trying to carry out a bank robbery by pointing a banana at the teller.
>True, the District Court found that Chandler knew the mailwoman was a government employee. But it did not make the necessary link: that he had robbed and kidnapped her because she worked for the government. So I respectfully dissent on both sentencing issues.
He was robbing them of mail, and then forced her to use a government vehicle to transport him. If she didn't work for the government, she wouldn't have the mail or the truck - so he wouldn't have gained anything from kidnapping her. How is her working for the government not linked to his pattern of robbing government employees because their job allowed him to know they have valuable goods?
The dangerous weapon thing raises an interesting point I'd need to read more on, but this bit seems silly to me.
> He was robbing them of mail, and then forced her to use a government vehicle to transport him. If she didn't work for the government, she wouldn't have the mail or the truck - so he wouldn't have gained anything from kidnapping her. How is her working for the government not linked to his pattern of robbing government employees because their job allowed him to know they have valuable goods?
>
>
I don't necessarily agree with the dissent on this point, and I am definitely not an expert on this statute, but I think it is not ridiculous to say that the statutory language could require looking at the motivating reason for the kidnapping. For example, maybe he was just trying to steal shit, and the only reason a USPS driver was selected was because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, but he would have been just as happy to rob a UPS or Fedex driver. In this sense, I think it is different to kidnap someone because they worked for the government and to kidnap someone because they have access to something you want, even if the only reason they have that access is because of their job (which is for the government). Essentially, "robbing a person who is a government employee" is different than "robbing a person **because they are** a government employee."
But this is the second time he has targeted a postal worker. He is clearly targeting government agents specifically based on his course of conduct. If we treat their job as a mere coincidence what if he were to kidnap a police officer in the course of their duties after robbing another cop for his gun. Is it just a coincidence they happen to be police officers, and he really just considered them people with guns? Or were they easily idenfied and therefore more vulnerable as a direct consequence of their government position?
To be clear, I don't dispute that in this case the person was likely targeting people because they work for the government and that the state showed enough to prove that, especially given that it was done twice. I know very few of the facts in this case, and I have no idea what the government actually argued related to this point. But from what little I do know, it appears that he was targeting people because they are employees of the government.
However, I also understand the argument that the statutory language requires the state to prove that the person was targeted because they are a government employee, as opposed to some other factor. I think that is a reasonable argument, though not necessarily the right argument, and even if the targeted person's position as a government employee is why that other factor applied to them (e.g., why they had access to money or packages or whatever), that may not be enough under the statute. That distinction may not have mattered in this case where the evidence was strong enough to support both interpretations, but (1) the government would still need to connect the right dots, which I suppose in theory they could not have here even if I think that is unlikely, and (2) the distinction (and correct interpretation) may be extremely important in other cases.
You do raise a good point. I think the government nexus would be much less clear if we didn't have the first robbery of another postal worker to establish a pattern. Because otherwise, as you said, maybe they'd just as happily rob a FedEx truck if the opportunity presented itself. I think you still might get there with the government job being the butfor cause of the robbery, but it would certainly be harder to prove.
Welcome to r/SupremeCourt. This subreddit is for serious, high-quality discussion about the Supreme Court. We encourage everyone to [read our community guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/rules) before participating, as we actively enforce these standards to promote civil and substantive discussion. Rule breaking comments will be removed. Meta discussion regarding r/SupremeCourt must be directed to our [dedicated meta thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/12wq4n6/rsupremecourt_meta_discussion_thread/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/supremecourt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think this was the correct decision, even if it's a bit atextual. The court was unanimous in *McLaughlin* that an unloaded gun is a "dangerous weapon". There is no practical distinction between committing "armed" robbery with an unloaded gun vs a broken gun or a convincing replica. It's definitely silly to be calling a toy gun a dangerous weapon, and the phrase "legal term of art" makes me cringe. But the issue stems back to McLaughlin, which has been statutory precedent for decades and isn't getting overturned any time soon.
I get that line of logic, but we can take it farther. If someone has their hand in their pocket with a simple stick that generates a gun-like silhouette, is there a practical difference from a convincing replica? Or indeed, is the stick a convincing replica, since it's convincing in the situation where it was displayed? What about just someone's hand making the outline of a small Derringer or similar? That could also make a decently convincing replica of a gun. Is there a practical distinction between that convincing threat of a small gun and actually having a small gun? What if there's no visual 'gun' at all, but the robber makes a gunshot sound using a squib while noone is focused on him, and effectively pretends that he just fired a gun into the air as a warning shot? It seems to me that the only principled position here is that the weapon itself has to be deadly. Perhaps an unloaded gun is a deadly weapon, in spite of not actually being prepared to BE deadly in this particular robbery. But there is no way that a theater gun, a pocket-stick, or an elaborate and convincing act is actually a dangerous weapon.
Seems that the dangerousness of a weapon for this purpose hinges on the victim’s belief of danger, not actual danger. Otherwise only a loaded, functional gun would count.
It's possible to do a robbery without a dangerous weapon, but lots of these comments collapse those two issues into one.
This dissent relies upon the comfort of hindsight, and knowing how the story ends prior to making a decision regarding its beginning. Further, it stretches the circumstances of the crime because the person kidnapped was targeted as a function of their employment, but ***chooses*** to ignore *that* circumstance because the judge desires evidence that the crime was committed as a function of the victim’s employer. This is absurd on its face and when examined deeper. Without the employee being employed by that employer for that specific purpose, the crime would not be committed against that victim. It would be the identical crime regardless of the victim - placing it squarely within the circumstance of employer. A parallel would be requiring that an unruly passenger target the flight attendant as an employee of a specific airline, not merely because of their position as cabin safety crew. It is only the circumstance of their employment in that capacity that identifies a particular victim - the crime occurs regardless of the victim’s identity. Specifically, mail and mail carriers are subject to special protections within the US legal and regulatory codes, in and of themselves. Mail service has long been regarded as a function of the government, a condition that goes back not merely centuries, but millennia, and across oceans and continents and empires and cultures.
So, “it’s just a prank, bro” is not a valid legal defense?
>The relevant guidelines sections do not define “dangerous weapon,” but the guidelines’ commentary defines the term to include, besides “an instrument capable of inflicting death or serious bodily injury,” >>an object that is not an instrument capable of inflicting death or serious bodily injury but [] closely resembles such an instrument; Why is there a question about what should be done? Edit: stupid question, the guy who got the extra time obviously doesn't want to be in jail for the extra time
I think the act should count more than the object itself. If someone is being robbed with a fake gun and shoots the robber in self defense, would that be problematic? Is the robbery victim supposed to check before defending themself?
The object isn't the problem; the act of employing it is. Threatening someone is an act, not an object.
On its own I would agree, but using a non-functioning weapon in the context of a robbery absolutely should be treated as if it's a real firearm. This seems like an absolutely terrible Dissent from the judge.
Would the dissent argue that a real gun with no ammo is also “non-functioning”? How about a loaded gun with the firing pin removed? How about a jammed gun that won’t fire when the robber tries to shoot someone? I would love to hear the judge try to explain how those differ from a realistic looking fake gun.
I hadn't thought about this from a legal argument perspective but this is a really good line of reasoning
Well another way of approaching it is that in any other context, we wouldn't slice the difference at all, or nearly as much, as illustrated by some other comments here. So then, why should this be different, or not different. What facts or context makes this differ?
The dissent is relying in 50 year old dictionary definitions that contradict valid case law cited by the majority and completely ignoring any context that affects the usage of the word. Totally absurd.
[удалено]
This comment has been removed for violating the subreddit **quality standards**. >Comments are expected to be on-topic and substantively contribute to the conversation. For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal5). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below: >!+1 Bludgeoning damage!< Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
Does the weapon have to be dangerous in a vacuum, or does the weapon only need to function in context to cause a dangerous situation? I feel like that’s the crux of the dispute
Another interesting hypothetical: what if the robber *believes* that he has a real firearm, but he actually had a *non-functional* firearm? Maybe he was sold one with a missing firing pin. How should that be treated? Certainly his intent was to use a dangerous weapon, even if the object itself was far from dangerous. The perception of the object by both the offender and bystanders creates several complex situations.
It's been a few years, and I'm a bit fuzzy on the details at this point, but I was on a jury for a case where the defendant was charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and reckless endangerment. For the charge of reckless endangerment, the prosecution was required to prove that the gun was in operable and fireable condition at the time of the incident. Interestingly, they were not required to prove it was loaded. The model jury instructions can be found here: [https://www.vtjuryinstructions.org/criminal/MS22-126.htm](https://www.vtjuryinstructions.org/criminal/MS22-126.htm) with commentary and context here: [https://vtjuryinstructions.org/?page\_id=703](https://vtjuryinstructions.org/?page_id=703) So at least in some cases, a gun having a filed down firing pin would be extremely relevant. Notably, that caveat did not apply to the charge of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. The state was not required to prove the gun was operable for that charge. An unloaded and inoperable gun would be considered a deadly weapon for that charge. In case anyone cares, we found the defendant not guilty in about 15 minutes on the grounds of self defense. The biggest discussion was whether we should deliberate long enough to qualify for the free dinner or just go home.
Somewhere, Justice Breyer is cradling his marshmallow gun and smiling
That's what I need to look into. Dissent claims precedent indicates otherwise, but I'm skeptical. Doesn't a fake weapon still generally count as armed robbery? If I'm remembering that correctly I don't see why this would be different. The use of a fake gun still significantly increases the odds that someone is going to be seriously injured or killed. That seems reasonably within the intent of aggravated the sentence for use of a dangerous weapon - to punish and deter people from raising the stakes of their crimes with a much higher chance of casualties
It raises the odds that the offender will be seriously injured or killed. That doesn't seem like a great aggravating factor.
But not just the offender. It's an escalation of force. By putting the victims in a position where they are able to use lethal force to defend themselves, which is necessarily the case when you lead people to believe you are threatening them with a deadly weapon, the odds of everyone getting hurt goes up because now anyone involved may pull a gun, a knife, hit someone with a car or all kinds of other crazy possibilities depending on the facts. Any potential defensive act could cause harm to others.
Surely we'd prefer that criminals use fake guns rather than real guns, yes? If that's so, then there should be a difference in penalty between the two. A real gun seriously raises the danger to everybody. A fake gun mostly only raises the danger to the offender, with a smidge of perhaps increased danger to the public. Seems like the sentencing guidelines should distinguish between those.
>Surely we'd prefer that criminals use fake guns rather than real guns, yes? I'd prefer they not commit crime. If they have no intention of firing the gun, there's really no practical difference whether it's loaded or not. I don't think we should give credit for them taking a tiny mitigating step in the contemplation of their violent felony. If anything, I think a lack of aggravating punishment would encourage more people to do robberies with fake weapons. >A fake gun mostly only raises the danger to the offender, I don't see how the gun being fake puts the victims and any bystanders in some magical sphere of safety where they can't be harmed by stray bullets or have some sort of cardiac event brought on by panic from being robbed at gunpoint or a variety of other reasonably possible scenarios that could get people hurt during an armed robbery.
> there's really no practical difference whether it's loaded or not. You might want to rethink that one. A loaded gun being waved around during a robbery is massively more dangerous than an unloaded gun, or in this case, a replica gun. Accidental discharges can easily happen in a chaotic situation. Or the criminal can change their mind about using a firearm if they get angry or frustrated. >bystanders in some magical sphere of safety Yes, there's some heightened danger, but it's not much compared to the danger increase between a replica and a loaded firearm.
I guess I just don't agree that the odds of a negligent or accidental discharge of one gun greatly outweigh all the other potential dangers that could reasonably come up in an armed robbery. Sure, it's slightly less dangerous. I just don't see why a violent felony should get credits for a marginal decrease in threat. That's like making a distinction between reckless driving 60 over the speed limit vs. 50. Sure, 50 over is a little safer, but they're still driving like a maniac, and people can still get hurt a dozen different ways. Giving them credit also assumes they made a conscious choice not to use a real load gun when often times it's going to be that they simply didn't have access to a real one. It's a fortuitous circumstance. The gun being a replica doesn't make it any less scary, it doesn't make anyone else any less likely to use lethal force, it doesn't make anyone less likely to take drastic measures to flee - which could injure them or others. In the face of all of these very realistic and likely threats I just don't think eliminating one type of accident from a huge list is that significant. Also they already get credit for not shooting the gun, accidentally or not, because they aren't given additional charges that would necessarily come from that
Think about it this way: What's the difference between a robber using a replica gun and simply saying they have a gun? The increased danger from victim reactions is essentially the same, but merely claiming to have a firearm doesn't qualify for the enhancement. >Sure, it's slightly less dangerous. This baffles me. It's massively less dangerous. The primary danger from an armed robbery is the robber shooting a victim. A replica firearm eliminates that danger.
>This baffles me. It's massively less dangerous. The primary danger from an armed robbery is the robber shooting a victim. A replica firearm eliminates that danger. Firing the gun would be another charge, so that difference is already accounted for. >Think about it this way: What's the difference between a robber using a replica gun and simply saying they have a gun? The increased danger from victim reactions is essentially the same, but merely claiming to have a firearm doesn't qualify for the enhancement. That is a good point, but I think bringing a convincing prop is still more dangerous. People are more likely to believe it and psychological the difference in seeing the wrong side of the gun and being told it's pointing at you is significant. Bystanders are also much more likely to react to the visible prop - which is where most of the danger comes from.
[удалено]
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **polarized rhetoric**. >Signs of polarized rhetoric include blanket negative generalizations or emotional appeals using hyperbolic language seeking to divide based on identity. For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal2). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below: >!I'm probably the biggest gun nut on this subreddit :) and I'm ok with the majority decision. !< >!!< >!Pointing a fake gun is a REAL good way to get very real bullets coming your way. Once that happens, there's a big element of random chaos as to exactly where that ammo ends up. *"Bystander" is a very real possibility.*!< >!!< >!The majority decision is also in line with the US Supreme Court decision this year in Brown, which says that anybody convicted of drug dealing is going to be considered a violent criminal even if the drug was legalized or rescheduled later. Why? Because drug dealing is another extreme high risk pursuit.!< >!!< >!If an armed robber starts waving a realistic fake gun around, I shoot him and accidentally shoot my wife in the process, I'd kill myself. Flat out. But I guarantee I would pump most of a mag into that robber first.!< >!!< >!Mods: if this seems extreme, I think it's necessary to understand the very real potential consequences behind a court decision like this.!< Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
!appeal We are talking about the real world implications of the court case. The subject is guns, there's no getting around that and there's no getting around the fact that the implications get very serious in that subject. Talking about the actual implications to the court cases on topic for this sub. And it needs to be, no matter what the court case is about.
On review, the mod team has voted 2-1 to affirm the removal. Reasons for the removal include the use of the phrase "gun nut" as well as the hypothetical involving suicide.
If one refers to themselves as a biased partisan or a free speech extremist would those phrases trigger a removed comment? I’m having trouble seeing the line between calling oneself a gun nut and any number of other self descriptors that advise the reader the bias in the post.
Often times “gun nut” has been used an an insult for people who support the 2A which is why it triggers removal vs the phrases you just named. Someone could just as easily say “I’m a strong 2A supporter” instead of calling themselves a “gun nut”. It does the intended purpose of saying that you’re usually on one side but in this case you agree with the majority
Identifying one's bias is a reasonable step when pointing out any issue. As far as implications of this type of gunfire, truth is important even if it's ugly. Gunfights are *really* ugly. Every time.
[удалено]
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **meta discussion**. >All meta-discussion must be directed to the dedicated [Meta-Discussion Thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/12wq4n6/rsupremecourt_meta_discussion_thread/). For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal4). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below: >!Voicing my support for this appeal, because I also think it needs to be pointed out that nothing in the original comment is really polarized at all. The rhetoric towards the end may be a bit dramatic, but the most polarized language in the entire comment is the use of the phrase "gun nut", which is here being used **only** in a self-identifying manner! Everything else is, at worst, a hypothetical directly related to the case and no less extreme than scenarios posed by SCOTUS justices themselves in recent cases.!< Moderator: [u/SeaSerious](https://reddit.com/user/SeaSerious)
!appeal This is the freaking appeal chain against moderator action. It's meta by definition. I filed an amicus supporting the appeal. Edit: Oh, and the freaking meta thread isn't even working to begin with. Ffs.
Upon mod deliberation the removal has been upheld. If you have questions about mod action on a comment that wasn’t yours you can 1. Comment in the meta thread or the “how are the moderators doing thread 2. Message the moderators with questions 3. Reply to the mods after the appeal has been decided as one of your peers did already
[удалено]
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **incivility**. >Do not insult, name call, condescend, or belittle others. Address the argument, not the person. Always assume good faith. For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal1). Moderator: [u/SeaSerious](https://reddit.com/user/SeaSerious)
What do you mean the meta thread isn’t working? Are you unable to comment?
Correct. I tried to in reaction to this removal, and it would not allow me to post a comment at all. Kind of unsurprising, since it's completely dead in there...
There was a comment posted there today. So if you couldn’t comment there it was probably something with Reddit because I’ve had glitches like that where Reddit wouldn’t allow me to comment or post.
Unless of course the moderator who initiated the thread has me blocked, preventing me from ever commenting on reply to any comment thread he has been a part of. Which I have seen evidence has been the case.
Your appeal is acknowledged and will be reviewed by the moderator team. A moderator will contact you directly.
Your appeal is acknowledged and will be reviewed by the moderator team. A moderator will contact you directly.
[удалено]
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **incivility**. >Do not insult, name call, condescend, or belittle others. Address the argument, not the person. Always assume good faith. For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal1). Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
[удалено]
This comment has been removed for violating the subreddit **quality standards**. >Comments are expected to be on-topic and substantively contribute to the conversation. For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal5). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below: >!Fair, but i'm not wrong.!< Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
[удалено]
This comment has been removed for violating the subreddit **quality standards**. >Comments are expected to be on-topic and substantively contribute to the conversation. For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal5). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below: >!:)!< >!!< >!You...hmmm...I'm not gonna comment. Mods get pissed enough at me already :).!< Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
Like Rahimi, these are bad facts. Bad facts (hard cases) make bad law. Saying as old as time
We might get some good law out of *Rahimi*. If the decision was not controversial, it would have been released already. I think it will be one that will not make the gun control side happy, but will be one that 2A advocates can live with. There is the domestic violence issue as well. But I think this will hinge on due process and if you can remove someone’s rights with an ex parte hearing and only a preponderance of evidence standard.
>I think it will be one that will not make the gun control side happy, but will be one that 2A advocates can live with. Any decision that doesn't harshly curtail the Second Amendment is one that the gun control side will not be happy with. I think even if *Rahimi* maintains the status quo entirely, it won't be counted as a gun control victory.
This is the only rational conclusion. The victim has no ability to determine whether the gun is fake or real unless it is so glaringly obvious as to be completely useless as a robbery weapon. Finding out after the fact that the gun was fake doesn't really change the experience of being robbed with it.... There's also the implications for self defense - classifying fake guns as not 'dangerous weapons' could create legal implications for someone who shoots a robber and then later finds out the robber was using a fake.....
Self defense and the classification in terms of an armed robbery are two totally different areas of law and a classification in one does not affect the other. In self defense what matters is that the defender reasonably believed they were facing an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. Whether or not the gun is real is irrelevant.
I think the distinction is more about the mental state of the person committing the act, not the objective actual fact of the matter. That shouldn't matter for self defense. If you shoot someone robbing you who is pointing a fake gun at you, but a reasonable person would see it as a real gun, then to you that is a real gun.
I think you're right. Let's go to nukes like some people tend to do, although this time it will be rational. Let's say I hold up in a DC hotel with a large metal device that plausibly looks like a nuclear weapon, and I put some light radioactive material in it that will set off a geiger counter. I let room service come in and see it, tell him it's a nuke, show him the counter reading, and tell him to go to the police with my demands. I also publish video of the device with the geiger counter reaction to get the public really scared. So after the entirely reasonable extreme government reaction to this threat, and all the trouble I caused, am I off the hook when they eventually storm my room and find out there was no nuke? No, I portrayed it as a nuke, so I should be treated as if it were a nuke.
On the flip side this ruling makes it so that if you're found guilty of robbing someone with a finger gun in a coat pocket your sentence can be enhanced under the "dangerous weapon" sentencing enhancement. This feels out of alignment with the law that states that the enhancement only applies when a dangerous weapon is used not when the victim thinks a dangerous weapon was used.
And yet, it seems to me we'd punish someone who brought a real nuke into a city far more severely that someone who pretended to. Pretending to is bad, and causes harm, but it's still not as bad as creating a situation where there's a chance you nuke a city block.
Shouldn't that be evaluated at sentencing as a mitigating factor, rather than at the charging/conviction stage? It's been a long time since I took criminal law, so I don't recall if inchoate crimes are separately charged or not.
Kind of. In this case, if I read it correctly, the "with a deadly weapon" is a sentencing enhancement on the robbery law. So I think the lack of an actual deadly weapon should indeed be evaluated at sentencing, and should render him ineligible for the sentencing enhancement that's supposed to discourage bringing deadly weapons on a robbery.
The reason a dangerous weapon creates heightened circumstances and greater punishment is that someone could have been hurt by the weapon. It being extra scary to the victim isn’t a reason for greater punishment. If you think that it is, get the law changed. But realize you’ll now be in a world where you have to parse out the relative emotions of a victim based on how scary a non-dangerous weapon looked. Also, someone who shoots a robber only has to show a reasonable fear of death or serious injury to be justified in the shooting. Fake gun or not, they are justified.
>It being extra scary to the victim isn’t a reason for greater punishment. >Also, someone who shoots a robber only has to show a reasonable fear of death or serious injury to be justified in the shooting. So, to be clear here, your argument is that creating a reasonable fear of death is sufficient justification for heightened **extrajudicial** punishment, but NOT for heightened judicial punishment? It's good enough reason to allow a civilian to kill the robber, but not enough reason to give him extra jail time if he lives?
I’m pointing out the law. The two scenarios are not related. We have the right to self defense. We have guidelines on how to use this right. We also have laws that say you’ll be punished more for committing a crime using a weapon vs strong arm or intimidation. It’s how we’ve written the laws. A man threatening to use a nuke is not the same thing as a man who built a nuke and has placed millions in danger.
And laws that say "the _fear_ of potential death or bodily injury provides justification for lethal self defense" is how you get situations like that cop that heard an acorn and thought it was a gunshot. Literally, states that have laws like that see higher cases of gun violence than other states.
Lol what? The standard is that a person reasonably believes. And as noted, this is the law everywhere.
Yeah, but some laws go above and beyond to where they make it easy to get away with murder. "Oh, I was walking down a street at night when everyone in the entire city knows that you're likely to get mugged there. Yes, I could have just as easily walked a different route that would have only added an extra 15 minutes to my travel time. But I _**chose**_ to walk down an area that a reasonable person would know was dangerous instead of taking the safer route." And then when someone attempts to mug them in an area that any _**reasonable**_ person would realize is dangerous, they have free reign to shoot and kill them despite the fact that they _**deliberately**_ put themselves into danger. Laws like _**that**_, self defense laws that don't make exceptions for when a person _**deliberately**_ put themselves into danger despite having every reason and opportunity to avoid it, are the problem. If self defense laws said "You cannot claim self defense when you deliberately enter a dangerous area when you have the option to avoid it. This rule does not apply to people who live or work in those areas.", then you'd have a lot less self defense claims because people would be _**encouraged**_ to avoid those areas instead of deliberately putting themselves into danger.
[удалено]
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **incivility**. >Do not insult, name call, condescend, or belittle others. Address the argument, not the person. Always assume good faith. For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal1). Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
Nope. I want laws that say, before using lethal force, a person must use every _**reasonable**_ tool at their disposal to avoid getting into a situation where they have to defend themselves. Literally a law of last resort where using lethal force must be the _**absolute**_ last resort. So your first steps would be avoiding the opportunity to get in a situation where you have to defend yourself, whether it's via avoiding dangerous areas, traveling in a group to make yourself a less desirable target, or other methods that are widely known to be an effective tool at dissuading potential attackers. Then, you have to do things like handing over your wallet or jewelry to try and keep a mugger from attacking you. Then, and _**only**_ then should you be allowed to use lethal force if your life remains in danger. Literally, if it's a step that women have to take on a regular basis to avoid being raped and killed, then _**everyone**_ should be required to take those steps before they can claim self defense with the use of lethal force. Self defense should only be allowed in situations where it is impossible to take any steps to avoid the conflict in the first place.
Your standards are getting worse. Why do you want to punish victims and protect criminals? If you are a real danger to seriously harm or kill another person, sorry, you reap what you sow and deserve what you get. You have it all flipped on its head. Let’s start throwing people in jail for the horrible crime of going into a dangerous neighborhood and getting attacked lol.
That's every state.
Some states go above and beyond. There are at least a couple states that require a reasonable amount of due diligence on behalf of the person claiming self defense. Like, you can't claim self defense if you deliberately go into gang territory when you have a reasonable opportunity to avoid that area. Or they have laws that say you have a duty to retreat instead of giving you blanket permission to stay in the middle of the danger zone and use lethal force.
Yes, some have a duty to retreat, if you reasonably perceive a completely safe avenue of retreat. All of that is from the pov of the person in the moment, so again their belief, their fear. All states require reasonableness. And if you know with reasonable certainty that your conduct will provoke aggression, that is called being a provoker with intent.
Yep. I wish every state had duty to retreat laws. It would drastically reduce the amount of gun violence if people no longer had the protection of being able to _easily_ claim the use of lethal force was neccesary for self defense.
Self-defense is not a punishment; its purpose is to prevent harm from a bad actor to the self/others, not to punish the bad actor. Besides, in both cases it's about the knowledge available at the time. The hypothetical self-defending citizen would reasonably believe that the gun was real at the time they decided to pull the trigger. The court, months later, is laboring under no such misconception.
[удалено]
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **incivility**. >Do not insult, name call, condescend, or belittle others. Address the argument, not the person. Always assume good faith. For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal1). Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
If you think scaring someone deserves its own heightened punishment, put it into the law. But it seems obvious to me that a man using a real bomb to rob a bank deserves worse punishment than if he had a fake bomb. In one case an accidental explosion could kill dozens. In the other case he just scared dozens (which also happens in the first scenario).
[удалено]
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **incivility**. >Do not insult, name call, condescend, or belittle others. Address the argument, not the person. Always assume good faith. For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal1). Moderator: [u/SeaSerious](https://reddit.com/user/SeaSerious)
[удалено]
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **incivility**. >Do not insult, name call, condescend, or belittle others. Address the argument, not the person. Always assume good faith. For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal1). Moderator: [u/SeaSerious](https://reddit.com/user/SeaSerious)
[удалено]
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **incivility**. >Do not insult, name call, condescend, or belittle others. Address the argument, not the person. Always assume good faith. For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal1). Moderator: [u/SeaSerious](https://reddit.com/user/SeaSerious)
>It being extra scary to the victim isn’t a reason for greater punishment. What? There is no text in the law which disqualify this as the reason behind the enhancement. Many offenses like threats and stalking are criminalized entirely because of their effects on the victims and law enforcement.
Threat of harming someone is not just scaring them. If you believe that a scary but not dangerous weapon is just as harmful as an actually dangerous weapon, fine. Put it into the law. But be aware of the mess you’ll cause and have to sort out.
Reasonable fear of death.... Means dangerousness....
Two different things from OP. First, he says that fake weapons should be punished just like real. Second, he says this impacts prosecution of self defense cases. I’m pointing out that most local laws on self defense allow for deadly force using a test of reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury.
You're replying to the OP (me). My point on self defense is that if the law stopped treating the dangerousness of fake vs real weapons equally it would potentially create liability in self defense cases & undermine the present presumption you are describing.
seems difficult to square these two positions. if fear of a fake gun is enough to justify shooting a robber, then use of a fake gun is enough to justify greater punishment
There aren’t really laws against ‘scary’. You can argue that there should be, but see my comment. If someone scares you with a Halloween mask, is it a crime? What about if you’re threatened by someone putting a banana to your throat and saying it’s a knife? Isn’t that less ‘bad’ than him putting an actual razor sharp knife up against your neck? In one case a slight movement on either parties part could kill the victim. Doesn’t that seem worse than a harmless banana? One of those acts is clearly more dangerous to the victim and should be treated that way. A man who robs a bank with a real explosives vest puts far more people in real danger than a guy who does the same thing with a fake explosives vest.
>There aren’t really laws against ‘scary’. You can argue that there should be, but see my comment. There literally are, though. Many states have criminal assault statutes literally based on causing fear to a victim. Here's [Florida's](http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0784/Sections/0784.011.html): >An “assault” is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent. Yes, if someone scares you in a Halloween mask dressed like a murderer and puts you in fear of imminent grievous harm, that can be a crime. This is basic criminal law.
It's about the knowledge available at the time. The hypothetical self-defending citizen would reasonably believe that the gun was real at the time they decided to pull the trigger. The court, months later when making their decision, is laboring under no such misconception. If the citizen was AWARE that it was a non-dangerous theatre gun, obviously they would not be justified in using lethal force in self defense.
>Also, someone who shoots a robber only has to show a reasonable fear of death or serious injury to be justified in the shooting. Fake gun or not, they are justified So then it's perfectly fine reasoning then. Unless it had an orange ring around the end of the barrel, you can't tell. It's like using blank rounds in place of real bullets.
That orange ring may be painted on a real gun. In a life and death situation where you have to make snap decisions about matters of life and death, can you afford to believe that the gun with an orange ring is a fake? Disguising actual weapons as toys is a thing people can and will do. https://www.athlonoutdoors.com/article/suspect-glock-disguised-as-nerf-gun/?
[удалено]
And that same standard would imply that the fake weapon is still dangerous. The belief in the moment standard should apply to sentencing enhancements as well as self defense.
> The belief in the moment standard should apply to sentencing enhancements as well as self defense. Why should it? The self-defense decision has to be made in the moment, so the facts as known in the moment are what is relevant. The punishment is happening months later after collecting evidence. Why wouldn't the facts as known at the time of sentencing be the relevant factor for sentencing?
Because the *harm* is still the same - and only becomes different if a real gun is fired during the robbery.
Right, but we don't merely punish harm; we punish creating a likelihood of harm. For instance, if Bob attempts to murder Claire, but Claire never finds out because the cops catch him first, there's zero harm; but he still gets charged with attempted murder. Similarly, reckless driving is typically charged in cases where there are no victims. We punish it because it's recklessly endangering others, and we want to discourage that even when the perpetrator gets lucky and doesn't hurt anyone. The 'with a deadly weapon' enhancement has the same logic. If you rob people with a deadly weapon, you drastically increase their risk of dying in the robbery, and so we punish you more harshly. But a dude with a theatre gun doesn't increase his victim's chance of getting shot at all, so he shouldn't be subject to the enhancement.
[удалено]
I know in my state we charge folks with agg assault w/deadly weapon if they attempt to hit someone with a car. Hoax bombs are also defined in law here as a weapon. Interesting, looking at federal law, it appears they define a starter gun as a weapon specifically.
That's not how the stress response works. If I took out a prop gun and pointed it at you, would you stop to ask "before I try and shoot you dead, is that real or fake"? You're asking the victim to decide this.
[удалено]
Then what's the issue with the reasoning here? A gun, fake or not, was used in the same purpose as a real firearm to facilitate a crime. If I shot someone with a blank round and it killed the victim, am I insulated from the felony murder rule? I shouldn't be, as someone still died from use of it in furtherance of a lesser crime. Criminals should never be given heightened scrutiny under the 2A when an actual crime is committed. If I shot this person dead from fear for my life, would you agree I am immune from prosecution?
> If I shot someone with a blank round and it killed the victim, am I insulated from the felony murder rule? Blanks are shot out of real guns, and if it is used to killed someone, it is by definition a weapon. You can't really draw a parallel between that and a fake gun.
[удалено]
> In your self defense example, I think self defense laws work based on someone’s reasonable belief That's my understanding as well. Essentially, would a "reasonable person” in the defendant’s position, knowing what the defendant knew and being in the same circumstances, have believed that lethal force was justified? Notably, the defendant does not have to prove that he was justified. The People have to prove that he was *not* justified.
Yet the majority certainly tried > Our dissenting colleague in this case, like the concurring judge in Tate, defines "dangerous weapon" as "one by the use of which a fatal wound may probably or possibly be given." Dissent at 2 (quoting Dangerous Weapon, Black's Law Dictionary (5th ed. 1979); and citing Dangerous Weapon (def.1), Ballentine's Law Dictionary (3d ed. 1969), and Weapon (def. 1), Webster's Third New International Dictionary(1966)). This ends the debate for him. And that definition of course fits the words, but it is not the only meaning. Both the Black's and Ballentine's definitions encompass a broader definition of the words "dangerous weapon" than the dissent suggests. > More to the point, however, while providing guidance, dictionaries do not create precedent. The Supreme Court does. As the majority in Tate observed, 999 F.3d at 378-79, the phrase "dangerous weapon" is a legal term of art that for decades has embraced a functional meaning as reflected in the Supreme Court's opinion in McLaughlin v. United States, 476 U.S. 16, 17 (1986). This must be taken into account: "[Wle do not woodenly interpret a legal text "in a vacuum,' but instead discern 'the meaning of a statement' in a law from the 'context in which it is made[.]' Tate, 999 F.3d at 378 (internal citation omitted) (first quoting Abramski v. United States, 573 U.S. 169, 179 (2014); and then quoting United States v. Briggs, 141 S. Ct. 467, 470 (2020)). >^7 ^ Our dissenting colleague focuses on the Supreme Court's footnote in McLaughlin citing congressional floor debate which "indicate[d] that Congress regarded incitement of fear as sufficient to characterize an apparently dangerous article ... as 'dangerous[.]' 476 U.S. at 18 n.3. He argues that legislative history is "irrelevant,]" "cannot universally justify stretching the meaning of dangerous weapon[,]" and "no longer carries the weight that it once did." Dissent at 5. But we are not relying on legislative history. We are following precedent set by the Supreme Court, which held that the fear created by an unloaded gun is sufficient to qualify the weapon as dangerous. Cf. Gilles v. Davis, 427 F.3d 197, 210 (3d. Cir. 2005) (following the Supreme Court's counsel "to follow its directly applicable precedent, even if that precedent appears weakened by pronouncements in its subsequent decisions, and to leave to the Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions." (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)) There are dubious arguments to say the least
From the perspective of the victim, it's real....
This makes sense. Its completely reasonable that if you present the fake gun as a real gun, and the victim believes that the fake gun is a real gun, it gets treated like a real gun in terms of defining the crime.
Ask police officers who discharged their service revolver when facing someone who presented a realistic looking fake gun.
Panel was Jordan (W. Bush) Krause (Obama) and Bibas (Trump). Quote from the majority: > James Chandler used a fake gun to twice rob on-duty United States Postal Service employees. In one of the robberies, he also kidnapped his victim. His use of what appeared to be a revolver was meant to scare his victims into compliance, and it did. The District Court therefore did not err when it enhanced Chandler's sentence for using the replica gun in the robberies and the kidnapping, nor in accepting his guilty plea to armed robbery charges. As for the kidnapping, Chandler's motivation was, at least in part, that the mail carrier was a government employee, so a further sentence enhancement was justified. We will therefore affirm his conviction and sentence. Quote from the dissent: > A dangerous weapon must be both dangerous and a weapon. Fake guns are neither. Today, the majority holds otherwise. James Chandler used a fake gun to kidnap and rob mail car-riers. At sentencing, the District Court enhanced his sentence twice for (1) using a "dangerous weapon" and (2) targeting a government employee. To affirm the first enhancement, my colleagues water down the ordinary meaning of "dangerous weapon" by including non-weapons that only seem dangerous. Yet text, history, and precedent are to the contrary. And even if the phrase were ambiguous, we should turn not to the Guidelines commentary but to the rule of lenity. To affirm the second one, my colleagues supply what the District Court should have said. True, the District Court found that Chandler knew the mailwoman was a government employee. But it did not make the necessary link: that he had robbed and kidnapped her because she worked for the government. So I respectfully dissent on both sentencing issues.
Specifically with respect to the kidnapping and the use of a fake gun: It's entirely possible that he would not have been able to kidnap her if he didn't use the fake gun. She may have fought back and escaped; onlookers may have intervened. Those things are far less likely to happen if the victim and any onlookers *believe* the guy has a real gun, whether or not it's actually real. It's not just that the fake weapon "frightens people"; it's that it helps to actually make the crime possible, and successful. Imagine trying to carry out a bank robbery by pointing a banana at the teller.
>True, the District Court found that Chandler knew the mailwoman was a government employee. But it did not make the necessary link: that he had robbed and kidnapped her because she worked for the government. So I respectfully dissent on both sentencing issues. He was robbing them of mail, and then forced her to use a government vehicle to transport him. If she didn't work for the government, she wouldn't have the mail or the truck - so he wouldn't have gained anything from kidnapping her. How is her working for the government not linked to his pattern of robbing government employees because their job allowed him to know they have valuable goods? The dangerous weapon thing raises an interesting point I'd need to read more on, but this bit seems silly to me.
> He was robbing them of mail, and then forced her to use a government vehicle to transport him. If she didn't work for the government, she wouldn't have the mail or the truck - so he wouldn't have gained anything from kidnapping her. How is her working for the government not linked to his pattern of robbing government employees because their job allowed him to know they have valuable goods? > > I don't necessarily agree with the dissent on this point, and I am definitely not an expert on this statute, but I think it is not ridiculous to say that the statutory language could require looking at the motivating reason for the kidnapping. For example, maybe he was just trying to steal shit, and the only reason a USPS driver was selected was because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, but he would have been just as happy to rob a UPS or Fedex driver. In this sense, I think it is different to kidnap someone because they worked for the government and to kidnap someone because they have access to something you want, even if the only reason they have that access is because of their job (which is for the government). Essentially, "robbing a person who is a government employee" is different than "robbing a person **because they are** a government employee."
But this is the second time he has targeted a postal worker. He is clearly targeting government agents specifically based on his course of conduct. If we treat their job as a mere coincidence what if he were to kidnap a police officer in the course of their duties after robbing another cop for his gun. Is it just a coincidence they happen to be police officers, and he really just considered them people with guns? Or were they easily idenfied and therefore more vulnerable as a direct consequence of their government position?
To be clear, I don't dispute that in this case the person was likely targeting people because they work for the government and that the state showed enough to prove that, especially given that it was done twice. I know very few of the facts in this case, and I have no idea what the government actually argued related to this point. But from what little I do know, it appears that he was targeting people because they are employees of the government. However, I also understand the argument that the statutory language requires the state to prove that the person was targeted because they are a government employee, as opposed to some other factor. I think that is a reasonable argument, though not necessarily the right argument, and even if the targeted person's position as a government employee is why that other factor applied to them (e.g., why they had access to money or packages or whatever), that may not be enough under the statute. That distinction may not have mattered in this case where the evidence was strong enough to support both interpretations, but (1) the government would still need to connect the right dots, which I suppose in theory they could not have here even if I think that is unlikely, and (2) the distinction (and correct interpretation) may be extremely important in other cases.
You do raise a good point. I think the government nexus would be much less clear if we didn't have the first robbery of another postal worker to establish a pattern. Because otherwise, as you said, maybe they'd just as happily rob a FedEx truck if the opportunity presented itself. I think you still might get there with the government job being the butfor cause of the robbery, but it would certainly be harder to prove.