The justices heard arguments in Joseph Fischer’s appeal of a lower court’s ruling rejecting his attempt to escape a federal charge of corruptly obstructing an official proceeding - the congressional certification of President Joe Biden’s victory over Trump that the rioters sought to prevent on Jan. 6, 2021.
Where do you think Democrat Rep. Jamaal Bowman pulled the fire alarm, or that the Ocasio-Cortez protesters that stormed Pelosi’s office?
I think that Bowman was in the building legally and I don’t know anything about the other event, so I can’t comment.
Was it legal for Bowman to be there though if he had the intention of committing a crime? Do people with access to their workplace, have the right to go there with the intention of committing a crime?
Yes, just like it’s legal for you to be in a bank if you have the intention of robbing it because it isn’t a crime until you actually do it. Breaking into and occupying the Capitol is in itself a crime.
So what about unlawful purpose and abuse of right doctrines?
If I’m supposed to know what those are, I don’t, but do they make occupying the capitol not a crime? Do they make intending to pull a fire alarm a crime before you pull it? Because otherwise, I don’t know how they would be relevant to either scenario.
So you admit to not knowing law but then make some statement saying that going to a bank with the intention of robbing it is fine until you actually rob it?
Yes they can mean that you don’t have a legal right to be somewhere if you went there with the intention of committing a crime.
I know enough about the law to know that no one has ever been arrested for intending to pull a fire alarm, but many people have been arrested for actually breaking and entering.
Just scoffing about my not knowing what you’re talking about doesn’t explain how they are relevant to these two examples.
People get arrested all the time for planning to commit crimes, even before they actually carry them out. I’m not sure why the fire alarm part is suddenly relevant here. Someone argued that because he had a legal right or what they though to be a legal right to be in a building meant that he can’t be charged with disrupting proceedings because he didn’t enter the building illegally. I was saying, no that isn’t correct… that if he went there with a specific intent it is likely he didn’t have a legal right to be there.