Twisted Logic

[MR2]

Amish prosecuted because scissors 'crossed state lines'...

Originally Posted by Snip

What does the federal hate crimes law inspired by the murders of Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. have to do with an internal dispute among the Amish in which the beards of men and the hair of women were forcibly sheared?

“The scissors used to cut the hair were manufactured in one state and used in another,” explained Edward Bryan, defense lawyer for Amish bishop Samuel Mullet Sr., who was sentenced to 15 years in federal prison.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that the source is credible and statements are factual. Lets also assume that the defendants were guilty of assault and that it was a 'hate crime'.

How else can/will the Commerce Clause be perverted by using convoluted, twisted logic?

Originally Posted by Snip

U.S. Attorney Steven M. Dettelbach, of the Northern District of Ohio, argued in the indictment that the “Wahl battery-operated hair clippers” used in the assaults “were purchased at Walmart and had travelled [sic] in and affected interstate commerce in that they were manufactured in Dover, Delaware.”

Will this allow the Dept. of State to sue because the batteries were made in China?

[FlagDayNCO]

Disgusts me, that they invoke any clause or subsection of a law to press their cases. The Amish are guilty because of their blonde hair and blue eyes.

Yet, the Feds in the Chicago region have overlooked any firearms related charges in many cases.

Selective Prosecution at it's best.

Flag Day NCO

[JJ_BPK]

Originally Posted by Snip
U.S. Attorney Steven M. Dettelbach, of the Northern District of Ohio, argued in the indictment that the “Wahl battery-operated hair clippers” used in the assaults “were purchased at Walmart and had travelled [sic] in and affected interstate commerce in that they were manufactured in Dover, Delaware.”

Explain the logic??

If the hair clippers were made in China, is this an International Crime and should it be prosecuted at the International Court of Justice in the Hague, Netherlands??


Or is someone being stupid??

[Dozer523]

This case is about a group of people deliberately planning and executing an attack on people who believe that the way one wears their hair is religiously significant. The attack was to create a situation where those attacked would be austrisized from their religious community. The actual damage goes far beyond the assault and battery of the act.
It appears the intent of the prosecutors was to impose a significantly more severe punishment (then first offense battery) upon conviction.
In order to charge certain crimes certain parameters have to be met.

What needs to happen is state law needs to catch up with the federal laws. When that happens there will not be a need for such a tenious connection.

Once you're in the boat you fish with the bait you have. MOO. Waiting on the Lawyers and Judges.

[Pete]

As an idea was stated above.

Sounds like if your shirt was made in China you violated international law.

If it stands and then goes to the Supreme Court and is upheld we're in deep shit.

[Peregrino]

Could have been solved very simply by an assault conviction with prison time (intent plays a big role in sentencing for assault) and a follow-on civil suit. There's plenty of time for hair to grow back while you spend your assailant's money as they rot in jail. Now we have a further distortion of the much abused Commerce Clause by VERY tenuous means; a situation that's far more detrimental to the rights of every American. Another overzealous Federal prosecutor pushes all of us that much faster/further down the "slippery slope".