‘Protect and Serve Act’ Would Make Police a Protected Class and Violence Against Them a Hate Crime

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
41

“This bill amends the federal criminal code to add a new section that imposes criminal penalties on a person who knowingly causes (or attempts to cause) serious bodily injury to a law enforcement officer in certain circumstances that affect interstate commerce.”

“(b) Circumstances Described.—For purposes of subsection (a), the circumstances described in this subparagraph are that—

“(1) the conduct described in subsection (a) occurs during the course of, or as the result of, the travel of the defendant or the victim—

“(A) across a State line or national border; or

“(B) using a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce;

“(2) the defendant uses a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce in connection with the conduct described in subsection (a);

“(3) in connection with the conduct described in subsection (a), the defendant employs a firearm, dangerous weapon, explosive or incendiary device, or other weapon that has traveled in interstate or foreign commerce;

“(4) the conduct described in subsection (a)—

“(A) interferes with commercial or other economic activity in which the victim is engaged at the time of the conduct; or

“(B) otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce"

“(1) IN GENERAL.—No prosecution of any offense described in this section may be undertaken by the United States, except under the certification in writing of the Attorney General, or a designee, that—

“(A) the State does not have jurisdiction;

“(B) the State has requested that the Federal Government assume jurisdiction;

“(C) the verdict or sentence obtained pursuant to State charges left demonstratively unvindicated the Federal interest in protecting the public safety; or

“(D) a prosecution by the United States is in the public interest and necessary to secure substantial justice."

No worries. Looks like a little regulation of interstate commerce, with a little necessary and proper thrown in.

42

No commerce is being regulated - and Congress doesn’t have the authority to enact general criminal laws via the Commerce Clause. See US v. Lopez and US v. Morrison.

Happy reading.

43

I agree.

44

I suspect it’s one of those bills that’s written to be used in attack ads later. “Bob Smith voted against protecting the police from violent criminals. Why does he hate law and order?”

2 Likes
45

You’ve convinced me. Now, how do we defeat Bob Smith?

2 Likes
46

Metoo him.

47

on a long enough time line, we’ll all be metoo’d

48

Not if I can help it… Damn it. I’ll aviod women to absurdity if I have to.

49

MGTOW and Incel comes to mind

50

What the hell is that?

51

happy googling :slight_smile:

52

Not fair! Can you just tell me if what comes up is safe for work?

53

MGTOW = Men Go Their Own Way

Incel = Involuntary celibate

54

Ahhh, thank you!

55

The liberals and media in the United States have intentionally created an environment encouraging people to attack/ambush/kill us (the police) without any provocation. I would assume a federal charge would make the lucky winner eligible for the death penalty.

1 Like
56

That’s rather extreme. For example, let’s say BLM would be considered as approving of those things. BLM is not a liberal group. They are anti-liberalism. I really don’t know what news sources people are watching because I have never heard anyone, from Fox to MSNBC, encourage violence against anyone.

57

I see. So this (probably unconstitutional) legislation is really just to stick it to the hated libs, aye?

Your statement, by the way, is, well, horseshit.

2 Likes
58

And to execute anyone who can have a resisting arrest charge slapped on them, apparently.

1 Like
59

There are a few ways to respond here, but let’s assume for the sake of argument that your opinion about the actions of the liberals and media are correct:

This isn’t a bill just about harsher penalties for attacking police officers. That is something, if it was a truly substantial attack, I would be likely to support. Recall that along with legitimate and horrible attacks on LEOs there are a LOT of “add-on” charges for many arrests just for the sake of DA bargaining or because someone didn’t like the dirty perp in the first place. These “add on” charges are superficial and unwarranted in many cases and I do not support running up charge counts. However I DO support stiff penalties for a legitimate attack on an officer.

This bill is not simply about stricter penalties. Creating a “protected class” would create–for lack of a better word–a separate class of citizen for LEOs, and I don’t support that. Consequences are much farther reaching than simple prison sentence choice.

Further, and just as importantly in my mind, is the fundamental principle that “protected classes” are reserved for those groups of people who cannot fight systematic oppression effectively on their own. These classes are, essentially, legally powerless. This is not true of police.

2 Likes
60

I think I stated this earlier but my state can charge Capital Murder for killing a cop. That comes with the death penalty. Without reading the statute I think Capital Murder applies to a case of multiple murders or killing the victim of rape (along with cops). It’s rarely used but it can be charged at the state level. We don’t need the feds to do anything.

Possession of a firearm by a felon is supposed to carry an automatic five year sentence. It’s a federal crime and they don’t charge it very often—even though it’s about the easiest case you can have. We don’t need to rely on the feds to charge crimes. They seem to save their resources for the big stuff like steroids in baseball.

1 Like