kittythehare
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2016
- Messages
- 18,562
- Reaction score
- 109,053
well done you. Thanks for reposting it.TY!
Per the search and seizure warrants all applications state the following 4 violations
a. Destruction/Damage of Aircraft or Aircraft Facilities-18 U.S.C. 32(a);
b. Violence at an International Airport-18 U.S.C. 37(a)(2); and
c. Unlawful Interstate Transport/Delivery of Firearms by Non-Federal Firearms Licensee 18 U.S.C. 922 (a)(3) and (5);
d. Aiding and Abetting 18 U.S.C. 2.
I have since reviewed each US Code listed above via https://www.gpo.gov
US Code 32(a)
§32. Destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities
(a) Whoever willfully
(1) sets fire to, damages, destroys, disables, or wrecks any aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States or any civil aircraft used, operated, or employed in interstate, overseas, or foreign air commerce;
US Code 37(a)(2)
b. §37. Violence at international airports
(a) Offense.A person who unlawfully and intentionally, using any device, substance, or weapon
(2) destroys or seriously damages the facilities of an airport serving international civil aviation or a civil aircraft not in service located thereon or disrupts the services of the airport,
if such an act endangers or is likely to endanger safety at that airport, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both; and if the death of any person results from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
US Code 922(a)(3 and 5)
§922. Unlawful acts
(a) It shall be unlawful
(3) for any person, other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to transport into or receive in the State where he resides (or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, the State where it maintains a place of business) any firearm purchased or otherwise obtained by such person outside that State, except that this paragraph (A) shall not preclude any person who lawfully acquires a firearm by bequest or intestate succession in a State other than his State of residence from transporting the firearm into or receiving it in that State, if it is lawful for such person to purchase or possess such firearm in that State, (B) shall not apply to the transportation or receipt of a firearm obtained in conformity with subsection (b)(3) of this section, and (C) shall not apply to the transportation of any firearm acquired in any State prior to the effective date of this chapter;
(5) for any person (other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector) to transfer, sell, trade, give, transport, or deliver any firearm to any person (other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector) who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in (or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, does not maintain a place of business in) the State in which the transferor resides; except that this paragraph shall not apply to (A) the transfer, transportation, or delivery of a firearm made to carry out a bequest of a firearm to, or an acquisition by intestate succession of a firearm by, a person who is permitted to acquire or possess a firearm under the laws of the State of his residence, and (B) the loan or rental of a firearm to any person for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes;
§2. Principals
(a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.
(b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 684; Oct. 31, 1951, ch. 655, §17b, 65 Stat. 717.)
The section as revised makes clear the legislative intent to punish as a principal not only one who directly commits an offense and one who "aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures" another to commit an offense, but also anyone who causes the doing of an act which if done by him directly would render him guilty of an offense against the United States.
I am not a lawyer nor have legal credentials however the confusion, from my perspective, is where is the division of LVMPD and the FBI roles in this investigation?
The FIT report provided details that the FBI was investigating. Why?
Are we to deduce that SP was possibly known to the FBI and LVMPD failed to stop him?
In other mass shootings has the local law enforcement ever spoke on behalf of the FBI?
I never saw it before but I never saw an interim/preliminary report either in any mass shooting or act of terrorism.
The warrants were signed by the Feds and they were considered to be public information.
Theres a local LE involvement but necessarily, because of the nature of the crimes, they are prosecuted federally. Here there is nobody prosecuted yet, we are told that one person might be and it will be a federal prosecution as far as I remember from Sheriff's presser.. I think he might also have said that it was unrelated to the shooting. I think Fox news reported, on the same night the report came out, that it was related to the child *advertiser censored*, but I don't recall the Sheriff saying that..
I think the report was issued at the Sheriff's request.
I think it was an act of damage limitation and that he believed it would further his personal ambitions in the forthcoming job competition.
He did not write that report, and I have wondered, more than once if he ever even attended the scene, personally, because he got so much so wrong so often.
He did state at presser that he did not want the fbi to be present.o be perceived as the man in charge, the man who controls the information-flow.
I wouldn't be at all sure the fBI would regard his actions in a favourable light.
Again, the report should have started with the words
'at x o'clock on x a date the first call was received.'
Putting it in 'laymans terms' can easily be interpreted as a poor excuse for a report with ominous omissions- though I respect there may be a good reason to withold the 10 pages of warrants, probably only one or at most 2 pages of those will be specific to the person or entity they are investigating. I have a secret hope that they are investigating the MB..
I doubt he was known to FBI or LVPD prior to the massacre.