,
4 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
i'd be interested to pick the brain of an attorney familiar with application of federal hate crime enhancements to different kinds of charges - i'm curious about moon's reasoning here.
the victims he's referring to were of the overt acts (in this case, multiple assaults) included in the statement of the offense, but the actual charges plead to were conspiracy to riot. so much of the argument, though, was about the overt acts rather than the conspiracy.
but if the actual motivation for the actual crime they were convicted of was to target people they believe to be a part of a massive jewish conspiracy, what difference does it make who the victims of the overt acts were?
for reference, judge urbanski presided over james fields' sentencing last month in the same court on 29 hate crimes for driving his car into a crowd of people he perceived to be his enemies, but did not "intentionally select" any individual victim.
