Hacker News Reader

Comment by SamoyedFurFluff | Hacker News Reader

I’m interested what the case law is for arresting someone for intent to perform a heinous act. I’ve heard a lot from stalking victims and the like that often times police will refuse to do anything until the stalker has assaulted or murdered the victim in question, despite clear indications the stalker is actively planning to do harm.

View on HN

There are plenty of laws about, say, attempted murder. Also, it’s possible for somebody to be convicted of shoplifting even if they’re nabbed before they leave the store if it’s clear that they were in the process of stealing items ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempt ).

And when there isn’t a specific law, there is a general “conspiracy to commit” law ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_conspiracy ), which is what I’m sure is involved in this case.

“Conspiracy” makes it sound funny, but the basic idea is that when multiple people (and “multiple” means “at least two”) have conversations about committing a specific crime and one takes concrete steps toward committing that crime, then all people involved can be punished for conspiracy. Of course, the ones who were undercover agents don’t get punished. And the fact that the plan wouldn’t work doesn’t matter. If the FBI sells fake explosives to somebody and that person plants them outside a building and tries to set them off, the fact that they were fake doesn’t help them beat the rap.

The issue with stalking is that there isn’t a law against being in the same area as somebody else (unless there’s a restraining order). So, unfortunately, the police can’t make an arrest until a law is broken or the potential stalker at least tries to break the law.

I guess my confusion here is why stalkers aren’t arrested for intent to commit assault or murder in a similar way, I mean, this guy intended to help terrorists but he was largely doing this through otherwise legal channels like purchasing weaponry? What if a stalker buys a weapon, repeatedly tells a victim of planned murder plots, etc?

> What if a stalker buys a weapon, repeatedly tells a victim of planned murder plots, etc?

They're probably still committing a crime. The thing with terrorism vs stalking though, is the budgets that are being spent on preventing them. It's also the level of Law Enforcement that does the investigation. Local PD is much less capable and has much less man power than the FBI.

Also, in case of 'tells a victim of planned murder plots' this often happens in person with no record existing. This happens about as often as fake victims saying someone is threatening them. So it's hard to judge whether any report of death threats from a stalker is real.

I've personally worked on stalking cases and until you've got actual irrefutable evidence of a stalker having made threats, it's always a gamble. Even letters and messages are being faked by pretend victims. Overreaction by local PD, without evidence, is how people get shot when they get swatted.

The FBI has actually set up terror plots and then recruited people to carry them out only to arrest them. It's outrageous IMO.

https://theintercept.com/2015/03/16/howthefbicreatedaterrori...

> clear indications the stalker is actively planning to do harm.

You might be interested in the "cannibal cop" case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Valle

Where, exactly, is the line crossed between "this guy is talking shit" and "this guy is actively planning to do harm?"

(I don't know where I even stand on that case. The ramifications of every alternate outcome is equally unsettling.)

Staking and terrorism are not the same. The FBI gets a boost to their career if they get a terrorism conviction, but there's no such incentive for more normal crime.

Wait until the victim is someone powerful.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com