gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
She would have been convicted of attempted assassination if she struck Ford in the head with spiked heels.
Evidence?
Since the .45's chamber was empty, it was not about the lethality of the weapon, since Fromme didn't squeeze the trigger, rather it was the perceived threat of imminent danger to the President that got her what she wanted, life in prison.
This is false. The weapon was a deadly weapon, with ammunition in the magazine. Had she pulled the trigger a couple of times, she would have killed him. The prosecution case was that the USSS prevented her doing this.
If Fromme had drawn an automatic with an empty chamber on a civilian, she would not get life in prison. Had she done the same thing to a visiting head of state, I doubt she would be given a slap on the wrist.
Attempted murder or assault with a deadly weapon, depending on if the prosecution could successfully argue she had intended to shoot.
Even in your own scenario, Munt would get at least a year in the slammer if this happened in the U.S. and Bush was just another civilian, and hadn't ducked.
No. In California he would have received a maximum sentence of 1 year in prison (probably not actually, because both sentences would probably be served at the same time).
What do you suppose would be the penalty for Munt had he done the same thing to Talibani? More time, less time?
And the relevance? The sentence is fair because it's less harsh than probably the most ruthless regime to exist in the last decade? Seriously?
Next time anyone complains about a harsh sentence I'll be sure to point out that by Roman standards they got off lightly...