There are two ways to be convicted of a crime. Plea guilty (that means confess) or go through the trial process. Susan Rosenberg was convicted of posession of explosive materials, but the charges related to the actual bombing were dropped. Since she was never tried for those and she never plead guilty - she was not convicted of them.
Michael Flynn pled guilty to the crimes he was charged with. He also signed a document that detailed the crimes he was admitting to.
Here, I'll show you. Take special note of what it says right before his signature:
...
Remember: "Convicted" is just word we use that means someone either pled guilty or was found guilty by trial.
You are REALLY desperate to find any way to slide the topic now aren't you? What does it feel like finding yourself publicly defending domestic terrorist organizations?
Convicted is just a word for confessing to supplying bombs to terrorists for murdering people. Its ok though, "murder" is just a word for taking some one's life, so no need to be concerned.
(4) "Ms. Rosenberg was arrested in November 1984, when she and a companion, Timothy A. Blunk, were caught unloading 740 pounds of dynamite and weapons, including a submachine gun, from their car off Interstate 295 in Cherry Hill, N.J.
She admitted that she was planning to supply the explosives to others for bombings and has apologized for the crime.
...
In the explosives case, Ms. Rosenberg was
convicted in 1985 of eight counts of possessing explosives, weapons and fake identification cards. She was sentenced to 58 years in prison...."
https://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/21/nyregion/former-terrorist-among-those-pardoned-freed-clinton-s-final-acts-office.htmlHas the WSP authority to completely close any highway in Washington state anytime they want?
Yes. The state police in every state (that I know of at least) are in charge of major highways. I guess the governor could step in and force them to ask permission before shutting down a highway - but I doubt that was the case.
I'm sure there will be plenty of avenues for this guys defense to consider, and maybe it really was an honest mistake. All of my recent responses have simply been in response to the 'he was just driving down the highway, he can only be guilty of a traffic violation, the protesters were wrong first so that makes him less wrong' argument coming from tecshare and spendulus.
"RCW 47.52.120
Violations specified—Exceptions—Penalty.
"(1) After the opening of any limited access highway facility, it shall be unlawful for any person to:...(e) stop or park any vehicle or equipment within the right-of-way of such facility, including the shoulders thereof, except at points specially provided therefor, and to make only such use of such specially provided stopping or parking points as is permitted...
(3) Any person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and upon arrest and conviction therefor shall be punished by a fine of not less than five dollars nor more than one hundred dollars, or by imprisonment in the city or county jail for not less than five days nor more than ninety days, or by both fine and imprisonment."
https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=47.52.120"RCW 46.61.570
Stopping, standing, or parking prohibited in specified places—Reserving portion of highway prohibited.
(1) Except when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic, or in compliance with law or the directions of a police officer or official traffic control device, no person shall:
(a) Stop, stand, or park a vehicle:
...
(4)
It shall be unlawful for any person to reserve or attempt to reserve any portion of a highway for the purpose of stopping, standing, or parking to the exclusion of any other like person, nor shall any person be granted such right."
https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.570I.E. The police don't have the legal authority to grant this right.
The "protestors" negligent actions literally make him "less wrong" by the definition of the law.
"Criminal Negligence Law and Legal DefinitionCriminal negligence is negligence which requires a greater degree of culpability than the civil standard of negligence.
The civil standard of negligence is defined according to a failure to follow the standard of conduct of a reasonable person in the same situation as the defendant. To show criminal negligence, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the mental state involved in criminal negligence."
https://definitions.uslegal.com/c/criminal-negligence/"Contributory Negligence
The concept of contributory negligence is used to characterize conduct that creates an unreasonable risk to one's self. The idea is that an individual has a duty to act as a reasonable person. When a person does not act this way and injury occurs, that person may be held entirely or partially responsible for the resulting injury, even though another party was involved in the accident.For example, Dave, a motorist, strikes Sally, a pedestrian who was crossing the street without carefully checking traffic or heeding the warning of the do-not-cross sign of the nearby streetlight. Who's at fault in this situation?After an injured party files a negligence claim, the defendant (the person sued) may then assert a contributory negligence claim against the plaintiff (the person bringing the lawsuit), effectively stating that the injury occurred at least partially as a result of the plaintiff's own actions. This would be a contributory negligence counterclaim, a common defense to negligence claims.If the defendant is able to prove the contributory negligence claim, the plaintiff may be totally barred from recovering damages or her damages may be reduced to reflect her role in the resulting injury. The pedestrian in the example, Sally, probably would be considered at least partially at fault (and therefore liable for contributory negligence) for carelessly crossing the street.
Comparative Negligence
Most states have now adopted a comparative negligence approach to contributory negligence, wherein each party's negligence for a given injury is weighed when determining damages.Traditionally, the courts viewed contributory negligence as a total bar to the recovery of any damages. Under the traditional view, if a person had contributed to the accident in any way, the person was not entitled to compensation for his or her injuries. In an attempt to reduce the harsh, oftentimes unfair outcomes resulting from this approach, most states have now adopted a comparative negligence approach."
https://injury.findlaw.com/accident-injury-law/contributory-and-comparative-negligence.htmlUnder civil law, if a person fails to act reasonably and acts in such a manner to endanger themselves, the defendant may be liable for less, or have no liability at all. As you can see, criminal law sets a higher bar for negligence claims than does civil law, thus it is clear that a claim of criminal negligence on the part of the plaintiff simply would not hold water. This prosecution is purely a political one designed to appease the riot mob and has no basis in law.
