Rov_Scam
36m ago
Not really since it isn't some general law that's being applied in a novel way; there are specific provisions for houses of worship, presumably added to attract support from Republicans and conservative Democrats.
Rov_Scam
8hr ago
At first I thought you were being sarcastic, because by your logic ICE should just get M-16s and spray crowds of protestors. Or for that matter anyone who does anything to openly oppose or disagree with any government policy you personally agree with deserves to be shot. You may wholeheartedly agree with me, in which case, to paraphrase Lincoln, you should consider moving to a place like Russia or Iran, where they don't even pretend that the citizens have any rights.
Rov_Scam
21hr ago
Yeah, they can do that, but it's an argument and it might not win. The issue is that if he wanted to make that argument he'd have to surrender to Minnesota authorities and potentially spend a long time in prison while he waits for a hearing, at which point the judge might reject the argument. If he wants to remove the case to Federal court he'd have to file that motion and wait for the case to get on a trial calendar before he could even file the immunity motion.
Rov_Scam
22hr ago
The state can still charge. The defendant can remove the case to Federal court, but the state would still be prosecuting,. just with a Federal judge and Federal jury. The advantage is that the judge would theoretically be more neutral and the jury would be drawn from a larger geographic area, but this is more of a consolation prize than anything . For instance, there would be a better argument for change of venire with a Hennepin County jury than with a jury that would be drawn from the entire district.
I think it comes more down to whether he was engaging in activity that is objectively illegal, since an observer would presumably be less likely to actively obstruct or threaten someone. If he were simply standing there quietly it could even be argued that any requests to vacate the premises were not directed to him, insofar as he was not acting any more disruptive than any member of the congregation. It all depends on the specifics of what they can prove that he actually did, not that he was just present while other people were breaking the law.
More options
Context Copy link