As I write this, the matter of Mr. Roske is not yet closed, and so one should not draw final conclusions; however, on the current course, this was an impressive display of brazen tyranny, that skillfully combined a variety of rhetorical devices to set into motion a process to send a man to prison for years – who committed no crime at all. While this act does not have the magnitude of international terrorist murder, mass imprisonment, etc., it, and more importantly, all the policies and propaganda that led to this incident, completely destroy the narrative of the rule of law, and give the people of the country negative confidence in their security against the violence of the government.
A brief recap: Nicholas Roske got off a plane with an unloaded firearm (ammunition separate), tactical clothing, etc. and took a taxi to Chevy Chase, Maryland, where he was dropped off at the house of a Supreme Court judge. Although, since security protocols often are kept secret, we cannot comment on the precise level of protection at this house, at minimum, more than one guard was, in plain view, posted at the residence. It seems, based upon Mr. Roske’s accounts and the reports of these officers, that Mr. Roske surveyed the area, and then decided not to take any particular actions at the residence. Following some communication with his sister, he then decided to call 911, and at that point he was arrested. Following the arrest, he was charged with attempted murder. Further investigation appears to indicate the discussion about killing various Supreme Court justices.
As a judge or jury, when such a charge is brought, we must consider which actions specific to this case, qualify for the criminal charge. To attempt murder, either one must take specific actions that directly endanger others, or there must be some sting operation or ongoing criminal activity, in which a specific threshold has been crossed that, if uninterrupted by law enforcement interdiction, would result in the attempt at murder (that is, the suspect crosses the point of no return such as pushing a button, charging a defense line with gun brandished, the organized crime boss orders the hit and provides resources to carry it out, etc.)
By walking away, Mr. Roske could not have crossed a point of no return. Of course, he didn’t harm anyone. This turning back, was further reinforced by his call to 911. He never passed any threshold that could qualify him for an attempted murder charge, under the just law.
To the point of what punishment could he qualify for, under some other charge or statute: the proportionality of punishment must accord to the degree of offense:
- How many people were killed, assaulted, etc.
- How much money was lost, property destroyed, etc.
- Unlawful imprisonment or usage, general harassment, imminent threats causing terror, etc.
Mr. Roske didn’t harm anyone, destroy any property, or detain anyone. Even a petty shoplifter or routine speeder causes more harm. He didn’t even drive his own car, taking a flight and a taxi; so from a risk perspective, he actually exposed the public to less risk than that to which he was entitled as a free citizen, to drive his car on the public roads. He had a gun, but it was unloaded and transported on the flight according to the published protocols, and so the only risk would have been that the gun was not properly cleared. He never even reached the attention of law enforcement (let alone the justice in question) for any threats, and it might even have been that his online discussion clarified his thinking enough for him to have the second thoughts that led him to call for help. Therefore, under the just law, you must sentence him to less punishment than for petty shoplifters and speeders, which is a relatively small fine, or even a verbal warning from a police officer. Hence, even if you bureaucratically claimed he did not follow procedures, you could not assess any punishment, without arbitrarily imposing punishment out of accord with the severity of the offense.
Finally, to the point of enticement: we have heard, over and over and over and over again, with regards to mass shooters, suicidal individuals, depressed, drug users, etc. that we should encourage people to seek help via 911, various crisis hotlines, counselors, checking into rehab facilities, etc. However, it seems that the call to 911 was what precipitated government action against Mr. Roske, and the subsequent filing of charges; the guards posted at the house let him walk away. He did what people in the government and society told him to do, and now is at risk of losing his freedom for decades.
Having reviewed the matter from the perspective of the just law, arbitrary and capricious punishment, and general considerations of law-abiding citizens doing what the government tells them to do, we clearly see that Mr. Roske’s charges have been brought in flagrant disregard of every principle of the rule of law. Now we should turn our attention to the specific mechanisms which affect the popular understanding, that keep the population from rioting to free Mr. Roske: that is, we should discuss all the techniques and propaganda put out by the government and others which have put Mr. Roske, and by extension the general public, in such peril.
The first is the deviation from the proof standards of the just law. Instead of basing the attempted murder charge on actual harms or incontrovertible evidence of point of no return, instead “intent”, in proceeding to make plans, or to abandon such plans, is used as the proof standard. Metaphysically, intent is unknowable, so you already start from bad fundamentals when you use this in your law code. Mechanically (the more important part), what means does the government consider as intent in these cases?
- Buying/carrying guns, hardened gloves, body armor, bullets
- Taking survival classes, martial arts training, going to the gun range, prepping
- Gathering with like minded individuals, including discussion meetings and protests
- Discussing politics against the government’s preferred viewpoints
Some of these measures are directly contrary to liberal government, such as the restrictions on the freedom of speech and association, petition of government regarding grievances, etc. Some of these measures are about the government vs. the underclasses, such as gun control. In all cases, the government uses the attempted murder (or similar conspiracy charges) as a means to implement royalist, illiberal government, via other means. To the point of popular pacification, their means to obscure and blunt opposition is to assert that whatever measures the government deems “intent” do correlate with the crime in question. Sometimes, those assertions are true, so people without a correct understanding of the law will (partially or completely) accept that reasoning.
The second primary technique is the combination of judicial discretion in punishment, and the acceptance of process offences in the general case, which accustoms the participants in the justice system to accept gross contradictions of the principle of proportional punishment. The use of sentencing ranges, and having a judge decide based on their gut – or whatever else they feel like – conditions all law enforcement officers to accept subjective judgments and to imprison different people for different terms based on the same offenses – or worse, to keep some people in prison for longer, for less significant criminal behavior, than others. The proliferation of process offences, such as limits on money transfers and reporting over $10K, various accounting paperworks that have to be submitted, numerous and lengthy permitting applications in all kinds of construction, operations, and demolitions, occupational licensing, drug approvals, etc. has reached a pervasive level, so that, instead of applying process-only requirements to specific activities in certain classes, where you can have an individual citizen or police officer reason about what they may need to ask about, every type of human activity may be covered by some process requirement. This leads to two major deviations from thinking centered in the rule of law:
- When everything is punishable, the way of life is “allowed by government” instead of “prohibited by law”. Therefore any deviant in any respect, is against the government, and can be punished.
- When people can receive significant punishment with no evidence of breaking the just law, only noncompliance with process requirements, this breaks the connection between the just law and the law code on the books or as enforced. Therefore the just law will not be a restraint in the thinking of any police officer, prosecutor, or judge.
Moreover, all these process offences condition the public to be afraid of the government, living in terror – and if this is the way the government works, that is a quite reasonable point of view.
The third primary technique is the classic technique of creating over- and under-classes. These classes not only include the overclass of the government officers against the commoners, but the “normal” (they are absolutely not normal in many important respects) people vs. the mentally unstable/deficient/deviant/weird/autistic/eccentric. Popularizing these royalist principles that allow for the upper class to hold over the lowers, and operationalizing them via unjustified police or mob violence, gun control, various punishments for adjudication of mental illness, background checks based on records that record deviant (or normal, or establishment-approved) behavior, creates the social expectation in law enforcement and in the population, that anyone who acts out of line, is eligible for, and liable to receive, punishment, on the basis of behavior that may have nothing to do with actual harms/the just law.
This is how the government convinces individuals (law enforcement and civilian) that discussing your plans and thinking with an associate who gets a chance to talk you out of it, the notionally lawful transport of a firearm, walking away from a tense situation, and asking for help, is criminal behavior meriting 20 years in prison.