Don’t forget that even if you were found not guilty, Osama’s family could sue you for damages in a civil case (as O.J. found out).
Jack Ruby was convicted, which was not a dissimilar situation.
I think this would effectively be a bill of attainder, so yes, a constitutional amendment would be required. As the U.S. Constitution stands, Congress can’t do it and the states can’t do it.
There is a term, perhaps in the Geneva convention, something that allows a non-military citizen to take up arms un-uniformed to defend the homeland in times of war - perhaps according to the wording it may be allowed. This also seems related to the ‘unregulated militia’ briefly mentioned to somewhere in the constitution.
That’s crazy talk. 
No, federal law does not trump state law. Just because the Fed might give you a pass on killing Osama Bin Laden does not mean that the State will not drop murder charges on you for killing a non-threatening unarmed someone in cold blood in the middle of the sidewalk or whatever. If Mr. Bin Laden is not engaged in a threatening act at the time, your actions would be murder under the legal code. The federal instructions do not say “Kill Bin Laden”, and even if they did, would not be applicable within the US boundaries.
It’s the reverse case of states having medical marijuana laws that make it legal, and the people complying with state laws getting brought up on federal charges. They are being denied the use of state laws accepting it as defense for the federal charges. The opposite situation would be in effect - just because the fed might allow it doesn’t mean the state laws are void.
While that is somewhat reprehensible, it should be noted that that occured outside the jurisdiction of US law and within an active military operation. Different situation, different conditions.
For those not getting it, it was a play on the old standard disclaimer about not being a lawyer. IANAL = I Anal = I “love” anal. YMMV.
I can can see how you might misconstrue that from what I said:
“assuming you kept your mouth shut, a good lawyer with the right connections will have Federal law trumping any possible state murder charges.”
I was talking about lawyers not laws, because IANAL as well.
I think the OP should be convicted for several reasons. Based on the OP, we can’t believe he was certain it was OBL, but more important, he’s just removed our ability to interrogate him and put him on trial for his crimes. I think an assassination, particularly of someone who has the status that he does, will be seen as a disappointment to those who consider him an enemy, and as maryrdom for those who see his acts as just. However, if we put him on trial, it’ll be much more difficult to argue that he isn’t guilty of violating the law and is, thus, deserving of his punishment.
I think if, perhaps, something like this happened shortly after 9-11, it would be a lot different. I think in such a situation, the idea of revenge is much more prevalent and understandable, though still not excusable in my mind, so I could definitely see a jury refusing to convict. It’s been almost a decade since then, and memories of 9-11 have been muddled with politics and wars since then, so I think people will be much less understanding and probably more likely to convict.
That all said, I would probably vote to convict, but would probably elect for a minimal sentence, but it really is hard to say. Circumstances such as that would probably be as much of a media circus as the OJ Simpson trial was, probably getting lawyers throwing themselves at him, so who knows how the trial would actually turn out.
Glad someone pointed out the Jack Ruby analogy. Ruby thought he was doing something heroic, but by denying the feds a chance to thoroughly interrogate Oswald over a period of time, all he did was muck things up and ensure there’d be a lot of unanswered questions. I’m sure bin Laden wouldn’t exactly be a font of information, but by taking the law into your own hands, you could potentially deprive us of some important intelligence. Then there are the international ramifications. It would be best if there were a fair trial and THEN OBL got sentenced and legally offed. There are reasons posses and lynch mobs are illegal; you just don’t get to make that call on your own, and for good reason.
That said, I’m sure we’ll all rest easier when OBL eventually bites the dust, even though he seems increasingly irrelevant.
Unless I’m mistaken, I’m the first to say this:
Need answer fast?
Be sure and tip the waitresses!
Best wishes,
hh
Being this is NYC and all, you’d probably be charged with illegal possession of a firearm, at the very least.
If you were:
a) dumb enough to believe OBL was in a NY restaurant in broad daylight with the airline security we have now,
b) you carry guns with you into restaurants, AND
c) shoot to kill with no provocation and only a visual ID,
I think you have a pretty good case of being legally insane and clearly have no idea of the difference between right and wrong.
You’re missing the point of the hypothetical. You are to assume that the person he killed is, in fact, Bin Laden.
It doesn’t matter if it turned out to be Bin Laden. He still had no way of making a clear identification. To shoot someone based on seeing them, rather than calling the authorities, is crazy. It doesn’t matter if the outcome turned out all right in the end.
If I get drunk and fire into a crowd, it doesn’t matter if I happen to shoot someone on the FBI’s most wanted list. Getting drunk and firing into a crowd is always a problem, even if it somehow ends up having a positive result.
While true, the fact that it was Bin Laden will be enough for some people.
I’d guess that the worst the person could get for killing Bin Laden would be something akin to manslaughter, unless you try an insanity defense. Jack Ruby was pretty much convicted because he had a stupid lawyer. He could have gotten the equivalent of manslaughter, “murder-without-malice.” But the lawyer tried to show him insane (which mostly happened after he shot Oswald, if it wasn’t just an act). And even then his conviction was later overturned; he was just too sick and died before the retrial.
That’s my point. OBL could never, ever, get into a NYC restaurant undetected. That you are armed and ready to kill is the main (imho) issue.
He could never get to NYC undetected? Really? :rolleyes:
Well, look, let’s at least kneecap the bastard.
Firing randomly into a crowd is illegal. Killing a foreign enemy soldier in your country might not be. The hypothetical is not “I shoot a random person and just happen to hit Bin Laden.” The hypothetical specifically instructs you to assume that Bin Laden’s identity is known before the killing/murder.
If you have an issue with someone who carries firearms, that is a different thread (in GD).
If you have an issue with him ready to kill based only upon visual identification, especially in an unlikely location for that individual, that is a fair criticism.
If you just wish to point out that the hypothetical is unlikely, there is no point to participate in the conversation.
While scamartistry’s OP is a little vague, we can interpret the meaning in a couple different ways. But his later clarification states that OBL’s identity is not in question, it clearly is him, not an impersonator, etc. The question seems to be about the legality and/or morality of killing OBL in a public venue in the USA (especially New York City), based only upon his identity and previous actions - his presumed guilt.
As the law currently stands, it would be illegal. Conviction, though, might be difficult to achieve, based purely on the notion that out of 12 jurors, at least 1 would be unwilling to convict, regardless of what the laws state.