Kavanaugh assassination attempt thwarted

I checked and only only found a thread in Factual Questions about the reasoning for the attempted murder charge, but if I missed another, please merge or delete this as warranted.

Armed Man Traveled to Justice Kavanaugh’s Home to Kill Him, Officials Say

Nicholas John Roske, 26, of Simi Valley, Calif., was charged with attempted murder after two U.S. deputy marshals saw him step out of a taxicab in front of the justice’s house in Chevy Chase, Md., early Wednesday morning, federal prosecutors said. Mr. Roske was dressed in black and carrying a suitcase and a backpack, according to a federal affidavit.

Inside the suitcase and backpack, the authorities later discovered a “black tactical chest rig and tactical knife,” a pistol with two magazines and ammunition, pepper spray, zip ties, a hammer, a screwdriver, a nail punch, a crowbar, a pistol light and duct tape, in addition to other items, according to the affidavit.

Not really anything to add, just posting for awareness and commentary.

Thoughts and prayers.

So, no worries since it’s someone you don’t approve of.

Not unexpected.

I said I was thinking and praying, which, as we’ve all been told, is the only thing that anyone can possibly do when this sort of thing happens.

Is that suddenly no longer sufficient?

I’m glad this guy was apprehended with no actual violence or bloodshed. And I hope he’s prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. And, if found guilty, is given a harsh but fair sentence.

This sort of thing makes everyone look bad. The fact that I detest Kavanaugh has no bearing on this.

“Ph’nglui mglw’nafh Cthulhu R’lyeh wgah’nagl fhtagn.”

”Whoever sows injustice will reap calamity, and the rod of his fury will fail.” — Proverbs 8:22


If it’s fair, then by definition it’s not harsh, right?

Probably just semantics, but my thought process was to be firm without making an example of him. It can be a harsh sentence without being extreme. That’s all I’m saying.

If the dude fires a shot and misses. that’s an assasination attempt. The bad guy should be charged with having the gun, travelling with the gun, that kind of thing, as the law in Mayland applies.

Thoughts and prayers are for the grieving family after someone has been killed.

Seems to me this is just a big whinge fest over basically a normal tourist visit. A guy walking around with a suitcase and typical American tourism accessories is now suddenly a big problem.

Yeah, because he turned himself in.

Which I consider an absolute win. It’s comforting to know that Left wingnuts can have an attack of rationality before committing an insane act. It would be nice if more of the Right wingnuts would suffer a similar malady.

Interestingly, Simi Valley is one of the more conservative areas in the L.A. area.

From what I read, he was carrying weapons cased. He did not brandish or threaten. He made a crank call to the police.

What’s there to prosecute?

Isn’t that the subject of the FQ thread?

Kind of, but that one seems to be more about the definition of ‘attempt’.

I imagine this question has been asked in the past, but what would happen after a successful SC justice assassination? Would the sitting president push through their own choice, or find someone with the same political views as the one who was killed? And yes, I’m aware these justices aren’t supposed to be “political”, but they all are.

Now it is certain that Rowe will be overturned.

You are, I assume, referring to Mike Rowe v. The United Association of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Workers, the Supreme Court judgement in which implicit rights to the term “Dirty Jobs” was determined to be an implicit trademark held exclusively by people involved in the sewage processing and therefore not applicable to septic tank cleaners, food processing sanitizers, janitorial workers, and other professions portrayed on the Discovery Channel show “Dirty Jobs” hosted by Mr. Rowe. Fortunately, DCC and the plaintiffs have since come to a trademark licensing agreement allowing the show to return to the channel, so while the precedent of Rowe stands there is little call for the Supreme Court to reconsider the decision.