Question about LEO Laws and Regs

[JimBowie1958]

This involves a popular TV show named 'Justified' and so has a few spoilers I'm sure, so if you fear the sneak peek, don't read.......
























OK, the hero of the series is a US Deputy Marshal Raylon Givens. Raylon had been threatened by a criminal boss named Mr. Augustine, a man who had also threatened another crime boss named Sammy.

Raylon went to a location to have a confidential talk with Augustine about the threats made, and Augustine repeated the threats and said he would kill all of Raylon's family as well.

So Raylon exits the locale and passes on the location of Augustine to Sammy, who swoops in with gunmen and they kill Augustine.

Has Raylon violated the law? Has he violated any US Marshall guideline?

To me it looks like an innocent mistake in information security, if viewed from an angle with eyes squinted against a bright sun, kinda sorta.

Were Augustine a real person, the world would no doubt be a better place after said visit from Sammy, and after all isn't that what LEO's are really all about anyway?

What does anyone that knows anything about this sort thing think would happen to Raylon in the real world had this happened for real? (thank God, ahem-*cough*-*cough*, that US Marshal's don't really act like that, ahem-*cough*)

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Facillitating a murder sounds like. A kind of conspiracy charge. So yes, very much illegal.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Looking i tup, this law seems to fit best:

S 115.05 Criminal facilitation in the second degree.
A person is guilty of criminal facilitation in the second degree when,
believing it probable that he is rendering aid to a person who intends
to commit a class A felony [like murder], he engages in conduct which provides such
person with means or opportunity for the commission thereof and which in
fact aids such person to commit such class A felony.
Criminal facilitation in the second degree is a class C felony.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Looking i tup, this law seems to fit best:

S 115.05 Criminal facilitation in the second degree.
A person is guilty of criminal facilitation in the second degree when,
believing it probable that he is rendering aid to a person who intends
to commit a class A felony [like murder], he engages in conduct which provides such
person with means or opportunity for the commission thereof and which in
fact aids such person to commit such class A felony.
Criminal facilitation in the second degree is a class C felony.

Sounds like good ole Raylon is cooked.....

 

[George Costanza]

Facillitating a murder sounds like. A kind of conspiracy charge. So yes, very much illegal.

Conspiracy at the very least. He's an aider and abettor before the fact, which would make him a principal.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Facillitating a murder sounds like. A kind of conspiracy charge. So yes, very much illegal.

Conspiracy at the very least. He's an aider and abettor before the fact, which would make him a principal.

Cant say, 'It just slipped out, no harm intended?' How do you prove he did intend the death of the other crime boss?

 

[DGS49]

"...and which in fact aids such person to commit such class A felony."

This might be impossible to prove in court. It's one thing to tell the bad guy where his enemy is, but is that "aiding in the commission of the crime"? You are not responsible for what somebody else does unless you actively help him to do it (hand him a gun, staple a target on the guy's back).

Just a thought.

 

[HenryBHough]

Never having seen the show I venture only that if "Raylon" is (a) black (b) Muslim or (c) both a & b then it all swings on whether, if he is brought to trial, (a) he gets a Democrat "judge" or (b) Eric Holder stops by the court room and kisses him on toppa his head. In either case he gets a Peace Prize nomination.

 

[JimBowie1958]

"...and which in fact aids such person to commit such class A felony."

This might be impossible to prove in court. It's one thing to tell the bad guy where his enemy is, but is that "aiding in the commission of the crime"? You are not responsible for what somebody else does unless you actively help him to do it (hand him a gun, staple a target on the guy's back).

Just a thought.

Yeah, I agree, how do you prove intent?

 

[HenryBHough]

Yeah, I agree, how do you prove intent?

I betcha Obama's IRS Thought Police could figger that out in a heartbeat.

Or at least swear they did.

 

[George Costanza]

"...and which in fact aids such person to commit such class A felony."

This might be impossible to prove in court. It's one thing to tell the bad guy where his enemy is, but is that "aiding in the commission of the crime"? You are not responsible for what somebody else does unless you actively help him to do it (hand him a gun, staple a target on the guy's back).

Just a thought.

Yeah, I agree, how do you prove intent?

The best way to prove intent is by statements made which show intent. "I hate you and I'm going to kill you." Intent is pretty clear here.

But the absence of express statements does not mean that intent cannot be proven. When there are no express statements, we look at circumstantial evidence. Take the particular case involved here. The lawman hears a statement from the bad guy that the bad guy is going to kill the victim. A day or so later, the lawman turns over the victim's address to the bad guy. Is it reasonable to infer from that fact scenario, that the lawman gave the address to the bad guy because he wanted the bad guy to kill the victim? I think it is.

The real test is, what would a jury think? That's what a prosecutor must weigh when deciding whether or not to file a criminal action.

 

[JimBowie1958]

"...and which in fact aids such person to commit such class A felony."

This might be impossible to prove in court. It's one thing to tell the bad guy where his enemy is, but is that "aiding in the commission of the crime"? You are not responsible for what somebody else does unless you actively help him to do it (hand him a gun, staple a target on the guy's back).

Just a thought.

Yeah, I agree, how do you prove intent?

The best way to prove intent is by statements made which show intent. "I hate you and I'm going to kill you." Intent is pretty clear here.

But the absence of express statements does not mean that intent cannot be proven. When there are no express statements, we look at circumstantial evidence. Take the particular case involved here. The lawman hears a statement from the bad guy that the bad guy is going to kill the victim. A day or so later, the lawman turns over the victim's address to the bad guy. Is it reasonable to infer from that fact scenario, that the lawman gave the address to the bad guy because he wanted the bad guy to kill the victim? I think it is.

The real test is, what would a jury think? That's what a prosecutor must weigh when deciding whether or not to file a criminal action.

In the specific case of Raylon, the situation is pretty intertwined. He had the killer boss as an informant, so they talked fairly frequently. The executed boss had repeatedly told Raylon he would have him and his family killed, and when Raylon went to have the last pow-wow, he offered to take the executed boss in, but the latter refused and repeated his threats.

So Raylon leaves and runs into the killer boss and they exchange notes as they often had, then as Raylon leaves the killer boss tells his men to go in and kill the idiot, and Raylon hears the gun fire in the back ground.

I think he could deny enough details to play an unwitting facilitator in front of a jury and I doubt that the DA in this story line would prosecute.

But in real life, this is a more interesting question.