Could all participants of the recent Capitol invasion be charged over the death of Officer Brian D. Sicknick? Prosecutors in the US Attorney's office plan to open a federal murder investigation into the death of Brian D. Sicknick, a US Capitol Police officer who died Thursday night, a law enforcement official tells CNN. source I am not a lawyer, not even American, so perhaps someone (who is both) could tidy up this next bit ... I am aware that American law has a concept of each member of a group being jointly responsible for the actions of other members of the group (could someone please cite the relevant law?). So, for instance, a getaway driver parked around the corner can be charged with murder if an accomplice kills a bank teller during a robbery. Could this be applied such that every member of the crowd (or some subset thereof) around the Capitol at the time of the officer's injuries be charged? I realize that this is, in practice, highly unlikely to happen. But I seek to understand to what extend that the could theoretically apply to such a large crowd.
I am aware that American law has a concept of each member of a group being jointly responsible for the actions of other members of the group This is much too broadly stated to be accurate. There is no general law of group responsibility in the US. Under US law, when a group of people agree to do something jointly that is illegal, or using illegal means, they can all be charged with conspiracy, and the acts of one used in the trial of another. But it must be proven that an accused knowingly jointed in the conspiracy to convict that accused person. See 18 U.S. Code § 371 When one person assists another to commit a crime, in any of various ways, a charge of &quot;accessory&quot; or of &quot;aiding and abetting&quot; or of &quot;being an accomplice&quot; can be brought. But this will again involve proof that the accused knew that the conduct involved was criminal. Where a person commits or tries to commit a felony, alone or as part of a group, and a death results, the person can be charged with felony murder. A classic example is where an armed bank robbery occurs and one of the robbers is shot and killed by a guard. Each of the robbers may be charged with felony murder, even if none if them knew or intended that anyone be harmed or killed. But the felony must be one of a limited list provided by statute. The federal statute is 18 U.S. Code § 1111 which limits the crimes that can trigger the rule to &quot;arson, escape, murder, kidnapping, treason, espionage, sabotage, aggravated sexual abuse or sexual abuse, child abuse, burglary, or robbery&quot;. The DC code § 22–2101 limits the rule to arson, as defined in § 22-301 or § 22-302, first degree sexual abuse, first degree child sexual abuse, first degree cruelty to children, mayhem, robbery, or kidnaping, ... any housebreaking while armed with or using a dangerous weapon, or ... a felony involving a controlled substance Only a person who could be shown to have been committing or attempting one of the listed felonies could be charged with felony murder. Merely &quot;being part of the crowd around the capital&quot; would not provide grounds to charge anyone with felony murder, and to charge someone as accomplice to murder it would need to be shown that the accused intended someone to be killed. It might be that some few of the intruders could be charged with felony murder, depending on the exact facts, but probably most could not. See also What are the legal violations and criminal penalties likely to be for the protesters that entered the Capitol on January 6, 2021?
Whether or not a war between political entities can result from some action is completely political and strategic, and not legal. The specific incident is probably legal, given US and international law regarding military action. Unless the order was self-evidently unlawful there is no possibility of arrest and prosecution under US law, however there might be a framework for legal action by Iran, if e.g. a drone operator were to fall into Iranian hands. The specifics of the order are not generally known, though we know that DoD states that this was due to a presidential order. This article discusses targeted killing from a legal perspective. In the context of war, killing is legal though not entirely unregulated. There was a failed attempt to sue the US in the case Al-Aulaqi v. Panetta, which involved a targeted killing of a US citizen involved in planning terrorist attacks, a suit which was dismissed. One problem is that the suit "failed to state a 4th Amendment claim", and also failed to state a 5th Amendment due process claim since Al–Aulaqi's deaths was unanticipated. The court notes that a Bivens claim allows damage action against a federal officer for violation of clearly-established constitutional rights. However, No case has discussed precisely whether a plaintiff can proceed on a Bivens action that claims deprivation of life without due process based on the overseas killing by United States officials of a U.S. citizen deemed to be an active enemy. In the discussion, the question arises whether special circumstances counsel hesitation (Doe v. Rumsfeld and citations therein), which the Doe court notes would "require a court to delve into the military's policies", and they will not do that lightly. All of this is about US citizens. Soleimani was not a US citizen.
In general in the US, anyone may photograph anyone else if they are all in a public place, although in some states such a photo may not be used commercially without permission, which must often be paid for and may be refused. It is unusual for police to photograph people on the street, but they might want to document who was present at a particular place and time. They can do so, but I am not at all sure that they can prevent a person from covering his or her face, or turning his or her back, or charge a person who does so with obstruction. I don't think so. Under some circumstances in the US police may ask a person for identification, and may charge a person who refuses to provide it. This varied from one state to another, and usually depends on the specific circumstances. (If a person is driving an automobile, police may demand to see a driver's license, for example.) Unless a police officer puts a person under arrest, the officer has no general right to control that person's actions, beyond instructing the person not to interfere with ongoing police work. I do not think an obstruction charge would hold up for covering one's face or turning away in the absence of an arrest.
Yes, although whether you get any response depends on a lot of factors. Specific, credible threats are much more likely to get a response than &quot;I'm gonna kick your ass, amphibient, you (insert opposing viewpoint/sports team/etc).&quot; The law broken in question would be: 18 U.S. Code § 875.c: Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. As you are in different states, this would need to be reported at a national level. This would be done at https://www.ic3.gov/complaint/default.aspx. Whether or not this is the best option depends on what you hope to accomplish and whether the other person is likely to act on those threats.
The IRS Criminal Investigation division is typically going to be the arresting agency, assuming that (1) the offense is treated as a criminal matter; (2) a warrant is actually issued; and (3) anyone actually sets out specifically to serve the warrant. It is usually the case, though, that the violation is handled as a civil matter. When it is treated as a criminal violation, the defendant and the Service often reach an agreement that eliminates the need for an arrest. If there is a warrant, though, any police agency could theoretically make the arrest if they happened across the defendant. But if it's a time-sensitive investigation -- if the defendant is expected to flee or destroy evidence, for example -- it's a safer bet that you'll see an actual warrant execution. In that case, you would have CI taking the lead, perhaps with assistance from other agencies.
The definitive answer to the question "could I be charged" is always YES. I refer you to the Manassas City teen charged with child pornography. Child pornography laws were put in place to protect children and prevent them from being exploited by having sexual pictures of them taken and distributed. In this case, the picture in question is of the young man’s own genitals, which would make him both the perpetrator and the victim. Apparently the lead detective in the Manassas City teen's case was himself a pedophile and just wanted an excuse to use force to photograph the teen's erect penis. Why would you assume this "girl" is a "17 year old girl" or a "15 year old girl" and not a 39 year old pedophile Manassas police officer?
So for your first question, yelling "Stop Thief" loudly at the thief is perfectly legal (Like Yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater, it's legal if the theater is infact, on fire... the quote implied that it was a prankster who drew amusement from the reaction of the people who took him seriously). This may alert store employees, who have a specific kind of Citizens Arrest Power known as "Shopkeeper's Privilege" and is a reduced liability compared to Citizens Arrest. This is also pretty basic self defense agains people who are not engaged in any physical action against you but are starting to scare you. Suddenly shouting draws attention to you and discourages them from their behavior "I SAID DON'T TOUCH ME" being suddenly shouted in a Wal Mart is going to get notices from the immediate crowd drawn to you, and by poximate location, the person who is making you uneasy. For your second question, maybe, it depends... since the cop is clearly chasing the guy, you meet the qualification to use non-deadly force in stopping the criminal (i.e. you are witnessing a person committing a crime, in this case, resisting arrest or persuit) and it would certainly be reasonably non-deadly force if you were to trip, grab, or push the fleeing suspect. Citizens Arrest doesn't specify a minimum time to qualify, so if the officer is seconds behind, and you detain the criminal in this action until the gap is closed, it still counts.
Publishing government records is pretty classic First Amendment-protected activity. Keeping in mind that one can find a lawyer to sue for anything, I think that person would likely be operating well within the law. One thing in particular that I'd recommend staying aware of is how one might attempt to monetize this endeavor. There have been a lot of sites publishing arrest records, court records, and mugshots, and then charging people to have them removed to keep them from popping up in a Google search for those people's names. That is -- rightly -- regarded as sketchy behavior; while several states have passed laws prohibiting that business model, I don't believe any such law exists in Washington State at this point.