Timeline for answer to When did Lee Harvey Oswald first break the law? by bdb484
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
Post Revisions
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 22, 2025 at 1:20 | comment | added | phoog | Here's a link to the section of the Warren commission report that describes the lack of federal jurisdiction over the Kennedy assassination along with some other gaps in federal legislation and mentions some earlier attempts to make presidential assassination a federal crime: archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/… | |
| Mar 22, 2025 at 0:44 | comment | added | phoog | @ohwilleke section 1114 applied to a long list of offices that did not include the presidency. It looks like the long list was removed only in 1996. The fact that this section did not apply to the president accounts for the enactment of section 1751 in response to the Kennedy assassination. | |
| Mar 21, 2025 at 19:22 | comment | added | Nate Eldredge | Duran is interesting and very much on point. Duran did in fact pull the trigger and fire several shots toward the White House (in the general direction of a man who resembled Bill Clinton), but he argued at trial that he hadn't been aiming at any person and thought he was shooting at an "evil mist". The ruling was that this was irrelevant - through his earlier preparations, he had already committed attempted murder before he pulled the trigger. Although the applicable statute here was enacted after 1963, a similar analysis could have applied to laws in force at the time. | |
| Mar 21, 2025 at 3:37 | comment | added | ohwilleke | @phoog it has been a federal crime to murder a federal official since at least 1948. law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1114 Attempt crimes are covered in general for all federal crimes. The 1965 statute was just a re-codification of laws related to conduct that was already a federal crime to give the appearance of taking a tough stand against Presidential assassins by enacting a new federal statute that broke a general prohibition on murdered federal employees and officers into specific subtypes. | |
| Mar 21, 2025 at 0:25 | comment | added | Hannover Fist | In the 1960s, it was illegal to carry a concealed weapon in Texas. The rifle wrapped in bag would've broken the law, wouldn't it? Laws started to change after the 1966 University of Texas shooting. | |
| Mar 20, 2025 at 21:56 | comment | added | bdb484 | @phoog Fair point -- I was thinking the statute had been enacted for an earlier assassination, but it looks like it was actually JFK. I've updated to discuss the state-law rules for attempted murder that would have been in effect at the time. | |
| Mar 20, 2025 at 21:54 | history | edited | bdb484 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 890 characters in body
|
| Mar 20, 2025 at 21:35 | comment | added | Darrel Hoffman | There may have been rules at the book depository about bringing weapons to work - I've seen such workplace rules even in otherwise very gun-friendly states, though those aren't necessarily laws. It could maybe be grounds for workplace disciplinary action or even termination, but not legal action. I know it's Texas, but even in Texas they might be fine with someone coming to work with a handgun on their person, but a sniper rifle may be another matter entirely. | |
| Mar 20, 2025 at 20:12 | comment | added | phoog | @Yos233 you won't find such a case because the statute was enacted in 1965 ("Added Pub. L. 89–141, § 1, Aug. 28, 1965, 79 Stat. 580"). I understand that it was enacted directly in response to the Kennedy assassination because there wasn't a serious enough federal crime available to charge Oswald with, which is why he was in the custody of the local police rather than the FBI. A historical answer to this question would have to be based on the criminal codes in effect in 1963, and (again, if my understanding is correct) it will be more likely to identify Texas crimes than federal. | |
| Mar 20, 2025 at 19:33 | comment | added | Yos233 | This is a good answer, but finding a similar case law from pre-Oswald times would solidify that a contemporary (60's) court would have produced a similar finding. | |
| Mar 20, 2025 at 18:53 | history | edited | bdb484 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 163 characters in body
|
| Mar 20, 2025 at 14:41 | history | edited | bdb484 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 876 characters in body
|
| Mar 20, 2025 at 14:32 | history | answered | bdb484 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |