3 mass shooting plots stopped around the country in separate incidents, police say

[Sonny Tufts]

I’m no lawyer, but that is not attempted murder.

It's pretty close. See, e.g., the Illinois Penal Code definition of attempt:

Sec. 8-4. Attempt.
(a) Elements of the offense.
A person commits the offense of attempt when, with intent to commit a specific offense, he or she does any act that constitutes a substantial step toward the commission of that offense.

[Brian4Liberty]

It's pretty close. See, e.g., the Illinois Penal Code definition of attempt:

You never know, they could try to charge them with anything. Not only that all states differ slightly in their definitions. But seeing as the mainstream media completely dropped the story after one day leads me to believe that all three arrests were illegitimate.

Doesn't matter to them though, their propaganda objectives were met.

[buck000]

RE: Brandon Wagshol - Here are some screenshots of his social media posts, etc.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckra...nsphobic-posts

I dunno; he appears to be pretty racist, etc., but not necessarily plotting a mass murder. Maybe he just got the FBI a bit jittery with his posts mentioning them.

[kcchiefs6465]

Wagshol has been charged with four counts of illegal possession of high-capacity firearm magazines. He is being held on $250,000 bond.

Lmao.

THIS is his crime?

I guess they are done with manipulating halfwits for positive coverage and future funding.

Or the concerned citizen who sold him those magazines was a federal agent and they are entrapping people for so called high capacity magazines.

[kcchiefs6465]

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case, interpreting the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[1] The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."[2][3]:702 Specifically, the Court struck down Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute, because that statute broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence. In the process, Whitney v. California (1927)[4] was explicitly overruled, and doubt was cast on Schenck v. United States (1919),[5] Abrams v. United States (1919),[6] Gitlow v. New York (1925)[7], and Dennis v. United States (1951).[8]

Do they not understand their own laws or do they understand their own laws and that is why they entrap on technical violations of various unrelated laws to imprison whoever they want to?

250K bond for magazines will be you next.