• LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    20 hours ago

    Only if you piss off the rich. A good example is Ted Bundy. Murdered non rich people in 4(?) different states, a situation where it would make complete sense the federal government would be bringing the charges because the crimes weren’t all within the jurisdiction of just one state… Yet no federal charges were brought against him, they left it to the states.

    • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      18 hours ago

      That would have been so very high profile back then. Did the lack of federal charges tick everybody off? Just wondering if anyone was going for a “let’s play this out through all of the four courts and that’ll be enough” game plan, or if it was ineptitude, focus elsewhere, your explanation, etc.

      Also has that happened in recent history within the past couple of administrations? If you know

      • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        13 hours ago

        In my personal opinion (anecdotal and possibly wrong) I feel like we had a period of a few decades where there was not so much of a state/federal governments not getting along. Unlike today where you have the FBI blatantly taking cases out of states hands and trying to not allow them to have evidence as we are seeing in say Colorado or California. Jimmie Carter would have been president when Bundy was caught in Florida. I think there may have been a trust in the states to deal with it. Floridas government very much was trying to take pride in the fact that they would execute him from what I know of the case, but I was born in the late 80s so I wasn’t around for the the arrest and public reaction in 78’. Someone else may be able to shine light on the differences between how it was portrayed to be handled after/now vs how it was taken by the public then.