Rand Paul

Rand Paul's Neighbor Faces Federal Charges for Attack

He assaulted the Kentucky senator over a brush pile.

|

The world wondered what possessed Rene Boucher, a retired anesthesiologist, to assault his neighbor Rand Paul in November, breaking at least six of the Kentucky senator's ribs and damaging his lungs. Was it political, stemming from Boucher's allegiance to the Democratic Party? Was Donald Trump's "sinister banality" to blame?

Reason

Now the official federal charges have come down. They say the motive was, as Boucher's lawyers stated earlier, a dispute over Paul's lawn care style.

As the announcement from the Justice Department sums it up, "Boucher allegedly witnessed the victim stack brush onto a pile near the victim's property and 'had enough.' Boucher ran onto the victim's property and tackled the victim. As a result of this assault, the victim suffered multiple fractured ribs and subsequently contracted and required medical attention for pneumonia. Boucher admitted the assault but denied it was politically motivated."

The charges are federal because Boucher chose to attack a senator, and that's not a typical state assault charge but a federal offense. The Justice Department's announcement quotes Amy Hess of the FBI's Louisville field office: "[T]he FBI will not tolerate violence directed against members of Congress. Those who choose to assault any federal official are certain to face serious consequences."

Boucher has already pleaded guilty to the charge, though "no date has been set for the taking of his guilty plea and the imposition of sentence." He could face as many as 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000. UPDATE: Federal prosecutors though will be seeking a 21 month sentence for Boucher

Advertisement

NEXT: Study of Postsurgical Patients Shows Addiction to Pain Pills Is Rare

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Wrong statute. Shall we rank people it is pretty much fine (and very bad) to attack based on their jobs?

    A retired doctor did that much damage?

    1. This is the same logic as hate crime legislation. How is it more of a crime based on who the person is?

      1. Dang, I came into to make a simliar complaint as this, this line: “”[T]he FBI will not tolerate violence directed against members of Congress. Those who choose to assault any federal official are certain to face serious consequences.” should send fear into our hearts.

        Even if I like Paul.

      2. Hate crime legislation requires mind reading. This doesn’t. It’s no different than elevated charges when a Police Officer is the victim.

        Is it proper to elevate the charge due to the victim being an agent of the state? I’m skeptical. But it’s certainly not comparable to a hate crime.

        1. Is it proper to elevate the charge due to the victim being an agent of the state?

          Philosophically and practically it’s a disgusting idea. It is a straightforward admittance that we are less than them.

          1. You could argue that direct aggression against the State has a destabilizing impact on society. Thus, it’s discouragement via an elevated penalty is justifiable.

            Again, I’m not convinced. But at least I think it’s an arguable charge. I don’t believe it’s as cut and dried as “less than them”.

            1. You could argue that direct aggression against the State has a destabilizing impact on society.

              And thus, it’s priests are more important. And thus fuck you.

            2. You could argue that direct aggression against the State has a destabilizing impact on society.

              And you’d be making a category error, since the state is not society and vice versa.

              You could argue that direct aggression against the state has a destabilizing impact on the state. Thus, it’s discouragement via an elevated penalty is appealing to statists.

            3. You could argue that. But you could argue that for anything. For example, legalizing weed has a destabilizing impact on society. But then you would be either incredibly stupid or incredibly anti-human.

              1. Ordre public.

      3. “This is the same logic as hate crime legislation.”

        Somewhat. Though it’s more about the person’s function, and about what they embody or represent. (Attacking someone who works for/as the state impairs the state. Purely as a matter of speech, though, I guess you could punch the person like a flag.)

        1. The best argument is probably that attacking, or even more so killing an elected representative allows one person or small group to deprive many of representation and in that sense threatens the democratic aspects of the political system. Though I don’t really buy that justification either. It’s not as if assault and murder/attempted murder aren’t sufficiently serious crimes under state laws.

          1. If killing a state representative is badder because it indirectly attacks those represented, then the same applies to CEO and lesser corporate officials. It also applies to all workers, because their co-workers are impeded in their work. It’s a long slippery Mobius strip slope.

    2. Paul’s attacker should definitely face felony assault charges. I’m less comfortable with it being federal because he’s a senator.

      1. the only federal crimes should be piracy, treason and counterfeiting, and the last one is iffy.

  2. “A retired doctor did that much damage?”

    Rand Paul doesn’t seem very tough. More brittle than anything else.

    1. Probably his devil hair sapping all the calcium from his bones.

      1. Also, he’s like 4’11”.

        1. I call into doubt that he stacked brush (not a euphemism).

        2. Another reason I can’t respect him, as I am a freakish giant of a man.

          1. He’s an intellectual giant (compared to Trump in the primaries anyway)

  3. Listen, we don’t really know much about what happened between Rand Paul and his neighbor, but I think we can all safely assume that Rand Paul was having sex with his neighbor’s wife.

    What else could it possibly be?

    1. reverse vampires. backed by the Rand Corporation.

      1. What is a reverse vampire? Someone that donates blood?

        1. A Simpsons reference.

        2. Reverse vampires…….

          https://tinyurl.com/ydemxaln

    2. According to older reports his neighbor’s wife left him 10 years ago. So, it’s really not his neighbors problem anymore.

      1. No wonder he’s angry.

      2. Wait, haven’t they been having disputes for 10 years? The only flaw in this theory is that I can’t picture Rand Paul having sex.

    3. Most neighbors are the worst people.

      1. I can’t figure out how you people live with them. Neighborless is the way to go. I highly recommend it.

        1. Agreed. Kudos, man. (I don’t mind imperceptible ones.)

  4. They say the motive was, as Boucher’s lawyers stated earlier, a dispute over Paul’s lawn care style.

    it should be noted that this isn’t proof or even affirmation of that suggestion – simply that its what the feds will run with in order to prosecute.

    why bother disputing the motive if the defendant’s lawyers have already submitted one good enough to convict on the basic elements of the charge? he could have had a multiplicity of reasons for doing what he did, but there’s no benefit from the POV of the prosecution from complicating the matter.

    there are speculations ranging from “Rand was sleeping w/ the dude’s wife” and that the dude was some hysterical leftist harboring long term grudge w/ clan Paul.

    i don’t think any of them are especially credible; but i also think the idea that “dude went nuts because of lawn work” isn’t exactly the most compelling casus belli either.

    1. A religiously motivated hate crime against Aquabuddha? But then this is a dude is known for wearing an ascot and beret around town, so maybe he just feels very strongly about mock turtlenecks? Or the hair? But youare right the motive could be anything.

      1. I was excited a moment because I read Aquabuddha as Aquabats.

      2. this is a dude is known for wearing an ascot and beret around town

        this is what happens when you name people “Rene”. inevitably they suffer from delusions of being members of the French Resistance

        1. Per Wiki Rand’s great grandparents were from Germany, so old Rene probably detected he had some Boche in him and lost control.

    2. There’s no way to really know, and as you said the prosecutors don’t care about correcting the “motive” if the accused has admitted guilt.

      It seems unlikely that the guy tackled Paul for stacking brush. Especially if he’s never talked to Paul about it before. The story sounds even more unlikely as details keep coming out.

      I’m more inclined to believe it was indeed politically motivated since the guy’s an admitted leftist, and we’ve seen actual leftist attempts on Republican Congressmen and Senators (including Paul previously) as well as general leftist violence across the country after realizing their Team lost. But admittedly that’s probably me being biased.


  5. Boucher has already pleaded guilty to the charge, though “no date has been set for the taking of his guilty plea and the imposition of sentence.” He could face as many as 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000.

    I might be a fan of Rand Paul, and I might think the guy who attacked him is a POS, but I do wonder that tackling a Senator off of a lawn tractor should cost someone ten years of their life and/or $250,000 dollars. Then again, if that’s comparable to a ‘regular’ assault I suppose it’s more or less fine. The guy basically attempted to kill Rand, so perhaps he should serve some hard time.

    It just irritates me that there’s a ‘special’ provision for attacking a Senator/Congressman in particular, I suppose. They’re just people, after all.

  6. The charges are federal because Boucher chose to attack a senator, and that’s not a typical state assault charge but a federal offense. The Justice Department’s announcement quotes Amy Hess of the FBI’s Louisville field office: “[T]he FBI will not tolerate violence directed against members of Congress. Those who choose to assault any federal official are certain to face serious consequences.”

    Putting this guy in federal supermax solitary for the rest of his life will serve as a valuable lesson to the rest of you filthy plebes not to mess with your superiors.

    1. That or just admit when its a politically motivation hate crime.

      Always funny when the system the left creates is used against its own.

      1. No, it’s not really that funny. At least, when it comes to the judicial system.

  7. I take major exception with this being a Federal case. Maybe if Paul was partaking in his Senatorial duties, but, my god, he was mowing his lawn. Just more “us and them”-ism out of our Congress.

    1. The FBI doesn’t believe the neighbor. Rand Paul didn’t even violate the property line.

      The neighbor’s attorney told him not to admit it was political.

      Either way, this guy don’t deserve prison. Some days in jail, probation and community service explaining how socialism is bad would suffice.


      1. Either way, this guy don’t deserve prison.

        Intentionally or not, the guy almost killed Rand. I think some prison time is actually warranted in this particular case, but the Federal charges are a bit ludicrous when local or state statutes would suffice.

        1. If I were this guy, I’d welcome the federal charges.

        2. A few years in the state pen should teach the asshole a lesson.

      2. Justice = repayment. Not “punishment”, repayment. So, “an eye for an eye”.

        So, if guilty, the perp ought to pay the medical bills, more for suffering (if applicable) and then the victim should have the option of breaking a few ribs of the perp, if he so chooses.

        Justice. No government kidnapping necessary.

  8. The charges are federal because Boucher chose to attack a senator, and that’s not a typical state assault charge but a federal offense

    Mustn’t touch a member of the Ruling Class. Boucher’s lucky the feds didn’t just cut off his hands for that.

  9. Man, I’m falling into groupthink. Apparently everyone had the same takeaway from this thread as me.

    1. Exactly what I was thinking. Ridiculous that the feds consider themselves so much more important than us plebs.

    2. Group think is indistinguishable from many individuals coming to the same obvious conclusion simultaneously.

  10. Well, just to keep being the rebel we all know I am, I’m going to predict that much of the media will use this ruling to say that Paul probably deserved it. And use it as a statement about how libertarianism is too laissez-faire to make good neighbors.

  11. A lot of fuss over a bit of grass…

  12. How dare you Ken. Rand gonna go kick a baby otter now.

  13. I find differing views on property rights to be very political.

    1. All politics is local?

  14. I sometimes ridicule expensive lawsuits over minor squabbles between neighbors, but a lawsuit would be better than an assault that breaks several ribs.

  15. A reason for heavier punishment for assassinating (or assaulting) a leader of the other side is that it might start a civil war. Look up “Jose Calvo Sotelo” in Wikipedia.

    1. Or Archduke Frantz Ferdinand. I’m told that one started a few problems a hundred years ago or so.

  16. May the hammer of Big Government fall hard on the enemies of Libertarianism.

  17. You know, this guy should probably be glad he’s facing a Federal case. The punishment for those guilty under the federal statute is 0-10 years. Kentucky has a 5 year minimum for what he did. Unless they charged him with first degree assault, which has a 10 year minimum.

    1. He will have to serve almost all of any federal time he gets. Whereas state sentences can lead to fairly early parole. Especially for a medical doctor of his age with a clean record prior to the incident.

      1. I guess he could hope for a 5 year sustained sentence.

      2. He should have avoided this particular… ….

        brush with the law….

  18. Can we blame this on the Era of Trump or not?

  19. Andrew Jackson would have beaten that neighbor with his walking stick, even with the broken ribs.

    1. Or challenged him to a duel, and showed up wearing a Kevlar vest…

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.