Court Opinion

ID: 9471074
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 03:24:44.346105+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:42:15.830859
License: Public Domain

CUDAHY, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
Schramm was arrested while on a visit to his parole officer on the northeast side of Milwaukee in the middle of the afternoon. After that, under the government’s theory, he ostensibly planned to pick up some equipment on the south side of the city before doubling back again to rob a downtown bank before its five o’clock closing. The majority cites no case — and I know of none — in which even remotely comparable facts have been held to constitute an attempt to enter a bank with intent to rob it. I concur here only because of my impression that the government agents could have been genuinely and reasonably concerned about the threat to the public safety of Schramm’s “bomb” and hence made a quite premature arrest. Any other interpretation of this case would render completely meaningless whatever is otherwise comprehensible in the distinction between preparation and attempt in the criminal law. It is exceedingly difficult to find here “some appreciable fragment of the crime committed.... ” Rumfelt v. United States, 445 F.2d 134, 136 (7th Cir.), cert, denied, 404 U.S. 853, 92 S.Ct. 92, 30 L.Ed.2d 94 (1971).