Let's go over what the attacker did (and note, I'm not even going to touch the anti-semitism component).
They demonstrated premeditation, this appeared to be a second attempt at a prior failed attack.
The intent was to cause serious injury.
Max penalties for these types of things is ~10 years in prison.
Hypothetical : Let's say I had an powerful/advanced sniper rifle where I can target a specific person and cause them to have a seizure. Let's say I use this rifle from across state lines. Should I not be getting a visit from the FBI and ending up in federal prison?
Yes. This is akin to shouting fire in a crowded theatre [1] or phoning in a bomb threat. In the United States, freedom of speech is limited in certain cases where the harm caused by the speech outweighs the damage of limiting freedom.
Please stop using the "fire in a crowded theatre" phrase, it's not actually part of law in the US. [1] The standard for restricting speech in cases like this is if it poses a "clear and present danger". That's likely the case here, as a premeditated attempt to cause a seizure is a clear and present danger to epileptics. There's plenty of law to cite that doesn't depend on over-broad censorious decisions that got overturned later on.
The target could have died. The actions of the attacker were deliberate in trying to induce a seizure that could have killed him. That's attempted murder, and whether it's via a tweet or not is irrelevant.
I imagine if he'd been the victim of a deliberate hit-and-run, you'd be saying something like "so to be clear, you want someone to be imprisoned because they drove a car."
I believe that the OP wants the attacker to be sent to prison for inflicting harm, pre-meditated, and with intent to do so. that he used a tweet to do this is irrelevant, and frankly, your statement is disingenuous and asinine. But I'm sure you already know that, and are simply trolling
