She looks like the mayor (?).

I'm not comfortable with where this type of arrest may lead.

(05-01-2015 06:51 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I'm not comfortable with where this type of arrest may lead.

What's wrong with it? I'm all for freedom of speech and my Constitutional rights, but this makes pretty good sense to me. It's a pretty damn specific communication of a racially motivated threat against her local law enforcement. She even says she is going to start plotting how to go about it. For all we know she has a record which may be considered an aggravating factor in the decision to arrest her.

Had she said something about not being surprised if people started killing white cops I don't think they could have arrested her since there was nothing specific in the threat, but stating that she herself was going to do it, when she was going to do it, how many she thought she could kill, and adding that she wouldn't stop until they caught her or killed her is easily worthy of charging her.

If she had said she was going to go shoot up and elementary school nobody would have batted an eye about her being arrested for it.

(05-01-2015 06:58 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-01-2015 06:51 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I'm not comfortable with where this type of arrest may lead.

What's wrong with it? I'm all for freedom of speech and my Constitutional rights, but this makes pretty good sense to me. It's a pretty damn specific communication of a racially motivated threat against her local law enforcement. She even says she is going to start plotting how to go about it. For all we know she has a record which may be considered an aggravating factor in the decision to arrest her.

Had she said something about not being surprised if people started killing white cops I don't think they could have arrested her since there was nothing specific in the threat, but stating that she herself was going to do it, when she was going to do it, how many she thought she could kill, and adding that she wouldn't stop until they caught her or killed her is easily worthy of charging her.

If she had said she was going to go shoot up and elementary school nobody would have batted an eye about her being arrested for it.

My unease with this deals with the incremental growth of the Police state. It is another step forward in that growth IMO. Will it stop with just this type speech? Who gets to decide what speech is now worthy of denial and even arrest? It brings up questions that we should stop and ponder. I think her comments are deplorable. Im not sure though I am ready to put her in a cold cell for saying them and actually not committing any act of aggression.

(05-01-2015 07:06 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(05-01-2015 06:58 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-01-2015 06:51 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I'm not comfortable with where this type of arrest may lead.

What's wrong with it? I'm all for freedom of speech and my Constitutional rights, but this makes pretty good sense to me. It's a pretty damn specific communication of a racially motivated threat against her local law enforcement. She even says she is going to start plotting how to go about it. For all we know she has a record which may be considered an aggravating factor in the decision to arrest her.

Had she said something about not being surprised if people started killing white cops I don't think they could have arrested her since there was nothing specific in the threat, but stating that she herself was going to do it, when she was going to do it, how many she thought she could kill, and adding that she wouldn't stop until they caught her or killed her is easily worthy of charging her.

If she had said she was going to go shoot up and elementary school nobody would have batted an eye about her being arrested for it.

My unease with this deals with the incremental growth of the Police state. It is another step forward in that growth IMO. Will it stop with just this type speech? Who gets to decide what speech is now worthy of denial and even arrest? It brings up questions that we should stop and ponder. I think her comments are deplorable. Im not sure though I am ready to put her in a cold cell for saying them and actually not committing any act of aggression.

This.

(04-30-2015 01:51 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  This is nothing like yelling fire in a theatre or a terrorist threat.

There is no immediacy to the speech and no ability to carry it out.

This is free speech 101.

I'm no lawyer, but isn't it still communcating a threat and isn't that illegal or does it come down to actually having the ability to carry out said threat?

(05-01-2015 08:05 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(04-30-2015 01:51 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  This is nothing like yelling fire in a theatre or a terrorist threat.

There is no immediacy to the speech and no ability to carry it out.

This is free speech 101.

I'm no lawyer, but isn't it still communcating a threat and isn't that illegal or does it come down to actually having the ability to carry out said threat?

Generally you have to have the ability and present intent to carry it out.

(05-01-2015 07:06 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(05-01-2015 06:58 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-01-2015 06:51 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I'm not comfortable with where this type of arrest may lead.

What's wrong with it? I'm all for freedom of speech and my Constitutional rights, but this makes pretty good sense to me. It's a pretty damn specific communication of a racially motivated threat against her local law enforcement. She even says she is going to start plotting how to go about it. For all we know she has a record which may be considered an aggravating factor in the decision to arrest her.

Had she said something about not being surprised if people started killing white cops I don't think they could have arrested her since there was nothing specific in the threat, but stating that she herself was going to do it, when she was going to do it, how many she thought she could kill, and adding that she wouldn't stop until they caught her or killed her is easily worthy of charging her.

If she had said she was going to go shoot up and elementary school nobody would have batted an eye about her being arrested for it.

My unease with this deals with the incremental growth of the Police state. It is another step forward in that growth IMO. Will it stop with just this type speech? Who gets to decide what speech is now worthy of denial and even arrest? It brings up questions that we should stop and ponder. I think her comments are deplorable. Im not sure though I am ready to put her in a cold cell for saying them and actually not committing any act of aggression.

Communicating a threat is already a crime.

(05-01-2015 09:48 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-01-2015 07:06 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(05-01-2015 06:58 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-01-2015 06:51 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I'm not comfortable with where this type of arrest may lead.

What's wrong with it? I'm all for freedom of speech and my Constitutional rights, but this makes pretty good sense to me. It's a pretty damn specific communication of a racially motivated threat against her local law enforcement. She even says she is going to start plotting how to go about it. For all we know she has a record which may be considered an aggravating factor in the decision to arrest her.

Had she said something about not being surprised if people started killing white cops I don't think they could have arrested her since there was nothing specific in the threat, but stating that she herself was going to do it, when she was going to do it, how many she thought she could kill, and adding that she wouldn't stop until they caught her or killed her is easily worthy of charging her.

If she had said she was going to go shoot up and elementary school nobody would have batted an eye about her being arrested for it.

My unease with this deals with the incremental growth of the Police state. It is another step forward in that growth IMO. Will it stop with just this type speech? Who gets to decide what speech is now worthy of denial and even arrest? It brings up questions that we should stop and ponder. I think her comments are deplorable. Im not sure though I am ready to put her in a cold cell for saying them and actually not committing any act of aggression.

Communicating a threat is already a crime.

Yes. It generally though involves direct face to face verbal conflict between specific parties. I'm not sure that extends to a general statement of malice towards a group...but...Im not a lawyer. Im wary of this not because she does not need some level of punishment... but it sets a precedent that could easily be used against anyone saying damn near anything malicious, regardless of real intent. I guess we will see how this plays out.

(05-01-2015 10:07 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(05-01-2015 09:48 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-01-2015 07:06 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(05-01-2015 06:58 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-01-2015 06:51 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I'm not comfortable with where this type of arrest may lead.

What's wrong with it? I'm all for freedom of speech and my Constitutional rights, but this makes pretty good sense to me. It's a pretty damn specific communication of a racially motivated threat against her local law enforcement. She even says she is going to start plotting how to go about it. For all we know she has a record which may be considered an aggravating factor in the decision to arrest her.

Had she said something about not being surprised if people started killing white cops I don't think they could have arrested her since there was nothing specific in the threat, but stating that she herself was going to do it, when she was going to do it, how many she thought she could kill, and adding that she wouldn't stop until they caught her or killed her is easily worthy of charging her.

If she had said she was going to go shoot up and elementary school nobody would have batted an eye about her being arrested for it.

My unease with this deals with the incremental growth of the Police state. It is another step forward in that growth IMO. Will it stop with just this type speech? Who gets to decide what speech is now worthy of denial and even arrest? It brings up questions that we should stop and ponder. I think her comments are deplorable. Im not sure though I am ready to put her in a cold cell for saying them and actually not committing any act of aggression.

Communicating a threat is already a crime.

Yes. It generally though involves direct face to face verbal conflict between specific parties. I'm not sure that extends to a general statement of malice towards a group...but...Im not a lawyer. Im wary of this not because she does not need some level of punishment... but it sets a precedent that could easily be used against anyone saying damn near anything malicious, regardless of real intent. I guess we will see how this plays out.

No it doesn't. As a matter of fact there is a specific law covering the use of interstate communications to make a threat.

http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=...ion=prelim

Quote:§875. Interstate communications

(a) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any demand or request for a ransom or reward for the release of any kidnapped person, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

(b) Whoever, with intent to extort from any person, firm, association, or corporation, any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

© Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(d) Whoever, with intent to extort from any person, firm, association, or corporation, any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to injure the property or reputation of the addressee or of another or the reputation of a deceased person or any threat to accuse the addressee or any other person of a crime, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 741; Pub. L. 99–646, §63, Nov. 10, 1986, 100 Stat. 3614; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(G), (H), (K), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)
Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §408d (May 18, 1934, ch. 300, 48 Stat. 781; May 15, 1939, ch. 133, §2, 53 Stat. 743).

Provisions as to district of trial were omitted as covered by sections 3237 and 3239 of this title.

Definition of "interstate commerce" was omitted in conformity with definitive section 10 of this title.

Changes were made in phraseology and arrangement.
Amendments

1994—Subsecs. (a), (b). Pub. L. 103–322, §330016(1)(K), substituted "fined under this title" for "fined not more than $5,000".

Subsec. ©. Pub. L. 103–322, §330016(1)(H), substituted "fined under this title" for "fined not more than $1,000".

Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 103–322, §330016(1)(G), substituted "fined under this title" for "fined not more than $500".

1986—Pub. L. 99–646 inserted "or foreign" after "interstate" wherever appearing.

(05-01-2015 01:25 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-01-2015 10:07 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(05-01-2015 09:48 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-01-2015 07:06 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(05-01-2015 06:58 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  What's wrong with it? I'm all for freedom of speech and my Constitutional rights, but this makes pretty good sense to me. It's a pretty damn specific communication of a racially motivated threat against her local law enforcement. She even says she is going to start plotting how to go about it. For all we know she has a record which may be considered an aggravating factor in the decision to arrest her.

Had she said something about not being surprised if people started killing white cops I don't think they could have arrested her since there was nothing specific in the threat, but stating that she herself was going to do it, when she was going to do it, how many she thought she could kill, and adding that she wouldn't stop until they caught her or killed her is easily worthy of charging her.

If she had said she was going to go shoot up and elementary school nobody would have batted an eye about her being arrested for it.

My unease with this deals with the incremental growth of the Police state. It is another step forward in that growth IMO. Will it stop with just this type speech? Who gets to decide what speech is now worthy of denial and even arrest? It brings up questions that we should stop and ponder. I think her comments are deplorable. Im not sure though I am ready to put her in a cold cell for saying them and actually not committing any act of aggression.

Communicating a threat is already a crime.

Yes. It generally though involves direct face to face verbal conflict between specific parties. I'm not sure that extends to a general statement of malice towards a group...but...Im not a lawyer. Im wary of this not because she does not need some level of punishment... but it sets a precedent that could easily be used against anyone saying damn near anything malicious, regardless of real intent. I guess we will see how this plays out.

No it doesn't. As a matter of fact there is a specific law covering the use of interstate communications to make a threat.

http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=...ion=prelim

Quote:§875. Interstate communications

(a) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any demand or request for a ransom or reward for the release of any kidnapped person, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

(b) Whoever, with intent to extort from any person, firm, association, or corporation, any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

© Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(d) Whoever, with intent to extort from any person, firm, association, or corporation, any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to injure the property or reputation of the addressee or of another or the reputation of a deceased person or any threat to accuse the addressee or any other person of a crime, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 741; Pub. L. 99–646, §63, Nov. 10, 1986, 100 Stat. 3614; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(G), (H), (K), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)
Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §408d (May 18, 1934, ch. 300, 48 Stat. 781; May 15, 1939, ch. 133, §2, 53 Stat. 743).

Provisions as to district of trial were omitted as covered by sections 3237 and 3239 of this title.

Definition of "interstate commerce" was omitted in conformity with definitive section 10 of this title.

Changes were made in phraseology and arrangement.
Amendments

1994—Subsecs. (a), (b). Pub. L. 103–322, §330016(1)(K), substituted "fined under this title" for "fined not more than $5,000".

Subsec. ©. Pub. L. 103–322, §330016(1)(H), substituted "fined under this title" for "fined not more than $1,000".

Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 103–322, §330016(1)(G), substituted "fined under this title" for "fined not more than $500".

1986—Pub. L. 99–646 inserted "or foreign" after "interstate" wherever appearing.

None of that is the run of the mill "communication of threats" that this discussion entailed. I have no problem btw with any of those being criminal acts and punishing those that do them. All of those are a direct violation of the principle of non aggression also, since they deal with theft,fraud violence and destruction of property.

What I question is if the random vocalization of a threat that does not have a specific target. I think there are cases that might meet criminal standard..but..I wonder were that line will get drawn.

(05-01-2015 09:06 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(05-01-2015 08:05 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(04-30-2015 01:51 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  This is nothing like yelling fire in a theatre or a terrorist threat.

There is no immediacy to the speech and no ability to carry it out.

This is free speech 101.

I'm no lawyer, but isn't it still communcating a threat and isn't that illegal or does it come down to actually having the ability to carry out said threat?

Generally you have to have the ability and present intent to carry it out.

So If I a person was to send a letter to say, a powerful US head of state, and say, "I'm gonna get you sucka!", the Secret Source would just shrug and say, "Ah, no biggie"?

(05-01-2015 01:49 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(05-01-2015 09:06 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(05-01-2015 08:05 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(04-30-2015 01:51 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  This is nothing like yelling fire in a theatre or a terrorist threat.

There is no immediacy to the speech and no ability to carry it out.

This is free speech 101.

I'm no lawyer, but isn't it still communcating a threat and isn't that illegal or does it come down to actually having the ability to carry out said threat?

Generally you have to have the ability and present intent to carry it out.

So If I a person was to send a letter to say, a powerful US head of state, and say, "I'm gonna get you sucka!", the Secret Source would just shrug and say, "Ah, no biggie"?

I imagine they would investigate and file charges if the circumstances warranted. Would the person go to prison for that? Almost certainly not. Unless, they investigated and found out you stockpile fertilizer or just bought a firearm and a plane ticket to Washington.

(05-01-2015 01:49 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(05-01-2015 09:06 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(05-01-2015 08:05 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(04-30-2015 01:51 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  This is nothing like yelling fire in a theatre or a terrorist threat.

There is no immediacy to the speech and no ability to carry it out.

This is free speech 101.

I'm no lawyer, but isn't it still communcating a threat and isn't that illegal or does it come down to actually having the ability to carry out said threat?

Generally you have to have the ability and present intent to carry it out.

So If I a person was to send a letter to say, a powerful US head of state, and say, "I'm gonna get you sucka!", the Secret Source would just shrug and say, "Ah, no biggie"?

That is a direct targeted communication of threat that would warrant a statutory crime IMO.

(05-01-2015 02:08 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(05-01-2015 01:49 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(05-01-2015 09:06 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(05-01-2015 08:05 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(04-30-2015 01:51 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  This is nothing like yelling fire in a theatre or a terrorist threat.

There is no immediacy to the speech and no ability to carry it out.

This is free speech 101.

I'm no lawyer, but isn't it still communcating a threat and isn't that illegal or does it come down to actually having the ability to carry out said threat?

Generally you have to have the ability and present intent to carry it out.

So If I a person was to send a letter to say, a powerful US head of state, and say, "I'm gonna get you sucka!", the Secret Source would just shrug and say, "Ah, no biggie"?

That is a direct targeted communication of threat that would warrant a statutory crime IMO.

Tell that to Ted Nugent.

(05-04-2015 07:14 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-01-2015 02:08 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(05-01-2015 01:49 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(05-01-2015 09:06 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(05-01-2015 08:05 AM)VA49er Wrote:  I'm no lawyer, but isn't it still communcating a threat and isn't that illegal or does it come down to actually having the ability to carry out said threat?

Generally you have to have the ability and present intent to carry it out.

So If I a person was to send a letter to say, a powerful US head of state, and say, "I'm gonna get you sucka!", the Secret Source would just shrug and say, "Ah, no biggie"?

That is a direct targeted communication of threat that would warrant a statutory crime IMO.

Tell that to Ted Nugent.

Well you have to understand the person making the threat and if they are full of schit or not.

(05-05-2015 05:52 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(05-04-2015 07:14 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-01-2015 02:08 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(05-01-2015 01:49 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(05-01-2015 09:06 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Generally you have to have the ability and present intent to carry it out.

So If I a person was to send a letter to say, a powerful US head of state, and say, "I'm gonna get you sucka!", the Secret Source would just shrug and say, "Ah, no biggie"?

That is a direct targeted communication of threat that would warrant a statutory crime IMO.

Tell that to Ted Nugent.

Well you have to understand the person making the threat and if they are full of schit or not.

That would explain why Ted was never arrested.

I find it amusing that Ted is the Tea Party hero when it's common knowledge he dodged the draft during Vietnam.