|
Post by waltc on Jan 9, 2011 20:43:27 GMT -6
Politico.com is reporting:
Pennsylvania Rep. Robert Brady, a Democrat from Philadelphia, told CNN that he also plans to take legislative action. He will introduce a bill that would make it a crime for anyone to use language or symbols that could be seen as threatening or violent against a federal official, including a member of Congress
COMMENT:
If such legislation were to be signed into law, you can kiss the 1st Amendment goodbye. We'd then be in the same category as Putin's Russia and North Korea.
You know as a nation we've turned into a collection of cowards, boobs and clowns. When all it takes for us to start calling for the abdication of our Rights is the shooting of a elected official. Not a rebellion mind, but the act of a single lunatic.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Jan 10, 2011 0:16:03 GMT -6
Politico.com is reporting: Pennsylvania Rep. Robert Brady, a Democrat from Philadelphia, told CNN that he also plans to take legislative action. He will introduce a bill that would make it a crime for anyone to use language or symbols that could be seen as threatening or violent against a federal official, including a member of Congress *censored*
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jan 10, 2011 2:17:16 GMT -6
Politico.com is reporting: Pennsylvania Rep. Robert Brady, a Democrat from Philadelphia, told CNN that he also plans to take legislative action. He will introduce a bill that would make it a crime for anyone to use language or symbols that could be seen as threatening or violent against a federal official, including a member of Congress *censored* Very nice. Heaven forbid anyone says anything that might frighten or offend our pseudo-elected aristocracy.
|
|
huck
Contributor
Posts: 81
|
Post by huck on Jan 10, 2011 5:10:22 GMT -6
Politico.com is reporting: Pennsylvania Rep. Robert Brady, a Democrat from Philadelphia, told CNN that he also plans to take legislative action. He will introduce a bill that would make it a crime for anyone to use language or symbols that could be seen as threatening or violent against a federal official, including a member of Congress *censored* Very nice. Heaven forbid anyone says anything that might frighten or offend our pseudo-elected aristocracy. So you instead think threats and violence should be accepted and condoned political and civil tactics? It does tend to be against state law even against civilians, you cant go around threatening and beating up your neighbor either. All this would do is give the feds jurisdiction when federal celebrities, er politicians, are involved. And there are a lot of federal officials that are not elected, merely hired. They may be pseudo-aristocracy, and pseudo-elected, but i dont think even they deserve to live in fear. There are more proper channels for solving our problems. Violence is the last refuge of the powerless, have we become so powerless that violence is called for now? Rebellion?
|
|
|
Post by waltc on Jan 10, 2011 13:26:05 GMT -6
So you instead think threats and violence should be accepted and condoned political and civil tactics? It does tend to be against state law even against civilians, you cant go around threatening and beating up your neighbor either. All this would do is give the feds jurisdiction when federal celebrities, er politicians, are involved. And there are a lot of federal officials that are not elected, merely hired.
Nope, that's your interpretation.
BTW if you studied early American political history, we practiced gutter politics even in Jefferson's day that makes ours today look tame. We even had duels, Aarron Burr ring a bell?
The fact is we have laws on the books already and Mr. Brady's law is so vague and obtuse in terms of examples of threatening language that almost any sort of negative opinion of a Congresspuke's could be construed as threatening.
Hell the idiot Brady when interviewed today couldn't even define shit about what constitutes a threat. He went so far as to state he didn't want to talk about it to the public.
They may be pseudo-aristocracy, and pseudo-elected, but i dont think even they deserve to live in fear. There are more proper channels for solving our problems. Violence is the last refuge of the powerless, have we become so powerless that violence is called for now?
You getting paid for this?
The shooter is a certifiable lunatic and left a trail that went back years that showed how nuts he was. Everybody who ran into him he scared.
No, he didn't listen to Limbaugh, Beck, O'reilly, etc. His only friend said he was pretty much a pot smoking Lefty until his mental illness blossomed in the last couple of years.
Yet the Left never mentions this.
You know what's really sickening though? Is all the false outrage from the Left on this. You people don't give a shit when a bunch of ordinary Americans are slaughtered as in the case of the Ft. Hood jihadist Maj. Hasan, but lo' and behold a Democrat gets shot and we need to gut the 1st Amendment.
I'd have more respect for the Left if they just came out and said they want to get rid of the 1st amendment because it offends them.
|
|
huck
Contributor
Posts: 81
|
Post by huck on Jan 10, 2011 15:58:12 GMT -6
Nope, that's your interpretation. You are the one preaching that laws about threatening violence are unnecessary. BTW if you studied early American political history, we practiced gutter politics even in Jefferson's day that makes ours today look tame. Very republican of you to state that because someone else did it we should do more of it. You getting paid for this? No, but i have often wondered about your paid status, since you seem to just parrot the current extremist-right talking points so well. You know what's really sickening though? Is all the false outrage from the Left on this. You people don't give a shit when a bunch of ordinary Americans are slaughtered as in the case of the Ft. Hood jihadist Maj. Hasan, but lo' and behold a Democrat gets shot and we need to gut the 1st Amendment. You arnt well read are you? I saw many democrats and even further leftists condemn that shooting as well. I'd have more respect for the Left if they just came out and said they want to get rid of the 1st amendment because it offends them. Trying to get rid of things that offend them is a tactic of the right, not the left. It comes from fearing the unknown, and everybody knows the right hates anything it fears. I'd have more respect for those on the right like you if they just admitted they want to exterminate everyone that disagrees with them so as to homogenize society for simplicities sake. Interesting you brought up Hasan. The dialog i remember of that time was the right trying to make it a terroristic conspiracy, while saner heads on the left pointed out it could still be the act of a single deranged individual. Today the tables seem shifted, with the saner heads on the right making that claim. Knee jerk reactions are never rational, only an instinctive reactive measure. IMHO, you keep trying to play the FUD card here as a trump move. And on topics that dont even call for that investment. If you dont back off with that measure you risk being seen just as the "boy that cried wolf". You may notice that there does seem to be a FEDERAL law regarding killing federal officials for the feds already have filed those charges in this case, while the state still is getting its act together on other charges. To also make it a federal charge to threaten federal officers is not threatening any first amendment rights than are already removed under state laws already. Your original post was not to the wording of any law, it was to satirize the concept that such a law could have merit. In doing so it tends to show that you condone or are indifferent to the very behavior that the law is trying to diminish.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Jan 11, 2011 1:17:08 GMT -6
So you instead think threats and violence should be accepted and condoned political and civil tactics? Yes, the undeserved elite who have fostered this uncivilized society should have fear in their hearts.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jan 11, 2011 2:17:57 GMT -6
Very nice. Heaven forbid anyone says anything that might frighten or offend our pseudo-elected aristocracy. So you instead think threats and violence should be accepted and condoned political and civil tactics? Of course not. But that's not the issue at all. The issue is whether you should be allowed or forbidden by the Government to say anything that could even be remotely interpreted to be inflammatory or suggestive of violence. And on that I DO think that should be tolerated as a simple matter of 1st Amendment free speech. It's already illegal to threaten someone. It's called a "terrorist threat" under the California Code. But outlawing speech that someone simply claims is provoking or suggesting violent action is absurd. The next step is to outlaw any angry or animated criticism of the Government, followed by outlawing any criticism at all. We should be angry at the Government at present, because they've severely screwed us. And there should be no restriction on our ability to express it. That's exactly what the 1st Amendment was designed to protect--our ability to freely criticize and express anger at the Government without fear of reprisal.
|
|
huck
Contributor
Posts: 81
|
Post by huck on Jan 11, 2011 3:28:10 GMT -6
So you instead think threats and violence should be accepted and condoned political and civil tactics? Of course not. But that's not the issue at all. The issue is whether you should be allowed or forbidden by the Government to say anything that could even be remotely interpreted to be inflammatory or suggestive of violence. And on that I DO think that should be tolerated as a simple matter of 1st Amendment free speech. It's already illegal to threaten someone. It's called a "terrorist threat" under the California Code. But outlawing speech that someone simply claims is provoking or suggesting violent action is absurd. The next step is to outlaw any angry or animated criticism of the Government, followed by outlawing any criticism at all. We should be angry at the Government at present, because they've severely screwed us. And there should be no restriction on our ability to express it. That's exactly what the 1st Amendment was designed to protect--our ability to freely criticize and express anger at the Government without fear of reprisal. So you think its ok for someone to suggest your house be vandalized or you should be eliminated because they are angry at you? Or is it because they are working for the feds that its ok with you? Or maybe you feel there shouldnt even be federal laws against murdering members of congress even? Open season on them maybe? Where does it stop? If our political discourse requires the ability to threaten the safety of those working for the federal government just because we are angry maybe our nation isnt that great after all huh? Is it just another case of mob rules here?
|
|
huck
Contributor
Posts: 81
|
Post by huck on Jan 11, 2011 3:35:16 GMT -6
So you instead think threats and violence should be accepted and condoned political and civil tactics? Yes, the undeserved elite who have fostered this uncivilized society should have fear in their hearts. A society ruled by fear is the nirvana of the right-wing. I guess we are no better than animals after all.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Jan 11, 2011 5:18:49 GMT -6
Yes, the undeserved elite who have fostered this uncivilized society should have fear in their hearts. A society ruled by fear is the nirvana of the right-wing. I guess we are no better than animals after all. You still think there's a right wing left wing thing going on. hehe There are millions of poor living in fear, getting shot, etc. As a self-proclaimed lefty, wouldn't you want everyone to "equally" live in fear, including the elites? What was all that "equality" talk about from those supposed lefties I keep hearing about.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Jan 11, 2011 6:16:12 GMT -6
...in other news, from the other-wing, Glen Beck was just on saying "violence is never a solution for protesting."
Oh really Mr. "Founding Fathers = God if they get married, convert to Mormonism, and stop drinking alcohol." If violence is never a solution to anything then this country wouldn't exist.
So from the supposed right, violence isn't a solution unless the government does it, "down with government."
From the supposed left, when the elites are subject to violence that is the greatest tragedy, "we're for the little guy."
Uh-huh. Sloppy thinking leads to sloppy writing, and sloppy writing leads to sloppy thinking, says George Orwell. This country is morally, intellectually, and fiscally bankrupt.
|
|
huck
Contributor
Posts: 81
|
Post by huck on Jan 11, 2011 15:50:49 GMT -6
A society ruled by fear is the nirvana of the right-wing. I guess we are no better than animals after all. You still think there's a right wing left wing thing going on. hehe There are millions of poor living in fear, getting shot, etc. As a self-proclaimed lefty, wouldn't you want everyone to "equally" live in fear, including the elites? What was all that "equality" talk about from those supposed lefties I keep hearing about. So your solution is to make everybody worse off rather than make a change for the better? If you want to live your life in reaction to fear that is your right, but to hope everybody has to is pretty low of you. I pity you. I can understand the rights obsession with fear, its a symptom of their mental deficiency(1), what i cant understand is why they want to stay that way. When they preach fear, violence and revenge as solutions, they just exhibit how undeveloped they are still are morally. I know a guy online (younger than many of us i think) who grew up in a small house, even with dirt floors, and at times 4 generations under the same roof. So of course his position is that if more people had those experiences the world would be be a better place. I dont understand why having wood or Formica floors should make any difference myself. I also fail to see how having more people live in fear is going to make anything better for anybody. It is a sad state of human affairs when fear and violence are considered as a solution to a problem, that is how children think problems get solved. (1) "STAGE 1: PUNISHMENT AND OBEDIENCE: Might Makes Right Avoidance of physical punishment and deference to power. Punishment is an automatic response of physical retaliation. The immediate physical consequences of an action determine its goodness or badness. The atrocities carried out by soldiers during the holocaust who were simply "carrying out orders" under threat of punishment, illustrate that adults as well as children may function at stage one level. "Might makes right." pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~ncoverst/Kohlberg%27s%20Stages%20of%20Moral%20Development.htm
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Jan 12, 2011 15:22:46 GMT -6
You still think there's a right wing left wing thing going on. hehe There are millions of poor living in fear, getting shot, etc. As a self-proclaimed lefty, wouldn't you want everyone to "equally" live in fear, including the elites? What was all that "equality" talk about from those supposed lefties I keep hearing about. So your solution is to make everybody worse off rather than make a change for the better? Obviously you're not really for "equality".
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jan 12, 2011 17:14:52 GMT -6
Of course not. But that's not the issue at all. The issue is whether you should be allowed or forbidden by the Government to say anything that could even be remotely interpreted to be inflammatory or suggestive of violence. And on that I DO think that should be tolerated as a simple matter of 1st Amendment free speech. It's already illegal to threaten someone. It's called a "terrorist threat" under the California Code. But outlawing speech that someone simply claims is provoking or suggesting violent action is absurd. The next step is to outlaw any angry or animated criticism of the Government, followed by outlawing any criticism at all. We should be angry at the Government at present, because they've severely screwed us. And there should be no restriction on our ability to express it. That's exactly what the 1st Amendment was designed to protect--our ability to freely criticize and express anger at the Government without fear of reprisal. So you think its ok for someone to suggest your house be vandalized or you should be eliminated because they are angry at you? Or is it because they are working for the feds that its ok with you? I am against letting people make specific threats. Again, that's already against the law. In California they're prosecutable under the label of "terrorist threats." But that's not what the suggested legislation is about at all. It's about forbidding any talk that a legislator or law enforcement officer can construe as threatening in their wildest delusional fantasies. Yes, I'm absolutely against such legislation. This legislation is about restricting allegedly "hateful" speech, not about restricting outright terrorist threats, which are already illegal.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Jan 12, 2011 19:02:58 GMT -6
Huck came to this forum to say, "Damn you red staters and CON-servatives, damn you to hell, and take your NASCAR with you."
Let it all out Huck.
|
|
huck
Contributor
Posts: 81
|
Post by huck on Jan 12, 2011 21:14:40 GMT -6
Huck came to this forum to say, "Damn you red staters and CON-servatives, damn you to hell, and take your NASCAR with you." Let it all out Huck. lets see, ive seen nascar at loudin, lime rock, north wilksboro, darlington, and beechridge at least. I still have freqs stored under car numbers in my scanner, but some may have gotten overwritten when i went to indy and didnt see a F1 race. If you want to act like a fear driven whiny tighty-righty child, at least should know thats how you look. Obviously you're not really for "equality". So quaint, "I was hungry, now everybody else should go hungry too". you have a very warped impression of equality dont you? a childs impression it seems. Do you feel that because sombody is getting shot at now you should be getting shot at soon too? Is that your version of equality?
|
|
huck
Contributor
Posts: 81
|
Post by huck on Jan 12, 2011 22:31:23 GMT -6
I am against letting people make specific threats. Again, that's already against the law. In California they're prosecutable under the label of "terrorist threats." Aww, common. Just because one state has such a law it does not prove all states have such a law. Or that the would even choose to prosecute. What if the threat took place across state lines, who would have precedence? But that's not what the suggested legislation is about at all. It's about forbidding any talk that a legislator or law enforcement officer can construe as threatening in their wildest delusional fantasies. Yes, I'm absolutely against such legislation. This legislation is about restricting allegedly "hateful" speech, not about restricting outright terrorist threats, which are already illegal. You sure? I cant find much about an introduced law, i have seen references to someone planning to introduce legislation. I am not a lawer, but i watch judge judy sometimes (JOKE), and threats have specific legal meanings, such as assault in legal terms may not be what we think of when we hear the word. And i think federal judges not going to let the word of only "delusional minds" convict people. So you think it is wrong that the feds got to file the murder and attempted murer charges instead of arizona? Or is it ok that the feds have laws against those actions when the victim is is certain federal protected classes, such as members of congress, federal judges, and some sort of federal aide. even tho there may be statues against murder in every state, i dont actually have a problem with a federal statue having precedence over a states. And to enact its own protections even if all 50 states statues were the same on the matter. i dont see as a "threat" to my liberty. It will create a nationwide minimum basepoint level for conduct in print or speech im sure. Im sure that the states will still be allowed to make more stringent laws if they desire. and ya know, if anything this whole wolf sighting may be redundant, for more than once i have seen a reference to a federal statute dealing with the threatening of judges. and members of congress too i thought. So you do have a point that any further federal officers covered could extend to federal police. and you will then point out threatening a cop or officer of the court is already against the law in all the states i know, to which my next step is: but if you are threatening a federal cop shoulndt it be against a federal law? its already against a federal law to try to or even succeed at killing them. Why? in part so there is a minimum standard of prosecution that is standard across all the states when dealing with officers of "the federation". this is the first i have actually heard of "hate speech" mentioned, but i knew it was coming. Im not sure any legislation containing that language would get far at all. but given there are already federal laws against threatening judges, its wrong to protect officers of federal courts or even the FBI the same way? To me this is a fringe position you are taking. It reminds me of the one where taking "cop killer" bullets off the street was the first step in taking our ammo away. and as far as i even know this is a mere politicos promise for i have seen no real quotes from said legislation. so ya mean i could threaten a federal cop now and have to wait for the state of California to prosecute me? wow. you mean he cant arrest me right there an then already? threatening has specific legal meanings, for it to be against a federal law to threaten people sworn into the federal government makes as much sense as having state laws that protect the people sworn in by that state. [edit]: "oh those typos" 1 char every post at least
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Jan 13, 2011 3:21:14 GMT -6
Go on Huck, tell them evil righties how it is. "Strike me down with all your hatred."
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jan 13, 2011 4:53:22 GMT -6
I am against letting people make specific threats. Again, that's already against the law. In California they're prosecutable under the label of "terrorist threats." Aww, common. Just because one state has such a law it does not prove all states have such a law. Or that the would even choose to prosecute. I don't know if all states have such laws, but I suspect they most have something similar. And regarding whether they would "even choose to prosecute," they absolutely would--if it's to protect the politically connected. That's where you're wrong. It appears you've never had a run in with the law. I have. And yes, a Federal judge will let the word of the delusional or dishonest indict you. I know this from personal experience. Whoa. I hate to take what you said out of context. But I don't see any justification for treating the murder of a police officer or politician any differently than that of an average citizen. Doing so is emblematic of an aristocracy, where, to quote Animal Farm: "some pigs are more equal than others." A murder is a murder, and it should be treated no differently whether it is me, you, a police officer, a Federal judge, or a member of Congress. In many cases, I don't either. I couldn't disagree more. What are you even talking about when you start railing for a "basepoint level of conduct in print or speech."?? That sounds like outright totalitarianism. Do you think anything critical of our pseudo-elected aristocrats should be banned? Or is it only stuff like "I hate Diane Feinstein because she's an open borders, globalist, Corporatist puke?" Hey. That's some pretty "hateful" rhetoric now, isn't it. Maybe anyone that says that should be sent to Guantanamo and water-boarded. How about some extraordinary rendition? You're kidding, right? Do you think threatening a Federal cop, but not an ordinary citizen, should be against the law? Do you think some of us should be more protected than others? Do you think some pigs are more equal than others? Do you really believe in an aristocracy, where some members of society are protected more than others? Yes, it is absolutely wrong! No frigging judge's life should be worth more than mine, yours, or anyone else's. You gotta be kidding! The Feds would throw your ass in jail immediately, assuming they didn't blow your brains out on the spot.
|
|
huck
Contributor
Posts: 81
|
Post by huck on Jan 13, 2011 9:41:15 GMT -6
Go on Huck, tell them evil righties how it is. "Strike me down with all your hatred." Your exposing of your fear and hatred just shows how small powerless you feel you are. I dont strike children but i do understand that is another respected value of those on the right, to them violence is the answer to all problems it seems. I doubt you will ever mature enough to understand tho.
|
|
huck
Contributor
Posts: 81
|
Post by huck on Jan 13, 2011 10:55:22 GMT -6
Aww, common. Just because one state has such a law it does not prove all states have such a law. Or that the would even choose to prosecute. I don't know if all states have such laws, but I suspect they most have something similar. And regarding whether they would "even choose to prosecute," they absolutely would--if it's to protect the politically connected. So you are in favor of one set of laws for the politically connected and another for the general populace? i never expected such an argument from you. And i wish i had your faith that the states would act in such a manner. That's where you're wrong. It appears you've never had a run in with the law. I have. And yes, a Federal judge will let the word of the delusional or dishonest indict you. I know this from personal experience. Of course you do realize that the standards for indictment are lower than for conviction and that being indicted is not an indication of guilt like being convicted is. I do feel sorry for what you had to go thru, from what you have said it was a miscarriage of justice. Whoa. I hate to take what you said out of context. But I don't see any justification for treating the murder of a police officer or politician any differently than that of an average citizen. Doing so is emblematic of an aristocracy, where, to quote Animal Farm: "some pigs are more equal than others." A murder is a murder, and it should be treated no differently whether it is me, you, a police officer, a Federal judge, or a member of Congress. I cant see how you would equate the threatening of violence against a judge or other state or federal officer with the effect threatening a common citizen. Do you see the effect of murdering the president to be the same as murdering some junkie on the street too? I couldn't disagree more. What are you even talking about when you start railing for a "basepoint level of conduct in print or speech."?? That sounds like outright totalitarianism. Do you think anything critical of our pseudo-elected aristocrats should be banned? Or is it only stuff like "I hate Diane Feinstein because she's an open borders, globalist, Corporatist puke?" Hey. That's some pretty "hateful" rhetoric now, isn't it. Maybe anyone that says that should be sent to Guantanamo and water-boarded. How about some extraordinary rendition? Being critical and threatening them is different. If you think that we should all live in fear of violence i can understand why you are scared of laws that create a punishment for speech that threatens others. You are free to hate anyone you want to, and are allowed to say so. Nothing i have seen yet would stop that. But i am sorry to see that you seem to support people that would threaten others or incite others to violence. You're kidding, right? Do you think threatening a Federal cop, but not an ordinary citizen, should be against the law? Do you think some of us should be more protected than others? Do you think some pigs are more equal than others? Do you really believe in an aristocracy, where some members of society are protected more than others? You say that the ordinary citizens are already protected by the laws of their state, and while you seem apposed to it, most states hold threats to its officials to a different standard already. My position is that the states have a vested interest to protect their own, and it is not outrageous to allow the feds to enact similar laws to protect its officers from threats and to then have precedence in the prosecution of those that make threats against federal officials. I do not see how a standard law across all the states places cops or judges into any sort of aristocracy. I do feel that trying to intimidate public officials should be held to a different standard than trying to intimidate some junkie on the street because it is not just the person you are trying to threaten but you are trying to manipulate the power they hold. When you threaten the president or a judge you are in effect threatening the whole body of society, not just trying to subvert the will of a single person. Yes, it is absolutely wrong! No frigging judge's life should be worth more than mine, yours, or anyone else's. it is not that the presidents life is worth more than mine, it is that the power the president can exert if the threat is successful that changes the equation and should therefor be part of the consideration in prosecution. It is no different with judges or other officials.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Jan 13, 2011 11:00:28 GMT -6
Go on Huck, tell them evil righties how it is. "Strike me down with all your hatred." Your exposing of your fear and hatred just shows how small powerless you feel you are. I dont strike children but i do understand that is another respected value of those on the right, to them violence is the answer to all problems it seems. I doubt you will ever mature enough to understand tho. Sooo, what do I fear, and what do I hate?
|
|
huck
Contributor
Posts: 81
|
Post by huck on Jan 13, 2011 11:13:00 GMT -6
Your exposing of your fear and hatred just shows how small powerless you feel you are. I dont strike children but i do understand that is another respected value of those on the right, to them violence is the answer to all problems it seems. I doubt you will ever mature enough to understand tho. Sooo, what do I fear, and what do I hate? Yes i can understand how you are that clueless.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jan 13, 2011 16:43:45 GMT -6
Huck, Obviously we don't agree on a few points here. It's clear to me you think some people should be more protected by the law than others. In contrast, I believe in equal protection by the law of all citizens, regardless of whether it is "some junkie," a cop, or a politician. On this point we're never going to agree. Similarly, you believe speech should be restricted if it can possibly incite violence, based on a judge's, politician's, or law enforcement official's assertion. On this we don't agree, and aren't ever going to agree. These are simply unresolvable differences in opinion. That said, however, I do need to share some factual points with you, which few non-legal professionals are unaware of--until it happens to them. (I wasn't previously aware of this myself.) It regards your following statement: Of course you do realize that the standards for indictment are lower than for conviction and that being indicted is not an indication of guilt like being convicted is. Yes, you're correct on that point. But there's a catch. Over 95% of those Federally indicted are found guilty, either by conviction or plea. Less than 5% of those Federally indicted are not found guilty. So being Federally indicted almost guarantees that the defendant will be found guilty on some charge. Those "lower standards" for indictment that you refer to are what actually determines one's guilt. So in fact, it is these loose standards that land people in Federal prison, since only 5% of those indicted aren't found guilty. Thus, when the Feds indict an American on trumped up--or completely fabricated charges--he's almost guaranteed to be found guilty. So yes, I'm very concerned about our legislators passing some kind of hate-speech legislation, which would enable law enforcement to charge and indict someone for speech they claim incited violence.
|
|
|
Post by graybeard on Jan 13, 2011 22:33:56 GMT -6
As a cop said to a lawyer, "This badge means you have to prove I'm a liar."
GB
|
|
huck
Contributor
Posts: 81
|
Post by huck on Jan 13, 2011 23:44:11 GMT -6
Huck, Obviously we don't agree on a few points here. It's clear to me you think some people should be more protected by the law than others. In contrast, I believe in equal protection by the law of all citizens, regardless of whether it is "some junkie," a cop, or a politician. On this point we're never going to agree. Im not sure the cause is unequal protection, but uniform protection. www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2022516-2,00.html A federal congressman or judge should be equally protected not withstanding if they are in california or arizona or montana. You feel any citizen of a state is adequately protected by their own state laws, but of that i too wonder. Similarly, you believe speech should be restricted if it can possibly incite violence, based on a judge's, politician's, or law enforcement official's assertion. On this we don't agree, and aren't ever going to agree. These are simply unresolvable differences in opinion. I would hope that it would take somewhat closer to some sort of proof rather than a mere assertion. i think a judicial standard that might apply is if a "reasonable person" would consider it a threat. But there's a catch. Over 95% of those Federally indicted are found guilty, either by conviction or plea. Less than 5% of those Federally indicted are not found guilty. so you are a 5%-er huh? we all know you are special. ive heard of the 1 percenters, and the 3 percenters, i think your my first 5percenter. While not sure of that exact percent i did know it was in that range. But some local "professionals" have said it is so high because they only go after cases they think they will in rather than just might win. And that there is a very high number of plea bargains because they have very strong cases. But thats just forum talk, hearsay if you will. Thus, when the Feds indict an American on trumped up--or completely fabricated charges--he's almost guaranteed to be found guilty. Im not sure you showed that statistic, what if most of them are in the 5% that are not found guilty or plea? You were falsely accused and you are in the 5%, so every case i know of has been in the ones found NOT guilty , so that proves ALL of the 5% were innocent, right? .... same math.....different vector. So yes, I'm very concerned about our legislators passing some kind of hate-speech legislation, which would enable law enforcement to charge and indict someone for speech they claim incited violence. I do understand your concerns, and it pains me to admit there is some validity to them. I have also wondered about the validity of entrapment claims placed about recent terroristic arrests. I also worry when state officers may have done the same, but also fear more that the states will not provide uniform protection if only because they are feds. I dont think federal judges and or even members of congress should suffer differing degrees of protection depending on where they are from. I dont think a judge from one state should live in fear because photoshopped pictures of him with a gun to his head are protected first amendment protection in one state and a "terrorist-threat" in another. And you may have misinterpreted part of my argument. Yes i do feel the penalties for threatening officers of both the state and federal governments should be more strict than for threats against the general public by other citizens. The reward of the threat being successful is high because of the power vested in them, and so the risks must be higher. Im not against penalties for attempting to kill a cop or judge being more severe either. I think that they deserve equal and uniform protection as any other federal officer no matter where they are, but i do feel a stiffer penalty is warranted as compared to that for the other civilians. If a state wants to only provide lessor protection to its other citizens i do understand it has a right to do so, just as i see it as fair that the feds get to set a uniform standard of protection for their officers. I dont think it matters, i think they already won, i saw another reference to an existing federal statue regarding such threats, and still have yet to see of any substance from this guy, all i see about such laws still refers to it as proposed. My prediction is nothing more will come of this since all he wanted is already done.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jan 14, 2011 3:29:46 GMT -6
I dont think a judge from one state should live in fear because photoshopped pictures of him with a gun to his head are protected first amendment protection in one state and a "terrorist-threat" in another. So you consider a photo-shopped picture of someone with a gun to their head a "terrorist threat"? That's insane. You're clearly an advocate of a police state. Few people consider a picture of someone with a gun to their head a terrorist threat, nor do they believe it should be illegal. Now I see why Waltc laid into you. You believe Government officials should have special protection that the rest of us should not have, and that just a picture of someone having a gun to their head should be a prosecutable offense. Your view is simply incredible. We don't just disagree. We violently disagree. And you may have misinterpreted part of my argument. Yes i do feel the penalties for threatening officers of both the state and federal governments should be more strict than for threats against the general public by other citizens. The reward of the threat being successful is high because of the power vested in them, and so the risks must be higher. Im not against penalties for attempting to kill a cop or judge being more severe either.
I think that they deserve equal and uniform protection as any other federal officer no matter where they are, but i do feel a stiffer penalty is warranted as compared to that for the other civilians. Un-frigging believable, Huck. You really DO believe that some of us should be more protected than others--that 'some pigs are more equal than others.' Obviously you believe in a political ruling "class," one that should be above the rest of us. I didn't "misinterpret" anything you said. In fact, I gave you the benefit of the doubt which you did not deserve. You're a Fascist who believes in a police state, and believes that our pseudo-elected aristocrats should have more protection under the law than the rest of us common serfs. Your views are despicable, Huck.
|
|
huck
Contributor
Posts: 81
|
Post by huck on Jan 14, 2011 10:41:59 GMT -6
Your views are despicable, Huck. Your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Jan 14, 2011 19:55:00 GMT -6
Sooo, what do I fear, and what do I hate? Yes i can understand how you are that clueless. What makes you think I care what you think about a "manufactured rage" topic. It's always the same couple of talking heads which creates national outrage by saying something on TV. And you're all worked up about it, like it's the end of the world. You're being played. Just let out all your hatred out man, don't hold back. You hate some some people; if you hate this much wouldn't it be easier to take out your hatred with a gun? hater
|
|