Type carefully, they'll indict!

[tod evans]

Man arrested after Ferguson officer threatened online

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/12/03/man-arrested-after-ferguson-officer-threatened-online/


A man was arrested Tuesday on federal charges of posting Internet threats against a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, after a black teenager was shot and killed.

Defendant Jaleel Tarik Abdul-Jabbaar, 46, of Kirkland began posting threats on Facebook soon after the shooting of Michael Brown, according to the criminal complaint.

The complaint includes FBI Special Agent Brett Grover saying, "the threats relate to the widely publicized events of Aug. 9 during which Officer D.W. fatally shot Michael Brown."

The complaint does not specifically name then-Officer Darren Wilson as the victim of the threats. It's a policy to withhold the names of victims in such cases, said Emily Langlie, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney's Office in Seattle.

Wilson later resigned from the Ferguson Police Department.

Abdul-Jabbaar made an initial appearance in U.S. District Court and was appointed a federal public defender. The judge set a detention hearing for Friday.

On Aug. 30, Abdul-Jabbaar posted, "we really need to start killing the police ... OOooopppss I mean our oppressors," the complaint said.

Federal prosecutors said Abdul-Jabbaar posted inflammatory messages for months that called on others to join him on a trip to Ferguson to "give back the bullets" that were fired at Brown.

Acting U.S. Attorney Annette Hayes said Americans have a right to speak out about current events and criticize the government, but "our freedom of speech does not, however, extend to making threats to kill or injure law enforcement officers."

Abdul-Jabbaar is facing three counts of making interstate threats. Each charge carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison.

[aGameOfThrones]

The standard for threats of violence is currently the "Brandenburg" test from Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969). Language will not be protected by the First Amendment if it creates a "likelihood of imminent lawless action".

There are three elements that will bring specific threats of violence beyond the protection of the First Amendment:
The threat must be intentional. There is some issue as to whether the intent must be objective, that is the speaker intends for the threats; or if it subjective, meaning the listener could reasonably believe the intent was serious (see below)
The threat must be imminent, i.e. it can't be a general fear that something might happen at some unspecified time in the future
There must be a likelihood that the imminent threat will occur

Some specific examples:

Protected: a man at a rally makes a conditional threat saying if he were ever drafted, the first man he'd put in the sights of his rifle would be the President. WATTS v. UNITED STATES, 394 U.S. 705 (1969). What was important here was the political nature of the speech and the hyperbole involved.

Unprotected: during a time where abortion doctors were frequently the victims of violence, an anti-abortion group put a list on their website with the names and addresses of doctors who performed abortions. Those doctors who were previously murdered had their names with a line through them; the wounded were greyed out. PLANNED PARENTHOOD v. ACLA, 290 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2001)

Protected: a man at an anti-war rally exclaims, "We'll take the f_____ing streets back/again!" in the presence of a police officer. HESS v. INDIANA, 414 U.S. 105 (1973). This is an example of the "imminent" aspect not being present - it is a threat at an unspecified future time.

Unprotected: a man leaves a voice mail for an FBI agent with the statement, "The silver bullets are coming!". The man says he was quoting the Lone Ranger, the agent says he felt very threatened and "chilled" by the threat (highlighting the intent element on behalf of the speaker vs the listener). UNITED STATES v. FULMER, 108 F.3d 1486 (1st Cir. 1997)


police can directly make threats against your life, but that speech has special protections.

[presence]

I rather enjoy flirting with that line of free speech.

:D


"our freedom of speech does not, however, extend to making threats to kill or injure law enforcement officers."


STFU asshole. Yes it does.

Hess v. Indiana (1973)


nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time


Unless you tell someone:

"YOU,
specifically,
SHOULD
take
THIS WEAPON
and kill
THIS PERSON
right
NOW"

It is NOT advocacy of immenent lawless action.


Inciting future lawless action doesn't count.


If you light a firecracker and then stick it down your pants, a very bad situation is imminent.

http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/imminent



http://www.magbloom.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Hess-v-Indiana.jpg
Gregory Hess - http://www.magbloom.com/2014/03/hess-v-indiana-40th-anniversary-of-landmark-free-speech-case-%E2%80%A8and-it-happened-in-bloomington/

[moostraks]

Must be nice to be a protected class such as the police happen to be. They may even carry through with their threats of violence and still not be held accountable. Smh...

[Brian4Liberty]

Some specific examples:

Protected: a man at a rally makes a conditional threat saying if he were ever drafted, the first man he'd put in the sights of his rifle would be the President. WATTS v. UNITED STATES, 394 U.S. 705 (1969). What was important here was the political nature of the speech and the hyperbole involved.

Unprotected: during a time where abortion doctors were frequently the victims of violence, an anti-abortion group put a list on their website with the names and addresses of doctors who performed abortions. Those doctors who were previously murdered had their names with a line through them; the wounded were greyed out. PLANNED PARENTHOOD v. ACLA, 290 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2001)

Protected: a man at an anti-war rally exclaims, "We'll take the f_____ing streets back/again!" in the presence of a police officer. HESS v. INDIANA, 414 U.S. 105 (1973). This is an example of the "imminent" aspect not being present - it is a threat at an unspecified future time.

Unprotected: a man leaves a voice mail for an FBI agent with the statement, "The silver bullets are coming!". The man says he was quoting the Lone Ranger, the agent says he felt very threatened and "chilled" by the threat (highlighting the intent element on behalf of the speaker vs the listener). UNITED STATES v. FULMER, 108 F.3d 1486 (1st Cir. 1997)

Sounds reasonable until you look at the dates. It is clear that today is different than 1969 or 1973. Things have changed post 1984...

[Brian4Liberty]

Some specific examples:

Protected: a man at a rally makes a conditional threat saying if he were ever drafted, the first man he'd put in the sights of his rifle would be the President. WATTS v. UNITED STATES, 394 U.S. 705 (1969). What was important here was the political nature of the speech and the hyperbole involved.

Unprotected: during a time where abortion doctors were frequently the victims of violence, an anti-abortion group put a list on their website with the names and addresses of doctors who performed abortions. Those doctors who were previously murdered had their names with a line through them; the wounded were greyed out. PLANNED PARENTHOOD v. ACLA, 290 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2001)

Protected: a man at an anti-war rally exclaims, "We'll take the f_____ing streets back/again!" in the presence of a police officer. HESS v. INDIANA, 414 U.S. 105 (1973). This is an example of the "imminent" aspect not being present - it is a threat at an unspecified future time.

Unprotected: a man leaves a voice mail for an FBI agent with the statement, "The silver bullets are coming!". The man says he was quoting the Lone Ranger, the agent says he felt very threatened and "chilled" by the threat (highlighting the intent element on behalf of the speaker vs the listener). UNITED STATES v. FULMER, 108 F.3d 1486 (1st Cir. 1997)

Sounds reasonable until you look at the dates. It is clear that today is different than 1969 or 1973. Things have changed post 1984...

[otherone]

The complaint does not specifically name then-Officer Darren Wilson as the victim of the threats. It's a policy to withhold the names of victims in such cases, said Emily Langlie, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney's Office in Seattle.



whoa whoa...
DA FUQ?

vic·tim
ˈviktəm/
noun
noun: victim; plural noun: victims

a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action.

[JK/SEA]

Types of Threats

Threats can be classified in four different categories; direct, indirect, veiled, conditional.
A direct threat identifies a specific target and is delivered in a straightforward, clear and explicit manner.
An indirect threat tends to be vague, unclear and ambiguous. The plan, the intended victim, the motivation, and other aspects of the threat are masked or equivocal.
A veiled threat is one that strongly implies but does not specifically threaten violence.
A conditional threat is the type of threat often seen in extortion cases. It warns that a violent act will happen unless certain demands or terms are met.

[morfeeis]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLbWnJGlyMU

Someone took their lesson from bugs life seriously.


So lets see if the feds come after me for this: we really need to start holding law enforcement to the same standard as anyone else and that includes self-defense should they try to harm you in an unjust fashion......

[JK/SEA]

so we can't say 'fuck the police' now?

someone might think that you want to rape a cop....

[JK/SEA]

//

is the forum being hacked today?...

[Weston White]

So nice, now FBI Special Agent Brett Grover needs to apply the XIV Amendment to ex-officer D.W., for it was under his own admission and testimony that he had admitted he had without any reasonable justification threatened to shoot M.B. if he did not step away from him. Oh also his office needs to learn how to properly apply the law while illuminated by established case law on what is a protected expression of anger concerning the instant matter and its underlying miscarriage of justice.

[Occam's Banana]

Acting U.S. Attorney Annette Hayes said Americans have a right to speak out about current events and criticize the government, but "our freedom of speech does not, however, extend to making threats to kill or injure law enforcement officers."

So it's fine to make threats to kill or injure others - just as long as those "others" aren't members of the priveleged caste.

And, of course, it goes without saying that this standard does NOT apply in the other direction:

"See these fists? They're getting ready to fuck you up!" - Officer Manuel Ramos (to Kelly Thomas before beating him to death)

[Christian Liberty]

Hmm... I wonder if the person's ISIS affiliation was part of the reason they decided to prosecute:

http://nypost.com/2014/12/03/isis-supporter-arrested-for-threatening-darren-wilson-on-facebook/


Mind, that doesn't make it right, I'm just curious if that's part of the reason, or part of why they will get away with it.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

//

is the forum being hacked today?...

It would just be the usual ratting. You would either get ratted by the usual trolls or the lice/lice lovers who have been here lately.

[ExPatPaki]

so we can't say 'fuck the police' now?

someone might think that you want to rape a cop....

Bestiality is against the law.

[Christian Liberty]

Bestiality is against the law.

lol!

[phill4paul]

I don't care. I will say it on line and I will say it to their face. I will not subjugate myself to thugs, murderers, thieves or rapists. I will stand armed and equal. I will guarantee that at least one of their gang will never have to be subjected to paid administrative leave or have to spend time getting a clean bill of health from a copsucking grand jury. I am not just fapping on the internet about this. I am deadly serious.

[Root]

so we can't say 'fuck the police' now?

someone might think that you want to rape a cop....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKuMhpb1gOI

[Christian Liberty]

I don't care. I will say it on line and I will say it to their face. I will not subjugate myself to thugs, murderers, thieves or rapists. I will stand armed and equal. I will guarantee that at least one of their gang will never have to be subjected to paid administrative leave or have to spend time getting a clean bill of health from a copsucking grand jury. I am not just fapping on the internet about this. I am deadly serious.

If you are deadly serious, I think its a mistake to post it on the internet, IMO.

I respect your right to do what you have to do on the internet. But why you'd give a police officer something like this to use as a reason to get you I'll never know.

I intend to remain peaceful in any situation possible. That's all I'm saying here.

[phill4paul]

If you are deadly serious, I think its a mistake to post it on the internet, IMO.

I respect your right to do what you have to do on the internet. But why you'd give a police officer something like this to use as a reason to get you I'll never know.

I intend to remain peaceful in any situation possible. That's all I'm saying here.

It's because I'm a Honey-Badger. :p

In all seriousness I give a F*ck about one thing only. My sovereignty and what I must do to own it.

Do not think that I do not believe in peaceful resolution. I know from history and life experience that their is only one way to approach this with the possibility of an equitable outcome. And that is by creating a deterrence of force initiation from those that would take from me my sovereignty. One night of beating, baton rape, or death by torture does not conform with my world view.

[ghengis86]

It's because I'm a Honey-Badger. :p

In all seriousness I give a F*ck about one thing only. My sovereignty and what I must do to own it.

Do not think that I do not believe in peaceful resolution. I know from history and life experience that their is only one way to approach this with the possibility of an equitable outcome. And that is by creating a deterrence of force initiation from those that would take from me my sovereignty. One night of beating, baton rape, or death by torture does not conform with my world view.

Interestingly enough, that's exactly how it works with nations too. Don't got nukes or formidable national defense? You get liberated by Uncle Sam. Got nukes or a formidable defense? That force is deterrent enough to keep the wolves from attacking.

[Christian Liberty]

It's because I'm a Honey-Badger. :p

In all seriousness I give a F*ck about one thing only. My sovereignty and what I must do to own it.

Do not think that I do not believe in peaceful resolution. I know from history and life experience that their is only one way to approach this with the possibility of an equitable outcome. And that is by creating a deterrence of force initiation from those that would take from me my sovereignty. One night of beating, baton rape, or death by torture does not conform with my world view.

I wasn't accusing you of not believing in a peaceful resolution. I was just stating that I do...

[phill4paul]

I wasn't accusing you of not believing in a peaceful resolution. I was just stating that I do...

I agree. Peaceful is a great state to be in. It allows one to be productive. Legitimately As opposed to those that make money off of manufactured discord.

[Christian Liberty]

I agree. Peaceful is a great state to be in. It allows one to be productive. Legitimately As opposed to those that make money off of manufactured discord.

I agree. And I also agree that cops do in fact make their money in a non-peaceful manner.

If its just me that's being bullied by them, I'd probably let them get away with it. "turn the other cheek." At least ideally I would.

On the other hand, I would not willingly watch someone else be oppressed.

[phill4paul]

Interestingly enough, that's exactly how it works with nations too. Don't got nukes or formidable national defense? You get liberated by Uncle Sam. Got nukes or a formidable defense? That force is deterrent enough to keep the wolves from attacking.

Meh, the government has the nukes. I've got but a slingshot. I've no belief that my slingshot will bring Goliath down. But, if it comes to that, I will die fighting for my belief as opposed to old age. I've got no mental hang ups with that.

[Christian Liberty]

Meh, the government has the nukes. I've got but a slingshot. I've no belief that my slingshot will bring Goliath down. But, if it comes to that, I will die fighting for my belief as opposed to old age. I've got no mental hang ups with that.

I don't want to have a man's death on my conscience. Even if its technically justified according to libertarian principle, I'd rather not do it.

That doesn't mean I never will. But I would rather suffer evils while evils are sufferable than to do it.

[phill4paul]

I agree. And I also agree that cops do in fact make their money in a non-peaceful manner.

If its just me that's being bullied by them, I'd probably let them get away with it. "turn the other cheek." At least ideally I would.

On the other hand, I would not willingly watch someone else be oppressed.

And if, during your acquiescence you are raped with a baton, physically tortured, strapped down, a towel thrown over your face, and soaked in pepper spray. Enough that it causes you to be robbed of this physical plane and of those that love you? What then? Trick question. I'll tell you "what then." It's too late.

[phill4paul]

I don't want to have a man's death on my conscience. Even if its technically justified according to libertarian principle, I'd rather not do it.

That doesn't mean I never will. But I would rather suffer evils while evils are sufferable than to do it.

Fair enough. Every one has their own path. I will not abide it.

[Christian Liberty]

And if, during your acquiescence you are raped with a baton, physically tortured, strapped down, a towel thrown over your face, and soaked in pepper spray. Enough that it causes you to be robbed of this physical plane and of those that love you? What then? Trick question. I'll tell you "what then." It's too late.

Note that I said "while evils are sufferable" for a reason. There is a line and the situation you describe far passes it. That's a blatantly obvious case of self-defense.

I don't like police but I'm not sure how likely the scenario you describe is.

For what its worth, I have a hard time imagining a scenario in which I kill a police officer and I still have those who love me. Both because most of those who love me would never be able to understand why I did what I did, and because the government would certainly destroy my life for killing one of the king's men. Both of those things would be true even if I was completely, undeniably justified.

I don't even deny that it will happen eventually. If our government ever gets to a Nazi Germany level of evil, it would not surprise me at all. I'm willing to tolerate a certain amount rather than doing it, but I am not saying there is no line that could be crossed.


Fair enough. Every one has their own path. I will not abide it.

Honestly, if it wasn't for my religious faith I'd probably be right there with you. Even with my religious faith I'm partially there with you. Its the belief in a next world that would make me more hesitant to take the life of a non-Christian (I highly doubt that a regenerate person would ever bully me significantly that I would have to kill him, whether he CLAIMS to be Christian or not is irrelevant) knowing that he would end up in Hell afterwards. I'm not saying I'd never do it. In fact, I would go so far as to say there ARE situations where I would do it. But I don't want to take it lightly.

[Christian Liberty]

For what its worth, I know you could make the argument that someone who shoots at a cop during a drug raid is acting in self-defense. In fact, I would agree with you. But that's an avoidable situation, and I'd avoid it, personally. If I were pulled over for a traffic violation, I would take the cop to court (if nothing else, I take a day away from him that he would otherwise use to bully the innocent) but I'd never consider physical violence to prevent it. And similar principles would likely apply to most of the stupid laws of today. But yeah, if one just started shooting at me out of the blue, and I had a gun, I'd use it.

[phill4paul]

Note that I said "while evils are sufferable" for a reason. There is a line and the situation you describe far passes it. That's a blatantly obvious case of self-defense.

There is NO self-defense once you are in shackles. None. So the choice remains to subjugate oneself or to not subjugate oneself.


I don't like police but I'm not sure how likely the scenario you describe is.

Should "how likely" it is even factor? The fact that it might, and plenty of reporting here to back it up, should be enough to convince an individual not to subjugate themselves.


Honestly, if it wasn't for my religious faith I'd probably be right there with you. Even with my religious faith I'm partially there with you. Its the belief in a next world that would make me more hesitant to take the life of a non-Christian (I highly doubt that a regenerate person would ever bully me significantly that I would have to kill him, whether he CLAIMS to be Christian or not is irrelevant) knowing that he would end up in Hell afterwards. I'm not saying I'd never do it. In fact, I would go so far as to say there ARE situations where I would do it. But I don't want to take it lightly.

Faith is a powerful thing. I have faith that I am subject to no other man nor his machinations such as government. And I will not subjugate myself to his enforcers.And I do not take my belief lightly. I do not seek to cause others harm. But, I will not be put in fetters. I will not be caged. I'll stake my life on it.