Really a stupid thing to broadcast to all the free world, not to mention it exhibits his desire to see people killed.
Here's an interesting case about a similar alleged threat made here in OK.
http://www.donhaslam.com/pdf/Hall_dissmsal_5407.pdf
http://www.donhaslam.com/pdf/Hall_dissmsal_5407.pdf
Not sure I agree it is similar at all. The alleged "threats" made in this case in Oklahoma could have easily been argued to mean some type of legal removal, such as voting them off the bench, etc. The man who got his license suspended in Arlington made specific threats encouraging violence against members of Congress. Clearly a BIG difference to me. Not sure how you could interpret his irresponsible threats any other way.
It's one thing to say, "Hey, we're gonna organize and vote these idiots out of congress. I hate the way they are running our country", which is a lawful way of expressing your opinion, but it's quite another to infer some type of violent, and illegal way of removing them from office, like this guy did.
This person is an irresponsible gun owner and in my book, deserved to have his license suspended. He'll get his due process, I'm sure as they are investigating. But removing his weapons from his home in light of his comments to me, isn't illegal. If a court finds he did nothing wrong, i'm sure they will be returned.
then Jefferson and washington are criminals then.
Umm, what part of this don't you understand?
I bolded just the relevant parts to aid your reading comprehension. No thanks necessary!
But he DID break the law with his threats..... read the law above ^.
1 down and 534 to go
It is absolutely, absolutely unacceptable to shoot indiscriminately. Target only politicians and their staff and leave regular citizens alone.
Are these statements threats?
From Merriam Websters, Threat:
An expression of intention to inflict evil, injury,or damage.
An indication of something impending, (the sky held a threat of rain).
The length of the suspension, or whether Corcorans license will be revoked will be determined by the outcome of the investigation.
Investigation does not equate to Due Process.
They've got a big target on there: ATF. Don't shoot at that because they've got a vest on underneath that. Head shot, head shots.
~G. Gordon Liddy
It is absolutely, absolutely unacceptable to shoot indiscriminately. Target only politicians and their staff and leave regular citizens alone.
Are these statements threats?
From Merriam Websters, Threat:
An expression of intention to inflict evil, injury,or damage.
An indication of something impending, (the sky held a threat of rain).
The length of the suspension, or whether Corcorans license will be revoked will be determined by the outcome of the investigation.
Investigation does not equate to Due Process.
They've got a big target on there: ATF. Don't shoot at that because they've got a vest on underneath that. Head shot, head shots.
~G. Gordon Liddy
It is highly possible the guy was trying to be cute with his remark. The nature of the words don't strike me as necessarily a direct threat to go out and kill elected representatives of state and the federal legislatures and/or their employees. Still, in the political climate following the Arizona shooting someone has to be pretty foolish about cracking jokes about it. The reality is that it is never smart to make any type of threat towards another individual or others.
What also strikes me most about this incident is that apparently law enforcement confiscated his "known" cache of weapons and ammunition, then released him. That doesn't seem consistent to me. If they think the guy is a threat then the prudent thing is to keep him under lock and key until they decide he is/isn't a danger to society. It is highly possible that this individual has guns/ammunition in multiple locations. It is very possible that he has more than one residence/property where it is possible for him to keep weapons and ammunition. If the guy is truly a loose canon, then it seems more likely to me that he would have weapons in multiple locations. So, if the guy is truly a danger then they could have turned loose a man who had weapons and ammunition at his disposal.
To me this smacks of someone trying to cover his/her ass. Just do something to make a show of it.
I also question the "due process" issue. Seems to me if what the guy said is sufficient to warrant taking his property and license then they must have thought he violated some legal code. If that is the case then wouldn't it be more prudent to charge him with the crime. I know of few criminal issues where they confiscate property, turn the person loose and then proceed with some investigation. In most situations, law enforcement doesn't make an arrest or confiscate property unless they have more than some "hunch" of a crime having been committed.
What also strikes me most about this incident is that apparently law enforcement confiscated his "known" cache of weapons and ammunition, then released him. That doesn't seem consistent to me. If they think the guy is a threat then the prudent thing is to keep him under lock and key until they decide he is/isn't a danger to society. It is highly possible that this individual has guns/ammunition in multiple locations. It is very possible that he has more than one residence/property where it is possible for him to keep weapons and ammunition. If the guy is truly a loose canon, then it seems more likely to me that he would have weapons in multiple locations. So, if the guy is truly a danger then they could have turned loose a man who had weapons and ammunition at his disposal.
To me this smacks of someone trying to cover his/her ass. Just do something to make a show of it.
I also question the "due process" issue. Seems to me if what the guy said is sufficient to warrant taking his property and license then they must have thought he violated some legal code. If that is the case then wouldn't it be more prudent to charge him with the crime. I know of few criminal issues where they confiscate property, turn the person loose and then proceed with some investigation. In most situations, law enforcement doesn't make an arrest or confiscate property unless they have more than some "hunch" of a crime having been committed.
