What Would You Do If This Happened To You?

[saveliberty]

It's a crime to make threats against the life of the president, irrespective of any present perceived ability to carry them out.

Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

18 U.S.C. Sec. 871(a).

About.com: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/871.shtml

I think this section is specific to using the mail. Section 879 is the section I think you meant to use. To be a crime, you still need means, method and opportunity. Which is why Mr. Jerk will not be charged.

 

[MikeK]

No, as a matter of fact in the 80s, someone in a bar, yelled that someone should shoot Reagan and they imprisoned him.

I never heard of this and I strongly doubt it ever happened. The ACLU would have put their entire resources behind that fellow's defense and it would have been Page One. The very worst that could have happened is some ignorant cop might have arrested him, but the desk officer would not have booked him. And if he did that guy would have lawyers lining up to get a piece of the punitive award.

So whoever told you that story is fantasizing.

 

[MikeK]

Devil's advocate: I wonder what those who defend the person's right to say what he thinks would think if a loved one were killed by a person who made their wish for death prior to the act?

I would think that's too bad but not something we should consider abandoning the First Amendment over.

Is stupidity always granted free speech rights when someone else's right may be mortally infringed.

Such as?

 

[saveliberty]

I would weigh what the person had said in the past. (Is this common for him to make such threats)

I would weigh how specific the threat was. (Dates, times, weapon used)

I would judge the intensity of the person's emotions.

I would judge the person's access to the weapon(s).

If I thought these were of a level that was believable, better to report than risk a disaster.

 

[MikeK]

Liberals want more people in the jails they run, more money for government.[...]

FYI, the majority of inmates presently confined in American prisons are there consequent to Ronald Reagan's escalation of Richard Nixon's War on Drugs. And is it not Liberals who most vigorously oppose an end to the counterproductive prohibition of marijuana and a review of the utterly non-productive war on other drugs?

 

[MikeK]

[
The Secret Service obviously disagrees with your opinion of the matter. He might not have broken the law, but he sure as hell is going to get investigated.

They don't play around with that stuff, and I'd venture especially these days due to the fact that their are plenty of violent racists in this country.

The Secret Service's purpose and authority are important but not sacrosanct. And this is an issue in which their commitment butts heads with the Constitution.

The Secret Service has a right to passively investigate reports of suspicious or threatening circumstances. But if I am the subject of an aggressive investigation I have a right to know its purpose. I also have a (Fifth Amendment) right to refuse to answer questions. And if I am arrested or otherwise inconvenienced I can sue for false arrest or harrassment.

In that event, to justify their actions the SS would be required to identify the source of the complaint against me. And the individual who caused me to be arrested had better be able to prove or otherwise justify his complaint against me or I have grounds to sue.

 

[MikeK]

You can't make comments like that and get away with it.

Yes, you can.

It's very stupid.

We have a right to be stupid.

The problem is no one knows who is serious about it and who's not.

And the only way to know is when a specific threat is made or some overt action is taken.

Threatening the POTUS or anyone for that matter--is wrong and in my opinion should be reported to authorities.

Correct. But in this example no such threat was made.

Example:

If I say I wish someone would kill you, as offensive as it may sound it is protected speech.

If I say I am going to kill you, that is an overt threat and it is illegal.

 

[Immanuel]

I don't believe what he said was a threat, but quite honestly, I think only an idiot says something like that about anyone let alone a President. Whether or not it was an actual threat, and I don't think it was, it is a stupid thing to say. I can't imagine that there are American adults who don't know that it is a crime to threaten the President.

Why on earth would someone risk being mis-understood and take the chance of ending up in prison over a stupid statement?

Immie

Because this is America in which our right to free speech is guaranteed by our Constitution. And while the First Amendment doesn't extend the right to verbally incite panic or to issue threats, wishing suffering or death upon someone is not subject to official intervention. And because something might be in poor taste does not make it illegal.


"Whomever would make his own liberty secure must guard even his most despised countryman from oppression by government. For if he ignores this sacred duty he thus establishes a precedent which someday will surely reach to himself." (Thomas Paine)

Um, excuse me, but threatening the life of the President is not and never has been considered "Free Speech" just as yelling "Fire!" in a theater is not considered "Free Speech".

Immie

 

[saveliberty]

I don't believe what he said was a threat, but quite honestly, I think only an idiot says something like that about anyone let alone a President. Whether or not it was an actual threat, and I don't think it was, it is a stupid thing to say. I can't imagine that there are American adults who don't know that it is a crime to threaten the President.

Why on earth would someone risk being mis-understood and take the chance of ending up in prison over a stupid statement?

Immie

Because this is America in which our right to free speech is guaranteed by our Constitution. And while the First Amendment doesn't extend the right to verbally incite panic or to issue threats, wishing suffering or death upon someone is not subject to official intervention. And because something might be in poor taste does not make it illegal.


"Whomever would make his own liberty secure must guard even his most despised countryman from oppression by government. For if he ignores this sacred duty he thus establishes a precedent which someday will surely reach to himself." (Thomas Paine)

Um, excuse me, but threatening the life of the President is not and never has been considered "Free Speech" just as yelling "Fire!" in a theater is not considered "Free Speech".

Immie

Prolly a lot of posters here could get away with it, cause they tweret meanin nothin by it. Just funin.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Why?

Suppose we have a president who turns out to be a dedicated fascist. Would you not wish for someone to take him out by any means necessary?

hahaha. it's always a fascist. I would hope the two conclusions a sane American would have, regardless of how horrible a person they believe the president to be, are riding it out, or impeachment.

Yup, that's what John Wilkes Booth consoled himself with.

 

[saveliberty]

Why?

Suppose we have a president who turns out to be a dedicated fascist. Would you not wish for someone to take him out by any means necessary?

hahaha. it's always a fascist. I would hope the two conclusions a sane American would have, regardless of how horrible a person they believe the president to be, are riding it out, or impeachment.

The media must have missed the large fascist vote last election. Good news Mike, killing hypothetical Presidents is not illegal. I have to side with Hick on this one. Excuse me while I go throw up.

 

[MikeK]

MikeK, you can voice your interp about the Constitution, but your opinion is not the law.

Jake, I don't profess to be a Constitutional scholar and all I have to offer here is my opinion. But when I'm wrong I always appreciate being corrected and educated. So please set me straight.

One word of advice: don't.

Another thing I appreciate is advice. But in this example I need a bit more than, "don't."

Don't what?

 

[R.C. Christian]

Look, this all you really need to know.

THREATS AGAINST PRESIDENT
18 USC 871, makes it a Federal crime or offense for anyone to willfully make a true threat to injure or kill the President of the United States.

A person can be found guilty of that offense only if all of the following facts are proved beyond a reasonable doubt:

First: That the person uttered words alleged to be the threat against the President;

Second: That the person understood and meant the words he used as a true threat; and

Third: That the person uttered the words knowingly and willfully.

A "threat" is a statement expressing an intention to kill or injure the President; and a "true threat" means a serious threat as distinguished from words used as mere political argument, idle or careless talk, or something said in a joking manner.

The essence of the offense is the knowing and willful making of a true threat. So, if it is proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the person knowingly made a true threat against the President, willfully intending that it be understood by others as a serious threat, then the offense is complete; it is not necessary to prove that the person actually intended to carry out the threat.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Okay, people, enough of this "all or nothing", "I must be extreme" stuff.

Did the guy actually threaten the President's life? No. Was he an idiot who desperately needed to learn the rudimentary social skills possessed by your average 1st grader? Yes.

Was the guy who reported him a douchebag? Probably. There's an outside chance he thought it was a threat, but it's more likely he's just fed up with the asshole and found him offensive and decided to teach him a lesson.

Was the Secret Service right in investigating him? Damn straight they were. While he didn't do anything worthy of prosecution, let alone conviction - which is borne out by the fact that he wasn't charged with anything - under the circumstances, they did exactly what they should have done. And they also did the right thing by decided he was just an asshole whose co-workers hate him and letting him go. As a bonus, I'd imagine he's learned something about the difference between "I have a right to say it" and "It's a good idea to say it".

 

[R.C. Christian]

Well you're at least half right. I still suggest that SS has to have some way of filtering the non-threats out before actually hopping a plane to go investigate hearsay.

 

[MikeK]

Why?

Suppose we have a president who turns out to be a dedicated fascist. Would you not wish for someone to take him out by any means necessary?

hahaha. it's always a fascist. I would hope the two conclusions a sane American would have, regardless of how horrible a person they believe the president to be, are riding it out, or impeachment.

Yup, that's what John Wilkes Booth consoled himself with.

Not so. The concept of fascism wasn't a political prospect in Booth's time. Booth was an antagonized racist.

So far the closest we've come to autocracy was the appointment of George W. Bush as President by the distinctly fascistic majority of the Supreme Court. We were lucky in 2008 but that reprieve was by no means decisive. The way things are shaping up I don't think democracy will survive a strong swing of the political pendulum. The corporatocracy is in place and is well entrenched.

And considering the politically obtuse percentage of the U.S. population you can forget about impeachment. The kind of ignorant, brainwashed, authoritarian chauvinists who are receptive to political criminals like Bush and Cheney won't realize they're living in a fascist dictatorship until it's too late to do anything about it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well you're at least half right. I still suggest that SS has to have some way of filtering the non-threats out before actually hopping a plane to go investigate hearsay.

I believe there was something about the FBI mentioned. They, of course, don't have to hop any planes, because they have branch offices all over the country. Other than that, I can't imagine what other choice they've got than to investigate reports by the people who actually know the suspects. By all accounts, John Wilkes Booth made very similar remarks about wanting someone to kill Lincoln to several people before actually doing it.

 

[Avatar4321]

I would have just told the guy that's the wrong attitude to have. We need to love people. Even our enemies.

 

[R.C. Christian]

There is just something ugly underneath, selfish, and petty at it's core that would drive a co-worker to report something like this simply to get even, or have a laugh.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I would have just told the guy that's the wrong attitude to have. We need to love people. Even our enemies.

I agree. Both guys involved were douchebags. That being said, I still think the Secret Service did the right thing, and exactly what I, as a citizen, would want them to do. Make no mistake, as much as I dislike Barack Obama as President, as much as I think he will be in the running for worst President ever, he IS still the President of my country, and I don't want anyone assassinating the President of the United States under any circumstances. I want his ass VOTED out of office, not KILLED out of office.