Woman arrested for threatening police officers on Facebook

diehardbiker

Active Member
Whats scary is that we the people are actually giving our government more power... They got all the military shyt than anyone on this planet could dream of having that massive defense, and these government officials are scaring of us? Its like an Elephant scared of mouse.

Threatening happens on daily basis, perhaps every god damn minute for all you care is happening, and only tweety tiny fraction of them actually going to happen. It does not justify government punishing for one's freedom of speech each time... SAD!
 

CrazyPaul

Active Member
"Can", but it does not necessarily mean it will happen.
If your neighbor didn't say it, of course it will not happen as long as you don't piss him off. As you may know, sometimes it can happen unexpectedly even without him saying it beforehand.

Supposedly, one person writes down that he hates gay and plans to kill them all. Leave him alone due to freedom speech or arrest him?
 

diehardbiker

Active Member
Still, its only talk, I dont see any crime in talking, its pretty much victimless crime. Government is too big to be scare by anyone, If I threaten u verbally, what govermnent can do? NOTHING, but if I threaten them verbally, they do everything as if they are above the law... see where government manipulates their power just for the hell of it. Get my drift?

I would have respect that *IF* that person who threaten and made several steps like going to that place where they threaten with firearms, then sure can arreet, but if that person stay home, didnt lift a finger at all.... call that a real threat? GET REAL!
 

CrazyPaul

Active Member
Still, its only talk, I dont see any crime in talking, its pretty much victimless crime. Government is too big to be scare by anyone, If I threaten u verbally, what govermnent can do? NOTHING, but if I threaten them verbally, they do everything as if they are above the law... see where government manipulates their power just for the hell of it. Get my drift?
Yes, I get your drift. Sure, the government would do something about it if it's threatened but does nothing about personal threats to other people (non-officials).

I would have respect that *IF* that person who threaten and made several steps like going to that place where they threaten with firearms, then sure can arreet, but if that person stay home, didnt lift a finger at all.... call that a real threat? GET REAL!
You see, once you make a threat, it's a crime. This woman made a threat toward white cops, it's a crime. Free speech doesn't matter. A gay hater makes a threat to gay people, it's a crime. An ex-boyfriend threats to kill the girl, it's a crime. All of those threats are just words but they count as a crime. Just watch your mouth. Remember at YT the rich desperate boy speaking of wanting all girls dead, that's free speech, right? It was reported to the police but it was too late to stop him before he killed people.

http://www.alldeaf.com/showthread.php?t=123545

In determining what constitutes a true threat, the courts hold that what must be proved is that a reasonable recipient of the communication would consider it a threat under the circumstances. Thus, a statement to a judge that "You and your family are going to die" would be regarded as a true threat, even if the defendant claimed that he meant it as a literal, biological truth
 

diehardbiker

Active Member
I am making my hand resemble as a handgun, and pointing at you "Bang! Bang!"... Is this a real threat? Come on cowardy!

Again, ACTION is MUCH, MUCH LOUDER than words! Why wasting money chasing threat that would end up fruitless! We are in deep shyt debt already, why wasting money?
 

Reba

Retired Terp
Premium Member
I am making my hand resemble as a handgun, and pointing at you "Bang! Bang!"... Is this a real threat? Come on cowardy!

Again, ACTION is MUCH, MUCH LOUDER than words! Why wasting money chasing threat that would end up fruitless! We are in deep shyt debt already, why wasting money?
What action do you mean? Someone shooting at another person?
 

diehardbiker

Active Member
Its all the talking, making crime out of just talking is real joke. Its OK to take precautions and keep eyes peeled and wait for that person walks in the area where potential victim is or whatever the threat was. But is it really necessary to go down to that person house and arrested that person just because that person said they are threatening... and cop found gun down there and considered it as an evidence? REALLY? Oh come on! Or even worse, found a kitchen knife and used it as an evidence for potential threats, eh?

What I am seeing "Home of the cowards" when government acts cowardly by arresting and throw somebody in jail just because all of the talking and no action. Taxpayers bonus check for them, eh?

Welcome to Home of Coward, that is America. Home of the braves seems to be in history book already... SAD! Very sad!

Reba, do you understand what these two of 12 jurors said about "I will kill you", and a juror proved his point; in my earlier post? That's the whole point.

What action do you mean? Someone shooting at another person?
 

Reba

Retired Terp
Premium Member
Its all the talking, making crime out of just talking is real joke. Its OK to take precautions and keep eyes peeled and wait for that person walks in the area where potential victim is or whatever the threat was. But is it really necessary to go down to that person house and arrested that person just because that person said they are threatening... and cop found gun down there and considered it as an evidence? REALLY? Oh come on! Or even worse, found a kitchen knife and used it as an evidence for potential threats, eh?

What I am seeing "Home of the cowards" when government acts cowardly by arresting and throw somebody in jail just because all of the talking and no action. Taxpayers bonus check for them, eh?

Welcome to Home of Coward, that is America. Home of the braves seems to be in history book already... SAD! Very sad!
I think it depends on who is doing the threatening, and who is being threatened. If it's my family being threatened, I don't want to wait until the threatener shows up at my front door with a shotgun before I take action.

Reba, do you understand what these two of 12 jurors said about "I will kill you", and a juror proved his point; in my earlier post? That's the whole point.
Yes, I do. Twelve Angry Men has always been one of my favorite movies. In my Navy leadership class we even studied and analyzed it for how group dynamics work.
 

diehardbiker

Active Member
How do you prove one's true intentions?

Proving one's intention is rather difficult cause NO ONE can read other's mind, hence on why action is much louder than word.

Sure if somebody threats you from different location, you could call cop, but to charge that person as criminal is not appropriate because you assume what other's intention were, because you could be wrong after all. What you could do when one threats you is to be prepare and get enough of one's action to prove the intention.

For instance Jane Doe called you and threaten you, then walks up to her living room and sit and watch TV, had a shotgun in her bedroom... Nothing happens afterward except cop found her watching TV and found a unloaded shotgun next to her nightstand but the ammo is nowhere to be found....

While Janelle Doe called you and threatened you, you then called a cop, like you would with Jane Doe, cop found her driving on obvious route to your place with a shotgun in trunk, loaded ready to shoot and is only a block or two away from your place.

Ask yourself, which one commits true crime of threatening? Jane Doe or Janelle Doe? What I mean is that I don't see justification on charging Jane Doe, BUT do see justification on charging Janelle Doe for threatening with intention to harm. See where the action means so much than words.

Lastly, government as whole needs to take a fat chill pill (15 trillion mg), quit being overly aggressive-=cowardly on every tweety tiny bit of BS.

I think it depends on who is doing the threatening, and who is being threatened. If it's my family being threatened, I don't want to wait until the threatener shows up at my front door with a shotgun before I take action.


Yes, I do. Twelve Angry Men has always been one of my favorite movies. In my Navy leadership class we even studied and analyzed it for how group dynamics work.
 

CrazyPaul

Active Member
How do you prove one's true intentions?

Proving one's intention is rather difficult cause NO ONE can read other's mind, hence on why action is much louder than word.

Sure if somebody threats you from different location, you could call cop, but to charge that person as criminal is not appropriate because you assume what other's intention were, because you could be wrong after all. What you could do when one threats you is to be prepare and get enough of one's action to prove the intention.

For instance Jane Doe called you and threaten you, then walks up to her living room and sit and watch TV, had a shotgun in her bedroom... Nothing happens afterward except cop found her watching TV and found a unloaded shotgun next to her nightstand but the ammo is nowhere to be found....

While Janelle Doe called you and threatened you, you then called a cop, like you would with Jane Doe, cop found her driving on obvious route to your place with a shotgun in trunk, loaded ready to shoot and is only a block or two away from your place.

Ask yourself, which one commits true crime of threatening? Jane Doe or Janelle Doe? What I mean is that I don't see justification on charging Jane Doe, BUT do see justification on charging Janelle Doe for threatening with intention to harm. See where the action means so much than words.

Lastly, government as whole needs to take a fat chill pill (15 trillion mg), quit being overly aggressive-=cowardly on every tweety tiny bit of BS.
I don't want to talk about the government. I want to talk about personal threats. A personal threat is dangerous to my family. Period! If you think it's not, I don't care. My family is not your family. Period! I am not gonna watch my back all the times so I will call cops and make them do their jobs to protect me and my family from a person who makes a threat. Surely, the person will say "Uh-oh" when the cops stop by his/her house and will be sent to jail so s/he will have to explain it to a judge.
 

Steinhauer

Well-Known Member
There was a young couple that were camping near a lake. The wife decided that she would take a canoe out on the lake. She had been on the lake for about and hour, when a park ranger approached the canoe, using his boat. He got her attention, and said he was going to issue a ticket, as she was fishing, and fishing was not allowed n the lake.

"But .. I'm not fishing" she told him.

"Well ma'am, you have fishing equipment on the canoe", he replied, as he pointed and gestured at two fishing poles and a tackle-box.

"Well, if you give me a ticket for fishing, I am just going to claim you raped me", she said.

The Park Ranger, visibly upset and irate that she said this, retorted "Well .. that is insane, I haven't even touched you! There is no way you can claim I raped you!"

She just stared him down and said "Why not? You have the equipment".
 

diehardbiker

Active Member
The law was written specifically for government employee NOT you, or ur families. Thats the whole point, see what Steinhauer just said in his recent post, thats exact how government sees it, and abused their power... have u ever wondering why we got number one highest prisoners per capita anywhere in the world and still growing... arent u so blind to their abusive and remain above the law?

I don't want to talk about the government. I want to talk about personal threats. A personal threat is dangerous to my family. Period! If you think it's not, I don't care. My family is not your family. Period! I am not gonna watch my back all the times so I will call cops and make them do their jobs to protect me and my family from a person who makes a threat. Surely, the person will say "Uh-oh" when the cops stop by his/her house and will be sent to jail so s/he will have to explain it to a judge.
 

rockin'robin

Well-Known Member
She was not serious when she posted lol. Can see behind her status.

Perhaps not....BUT...there are those who aren't playing with a full deck take her seriously and actually start carrying out the threats she posted...Then there are those who seem to be sane of mind...(LOL).....and just for the hell of it start shooting every Cop they see...This Lady is just throwing ideas out there....
 

hoichi

Well-Known Member
Perhaps not....BUT...there are those who aren't playing with a full deck take her seriously and actually start carrying out the threats she posted...Then there are those who seem to be sane of mind...(LOL).....and just for the hell of it start shooting every Cop they see...This Lady is just throwing ideas out there....

Rubish.
Those pople would be doing.what they do regardless on what she posted or not.your assuming somne will read her and go kill someone.
Thsts not grounded in reality
Thats just like saying someone who watches a horror movie will go slash somene
Or
Someone who listens to rap will go shoot someone
Or
Someone who plays violent video games or sees violent images will themselves be violent...
So on
Reality is different ...very different.
As for peiple shooting every cop they see?
Where?
Where?
 
Last edited:

diehardbiker

Active Member
I also think this is really absurdly stupid law. Because, this gives the real crooks perfect opportunity framing somebody without any real action involved. Say, if I cracked in your facebook, and made announcement on threatening somebody on your facebook because I would want see that sucker thrown in jail just for my entrainment purpose... Who really gets away with it? With today's technology, there is never such thing as fool proof security, and anyone can fall in crack and become victim. I think it is BAD law, period.

Don't take every comment as seriously, otherwise too many innocents gets punished for what? Finally, it gives cop way too much power than they were designed for.
 

CrazyPaul

Active Member
I also think this is really absurdly stupid law. Because, this gives the real crooks perfect opportunity framing somebody without any real action involved. Say, if I cracked in your facebook, and made announcement on threatening somebody on your facebook because I would want see that sucker thrown in jail just for my entrainment purpose... Who really gets away with it? With today's technology, there is never such thing as fool proof security, and anyone can fall in crack and become victim. I think it is BAD law, period.

Don't take every comment as seriously, otherwise too many innocents gets punished for what? Finally, it gives cop way too much power than they were designed for.
She didn't say that someone hacked her facebook. She admitted that she posted it. Bad law? Oh well, who makes the law? Lawmakers in the governments. If you think that it violates 1st amendment, why don't people like you and hoichi stand up and fight against it?
 

diehardbiker

Active Member
This case may be DOA (Dead On Arrival) in court... Cop may lose case.

I am siding with Supreme court decision.. Talk is cheap, action is expensive.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/01/politics/supreme-court-elonis-facebook-ruling/index.html
Washington (CNN)The Supreme Court ruled Monday in favor of a Pennsylvania man who posted several violent messages on Facebook and was convicted under a federal threat statute -- the first time the Court raised the implications of free speech on social media.

The Court said that it wasn't enough to convict the man based solely on the idea that a reasonable person would regard his communications as a threat.

"Our holding makes clear that negligence is not sufficient to support a conviction," wrote Chief Justice John Roberts.
Chief Justice reads Eminem lyrics

Chief Justice reads Eminem lyrics 00:38
PLAY VIDEO

The Court held that the legal standard used to convict him was too low, but left open what the standard should be. It is a narrow ruling and the Court did not address the larger constitutional issue.

The case concerns a Pennsylvania man, Anthony D. Elonis, who posted several violent messages on his social media account after his wife left him. He claimed he was an artist who turned to rap lyrics for therapeutic purposes to help him cope with depression.

"There¹s one way to love you but a thousand ways to kill you," he wrote in one post.

"Enough elementary schools in a ten mile radius to initiate the most heinous school shooting ever imagined," he wrote in another.

He was convicted for violating a federal threat statute.

Elonis appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court arguing that the government should have been required to prove he actually intended to make a threat before sending him to jail for a 44 month term. Instead, the jury was told the standard was whether a "reasonable person" would have understood the words to be a threat.

John P. Elwood, Elonis' lawyer stressed in court briefs that his client often posted disclaimers noting he was only exercising his freedom of speech. "The First Amendment¹s basic command is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds it offensive or disagreeable," Elwood wrote. At trial , Elonis testified that his Facebook posts were partly inspired by rap star Eminem.

In court briefs Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr defended the conviction."He was aware of the meaning and context of his Facebook posts, and those posts communicated a serious expression of an intent to do harm, "Verrilli wrote.Verilli said there was no comparison between Elonis' threats and the protected speech of commercial rap artists made in a "very different" context. But the ACLU filed a brief in support of Elonis argued that context matters. "Words are slippery things," wrote Stephen Shapiro. He said that a statute that limits speech "without regard to the speaker¹s intended meaning" runs the risk of punishing protected First Amendment expression simply because it is "crudely or zealously expressed."
 

diehardbiker

Active Member
She didn't say that someone hacked her facebook. She admitted that she posted it. Bad law? Oh well, who makes the law? Lawmakers in the governments. If you think that it violates 1st amendment, why don't people like you and hoichi stand up and fight against it?

That law may be struck ed already by recent supreme court, Lawmakers can't break US constitution, but they already tried and Supreme court had the last word.
 
Top