Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Man jokes about Bush - 3 years in Prison. Man with gun threatens Obama - No Problem.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 09:16 AM
Original message
Man jokes about Bush - 3 years in Prison. Man with gun threatens Obama - No Problem.
Something stinks in the Secret Service or somewhere:

Robert Humphreys told a joke about a 'burning bush' and got convicted of threatening Smirko and sentenced to PRISON for three years because Bush was going to be in a nearby town the next day. (I believe he was freed on appeal, but am unable to confirm at present.)

William Kostnic carries gun and a sign threatening Obama, and it's perfectly OK.

More on the subject of presidential threats:

http://www.corpse.org/archives/issue_12/index.html

I'm decades long past tired of the right getting away with murder.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 09:19 AM
Response to Original message
1. And then there was that couple who got arrested for their t-shirts.
iirc, that happened to quite a few people.

I don't get it either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 09:25 AM
Response to Reply #1
6. I was just wondering, is Obama doing anything like the 'free speech zone' thing Junior did?
I hope not but he might have to because of the brownshirt thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #6
22. Not that I know of. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Echo In Light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 09:27 AM
Response to Reply #1
8. There were widespread incidents of people abused by authority over non violent dissent
It's easy to see who the authority structures in this oligarchy choose to target or protect. Thanks NSA!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #1
43. Cindy Sheehan got arrested for wearing a T-shirt to Congress
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #43
48. Yes! I remember that. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
asdjrocky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 09:20 AM
Response to Original message
2. How do we fight this?
That's what I want to know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneTenthofOnePercent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #2
19. You violate civil rights and become more totalitarian.
Just because bush did something does not make it right or legal.
Holding Obama, or anyone, to the bar Bush set is not very wise.

The guy's actions were legal and there was no threat to the POTUS. Get over it. If you want to do something meaningful, address true wrongs that were made (bush/cheney) and demand atonement for them instead of holding up those crimes as a beacon of what should be allowed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RockaFowler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #19
35. So the safety of the President should be thrown out the window??
Since when did any type of violence (real or implied) be condoned against our President?? Any President.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneTenthofOnePercent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #35
52. No one said anyting about throwing any security out the window.
There is no implied violence against the president by a citizen lawfully carrying a firearm. If so, you'd have to believe there is an implied threat made by evry individual against who carries on a daily basis.

Please describe, in detail, how the security of the president is jeopardized by a protester standing 1/4mi away (who not even on the motorclade route) with a measley 9mm?

I'm sure Secret Service even had measures in place to respond to this non-threat just incase something unusual were to happen (snipers & dedicated watchmen). If SS deemed this guy even a REMOTE threat, you would not even know something happened - he would be sitting in some interrogation room right now. The truth is, and rightly so, SS did not think he posed any credible threat. Heck, you think there weren't guns in nearby cars or houses to where the president was actually going to be? NH is fairly gun-friendly, I'm sure there were.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chulanowa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 11:16 PM
Response to Reply #52
107. When they're carrying a gun...
AND carrying a sign alluding to a Thomas Jefferson quote about, you know, KILLING PEOPLE... then you've got a situation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #35
60. so called "implied" violence
needs to meet the standards of brandenburg and other "threats" case law to be a CRIME. it's called rule of law. the guy did NOT threaten obama. DEAL with it.

case law matters. rule of law matters. a heck of a lot more than these emotional rants.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DireStrike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 09:04 PM
Response to Reply #60
85. So what is so exceptional about the cases where leftists are convicted
Which case law establishes signs, t-shirts, and innuendo as threats?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 09:15 PM
Response to Reply #85
87. point to specific caes that resulted in conviction
and we can discuss that. i have zero doubt that clinton and bush (not to mention mayor paul schell in seattle with his "no protest zones" during WTO) violated the 1st amendment.

if you want to reference a specific case, that per your metric resutlted in CONVICTION, then cite the case, i will research it in westlaw etc. and get back to you.

fwiw, in many of these cases, the people were not arrested for threats. they were arrested for crimes like trespass (usually when they refused to leave a forum upon demand) etc.

for the CONTENT of the shirt to meet the "true threats" standard it must MEET THOSE sTANDARDS. jefferson's quote does not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-13-09 01:05 AM
Response to Reply #19
117. They might have been 'legal"
but they were fucked up

and the asshole is a FUCKING TERRORIST...

Fucked up shit, man!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #2
44. Tell the truth...
...don't tolerate anyone who doesn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
City Lights Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 09:23 AM
Response to Original message
3. You should point this out to the media.
I doubt they'll comment on it, but it can't hurt...at least they'll know you know and are passing it around.

Recommended.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hvn_nbr_2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 10:56 AM
Response to Reply #3
34. About as effective as spitting into the wind. Unfortunately. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #34
55. But far more effective than kvetching about it on an internet discussion
board.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #3
46. The Internets may yet save Democracy...
...despite the misdirected efforts of the Reich. It probably goes by a different name and new management, but something else people need to know about is Operation MOCKINGBIRD. It's like those cheap horror films where one calls the police station and the guy in the hockey-mask picks up the phone and says, "Someone will be right over."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 09:23 AM
Response to Original message
4. Yep.
IOKIYAR.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #4
47. Blow Job means 'Impeachment.' Lie America Into War means 'Book Deal.'
Edited on Wed Aug-12-09 11:43 AM by Octafish
Thanks for appreciating the, eh-ah, irony, my Friend.

Idet: Me speel bad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 09:25 AM
Response to Original message
5. Well come on, Bush was a Christian White man
And Obama is a muslin black man.

:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #5
49. Excellent points, WeDidIt. Once they go NAZI, they never come back.


As seen on DU
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 09:26 AM
Response to Original message
7. Willima Kostnic did not threaten Obama
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 09:28 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. The gun on his hip was a threat
PEriod.

His stupidity created a worse threat because it forced Secret Service agents to monitor him rather than sweeping the crowd.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 09:31 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. If the SS had seen it as a real threat, they would have arrested him
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 09:40 AM
Response to Reply #11
15. The SS had to keep him under surveillance the entire time
Edited on Wed Aug-12-09 09:41 AM by WeDidIt
That took SS agents away from other activities.

The mere presence of the gun made the entire event less secure.

ETA: I supprt the second amendment. Tehre is a time and a place for everything and a presidential event is neither the time nor the place to carry a gun on your hip. It's pure stupidity and it makes me rethinnk my stances on gun issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kaleva Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #15
20. Taking up the SS's time doesn't make it an actual threat.
The man may have acted stupidly but he was well within the law and it's not for us to decide which laws to support or ignore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #20
23. Yes, it was an actual threat
And as of now, I am altering my stance on gun control laws.

I would support it being a ffelony for any non-law enforcement personnel to have a gun on their person within 100 yards of the president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #23
29. how exactly was it a threat?
THe guy is a jerk. Okay. NO one disagrees about that.
But he wasn't near the President. His sign doesn't threaten the President.

I didn't like it when my liberties were being trampled on by bush and his gang. I'm not about to decide two wrongs make a right. I have a lot of faith in the Secret Service. If this guy was even slightly threatening, they would have dealt with him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #29
31. Loaded gun near the president = HUGE THREAT
He's dangerous.

I now support gun control laws whereas prior to this event, I opposed any attempt to pass gun control laws.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zywiec Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #31
32. So they Secret Service didn't have guns?
By your logic: Loaded gun near the president = HUGE THREAT

or just not another law abiding citizen?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #32
33. Buh Bye, gun nut.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beer on a stick Donating Member (421 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 09:04 PM
Response to Reply #33
84. How does that make him a gun nut? Seems rather dismissive to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #31
57. how near?
I've seen reports the church he was at wasn't all that close to anywhere the president was...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #31
63. that;'s fine but
many can think that what this guy did SHOULD be illegal, and lobby for laws to prohibit such behavior

the FACT is that what he did is NOT illegal and we don't prosecute people for what we THINK should be illegal. i am reminded of the lori drew case in that regards.

propose laws, that would pass constitutional muster, under heller, and that's a "solution". but the law is the law. he acted legally.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 06:26 PM
Response to Reply #31
69. He was on a route they did not send the President down.
The Secret Service knew the route. Fool on church property with open carry gun did not know route.

Secret Service had it under control.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #29
37. What if SOMEONE ELSE grabbed his gun?
Any loaded weapon in the vicinity of the POTUS should be removed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #37
45. Anyone with a loaded weapon
Except of course for members of the Secret Service, local law enforcement agencies, etc. etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mopinko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #45
100. i'm not that sure about some local law enforcement
just sayin'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kaleva Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #23
30. Being a potential threat is not the same as being an actual threat
The reason all airline passengers have to have their carry on luggage searched and they have to walk thru a metal detector is that they are all potential threats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MindPilot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #30
38. Oh give me a fuckin' break
the last time I got on an airplane, they confiscated an eight ounce tube of sunscreen. What kind of threat is that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kaleva Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #38
41. Your knowledge of explosives is rather limited, isn't it?
They could have detained you while your 8 oz. tube was tested to see if it contained sunscreen or an explosive. You knew it wasn't any kind of threat but security had to view it as a potential threat and that's why they confiscated it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MindPilot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #41
51. A tube of sunscreen is a threat until proven otherwise
yet a loaded gun in the vicinity if the president is not a threat until proven otherwise.

It appears as if your knowledge of firearms is as limited as my knowledge of explosives. Perhaps you should try exercising that logic at the airport.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #51
64. the differences are many
one is that in the SECURED areas of the airport (in WA state, it's perfectly legal to carry in the airport, just not past the security gates for boarding passengers areas), EVERYBODY is screened for guns. this is a secured area. much like a courthouse.

the situation with this guy was he was in an open public space, with no screening. he was also well beyond the effective distance for a handgun. he did not violate any laws. that's the most important thing. if legislators (or citizens by initiative) believe that such actions SHOULD be unlawful, then work to pass laws prohibiting such behavior, and if they pass constitutional muster, so be it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftynyc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #38
42. Apparently the same
threat my tube of facial scrub was. Still can't believe they took it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KakistocracyHater Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 08:38 PM
Response to Reply #23
81. yes, bullseye THAT should be made into a law
too easy to lose like that Pakistani woman, I am disgusted at some of the concerted refusal here to really see the posibility.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
backwoodsbob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-13-09 01:31 AM
Response to Reply #23
124. sounds good
this guy was more than 100 yards away though so even then he was still legal.

We all know the guy was an asshole but some of this stuff is over the top.One poster in another thread said he should be charged with attempted murder even though he was legal and the gun never left the holster.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #20
62. bingo
i agree with many that there's a reasonable argument this man acted imprudently. certainly, i think the choice of LEG holster in a crowd is a bad decision. that's why cops (myself included) use hip holster, NOT leg holsters except in certain types of tactical situations.

but imprudence =/= illegal.

heck, even offensive =/= illegal. the nazis marching in skokie was inarguably offensive. but it was a legal expression of 1st amendment rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-13-09 01:08 AM
Response to Reply #20
118. He's still a fucking terrorist - "legal" or not...
Edited on Thu Aug-13-09 01:09 AM by ProudDad
As is the fucked up asshole who wore his 9mm on his hip...walking into Office Max a while back...

It's terrorism to wear a loaded gun in a civilized society...

Oh, my mistake, thanks to that mis-interpreted 2nd Amendment, we LIVE in a fucking uncivilized state of barbarism...

The USAmerikan Empire...

Fucked up terrorist assholes...

With their penis substitutes...

Big gun, small dick!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #11
56. You seem to be missing the point.
No one questions that the SS did not see him as a threat. The question is, why did the SS see Cindy Sheehan wearing a tee-shirt with the number of dead soldiers in Iraq on it as enough of a threat to haul her off to prison, as far away from Bush as they could get her, (for his safety?) injuring her airc, in the process?

Or why were eight students arrested and charged with terrorism under the Patriot Act merely for exercising their 1st Amendment rights by the SS who clearly saw them as a serious threat yet none of them were armed?

Or why were demonstrators, including Iraq Veterans roughed up, beaten and arrested merely for protesting? How come these people, unarmed, were seen as a threat by the SS, the FBI and local police?

And why was Amy Goodman and her producers seen as threats, so much so that they too were thrown in jail, merely for covering a political event?

I could go on but there isn't time to list the number of 'threats' that were seen by the SS during the Bush administration.

What do you think, considering the above incidences of 'threats' seen by the SS, FBI and police, would have happened to some 'lieberal hippy' toting a gun within a mile of the president during the Bush administration and how many DUers would have defended the actions of the SS and vilified the 'moran' for 'asking for it'?

I recall people defending the arrest of Cindy Sheehan on 'leftwing' boards because 'she should have known better'. What should she have known? That if you exercise your 1st Amendment rights under a rightwing administration, expect to be arrested so 'sit down and shut up'? And, she should have known, if someone exercises their 2nd Amendment rights under a Democratic administration expect to have those rights respected? Sorry, that makes zero sense in assuring that everyone's rights are respected which doesn't seem to bother you.

My question to you is, not whether this guy was a threat, but whether we have decided to submissively accept injustice on the part of the 'right' because 'that's how it is', or whether we are going to make an issue of the illegal arrests that occurred under Bush?

You seem satisfied to forget all those injustices now and just 'move forward' rather than use the disparity in the treatment of protestors on the 'left' and the 'right' to make sure it doesn't happen again should the 'right' ever be restored to power, a possibility that is far more likely if they are allowed to get away with their crimes, including the harrassment of legal protestors which imho, no one should be allowed to forget.

The question is, not whether this guy and the SS were acting legally, but were those in authority acting legally over the past eight years and making the questions loud enough that they are forced to defend their actions, if they can.

Sorry this is so long, but you don't seem to get what is so disturbing to people about the disparity in the treatment of the 'left' and the 'right' when it comes to their Constitutional rights and that people want answers and they want it fixed.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wendio Donating Member (37 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 09:21 PM
Response to Reply #56
90. Exactly!
You put into words what I could not.
I just keep whining...
But it's not fair!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kolesar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-13-09 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #56
139. Why did the SS rat on President Clinton bringing a girl into his office after hours?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gopiscrap Donating Member (418 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #10
24. also a threat not only to POTUS
but crowd...do you know how easy it would have been for some other knuckle dragging, low IQ neanderthal to grab that gun and start firing at some progressive on the other side of the street?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #24
67. it would just as easy for same idjit
to BRING his own fucking gun to the even, carry it concealed and start firing. why does he need to try to overpower somebody openly carrying, when he can simply bring his own gun?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nashville_brook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #24
76. eggsactly. i know how i would feel if that yahoo sidled up to me.
there's also a sense, that i think many people here also feel, which is that his gun-totin', mcveigh-quotin' theater threatens the entire nation. by showing force in this manner he's essentially saying "i can take your president and your national security away from you -- all of you -- anytime i damn well please."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gopiscrap Donating Member (418 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 09:24 PM
Response to Reply #76
92. Absolutely
They should arraign that fucker for treason!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mopinko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #24
101. or how many people r in the crossfire if this idiot goes to scratch his ankle?
the ss lights this fucker up, how many others are hit?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #10
61. no, it wasn't. as ample case law demonstrates
why do you dismiss rule of law and legal precedent? i am in WA state, also a right to carry OPENLY (as well as concealed iwth a permit) state, and the case law both on the state and federal level is clear.

a handgun, carried openly in a holster, is a demonstration of one's civil right and it is NOT a threat to anybody.

i happen to carry openly nearly every day. it's a job requirement. civilians (in my state) have the same right. period.

people unfamiliar with open carry, or ideologically opposed to it, are FREE to FEEL threatened, but the case law says that this apprehension is UNreasonable and does not vitiate a person's civil rights - to carry openly.

some racists may feel threatened to see a black man walking in their lilly white neighborhood at 2 am. that does NOT make it illegal. similarly, many anti-gun folks do feel (irrationally) threatened by open carry. tough.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-13-09 01:12 AM
Response to Reply #61
119. Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit -- I call bullshit on your bullshit
It's a threat to anyone peaceful enough

not to have to carry or own a penis substitute like

some of these intellectually challenged, small dick terrorist assholes...

Bullshit on your bullshit...

HE MEANT TO THREATEN THE PRESIDENT...and anyone else who didn't believe in what he "believes" in...

BULLSHIT!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughBeaumont Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 09:33 AM
Response to Reply #7
12. Political intimidation is a threat, within sight or not.
Read and watch the instances of the "Tree Of Liberty" quote and how it's being used by the TeaBirthers as of late. Timothy McVeigh wore a shirt with that same slogan when he blew up the Murrah building.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 09:33 AM
Response to Reply #7
13. His sign was a not very subtle threat of bloodshed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 09:49 AM
Response to Reply #13
18. And some DU'ers have been using that same quote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #18
36. But we've never done it while wearing a gun at a Bush event, correct?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 06:26 PM
Response to Reply #13
68. not under the brandenburg standard
it was not an ILLEgAL threat. that's all that matters. case law matters. rule of law matters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
druidity33 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-13-09 07:07 AM
Response to Reply #68
128. if the rule of law
mattered to the Obama administration that much, i can picture quite a few Boosh admin demons who would be serving life sentences right now. Obviously they selectively enforce. Every admin has.

As for case law and rule of law, get ready for the USSC to allow corporate contributions to politicians. It's on the docket and i would be surprised if case law isn't going to be changed by Activist Judges on the USSC (Roberts and Alito, that is) to allow it in the future.


No one follows the letter of the law anymore. Everyone looks for loopholes. It's the American way, dontcha know?


:shrug:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robertpaulsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #7
53. Robert Humphreys did not threaten Smirko.
This is the context through which the OP framed his arguments. Instead of acknowledging that, you chose to be a smarmy eye-rolling cunt to justify your own gun lust. So be it. Welcome to my ignore list, asshole.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 09:25 PM
Response to Reply #7
93. "It is time to water the tree of liberty"
If you don't consider that sign, carried by an armed man to an event at which the president was going to speak, then I sincerely hope you don't work for the Secret Service.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 09:46 PM
Response to Reply #7
99. Look at the big picture.
The quote continues "with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Tyrant is code for "Obama."



Even if he's smiling and it's legal to carry in NH, the guy's a menace.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ticapnews Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 09:28 AM
Response to Original message
9. When we went to see Clinton, the Secret Service confiscated my mother's keychain
because she had a kubaton on it and the Secret Service deemed it a threat. That was a speech, and the kubaton is a handheld weapon in the right circumstances, but if my mother wanted to use it on the president it would take about 30 seconds...I think she'd be stopped.

This guy had a gun.

Yeah, that's balanced.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #9
71. except it's disanologous
was your mother standing well outside the inner perimeter (as this man in NH was) when she was made ot remove the kubaton? i've worked with the SS on numerous occasions. they can (and do) prohibit weapons within certain perimeters (depends on the event, etc.). it's totally disanalogous to the event your mother attended? was this inside a building close to the president, or what? was it a secured facility (iow everybody was screened) or an open public area? those questions make all the difference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #9
102. Remember when SS stopped putting people through metal detectors at Obama campaign rally in Texas?
I wondered, "Gee, that's odd. Wonder what Axelrod's got to say?"



Police concerned about order to stop screening

JACK DOUGLAS Jr. Star-Telegram Staff Writer
Published on 2008-02-23, Page A1, Fort Worth Star-Telegram (TX)

DALLAS Security details at Barack Obama's rally Wednesday stopped screening people for weapons at the front gates more than an hour before the Democratic presidential candidate took the stage at Reunion Arena.

The order to put down the metal detectors and stop checking purses and laptop bags came as a surprise to several Dallas police officers who said they believed it was a lapse in security.

SNIP...

Security details at Barack Obama's rally Wednesday stopped screening people for weapons at the front gates more than an hour before the Democratic presidential candidate took the stage at Reunion Arena.

The order to put down the metal detectors and stop checking purses and laptop bags came as a surprise to several Dallas police officers who said they believed it was a lapse in security.

SOURCE: Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Feb. 21, 2008
Sorry no live link, as the Starlegram started to charge for access to articles.



Your mom, I trust. Most of the people in Dallas, I trust. Not all.

Never did hear from Axelrod.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tammywammy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 10:39 PM
Response to Reply #102
106. "Most of the people in Dallas, I trust. Not all."
Yeah, except when with them not using metal detectors for awhile, nothing happened to Obama while surrounded by thousands of people from the DFW area.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 11:31 PM
Response to Reply #106
109. I'm talking about Nov. 22, 1963
This guy was working in the area on his Congressional or Senate campaign, I'm told to imagine.



And the people who've inherited fortunes and office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MindPilot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-13-09 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #9
130. Last year my son's keyring pocket knife was confiscated
getting into the goddamned COUNTY FAIR!

A one inch blade not good for much more than cleaning fingernails and removeing staples. But that was wa weapon he was not permtted to bring in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_Tires Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 09:34 AM
Response to Original message
14. sadly, some people have short memories....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-13-09 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #14
132. That's why we have words...
Vincent M. Palamara's deserve to live forever:

Secret Service Agents Go On Record

I very much appreciate your understanding, Blue_Tires.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Old and In the Way Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 09:46 AM
Response to Original message
16. Remember the morphing Bush->Hitler video that outraged Congress so much,
they needed to pass a resolution condemning it? When are the Democrats going to demand a bi-partisan resolution condemning the birthers/nutbags for worse transgressions? Democrats need to start introducing resolutions forcing the Republicans to own or disavow the anti-democratic and ignorant whackjobs that are becoming the base of their Party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-13-09 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #16
131. This one?
Edited on Thu Aug-13-09 12:37 PM by Octafish


For decades, the American right has employed NAZI tactics. Anyone with a memory has seen them in action -- from the open-air coup in Dallas to 2000's faux stormtroopers in Florida and to today's neoBrownshirts in townhalls, and all points in between. The Democrats, especially the Liberal ones, have learned to keep their heads down and don't mention it anymore. That is no way to lead, let alone live.

The fascist right never apologizes. The reason: They never think. Otherwise, they'd know what they do and they would be ashamed.

I very much appreciate that you have stood up to the tide of the fascist right, Old and In the Way.

Idet: Rwong lenk
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 09:47 AM
Response to Original message
17. He was not threatening Obama. Making a statement I abhor? Yes. However, his Jefferson quote
Edited on Wed Aug-12-09 09:49 AM by KittyWampus
has not only been used by the likes of McVeigh. It's also been thrown around here not infrequently by DU'ers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 09:57 AM
Response to Reply #17
21. We're not standing across the street from him packing a gun.
Sort of a difference in context, there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #21
26. packing a gun, as you phrase it, is legal in NH which is the context it appeared.
And the guy was being watched heavily by the Secret Service, I have no doubt.

If he wasn't on their radar before yesterday, he is now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 10:17 AM
Response to Reply #26
27. It's also legal to make jokes, but that guy still got his ass thrown in jail for it,
didn't he?

Let's at least try to keep the point of the OP in mind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluerthanblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #26
39. wasn't he standing within 1000' of a school at first though??? that isn't
legal- and instead of just arresting him, the Police pointed this fact out to him- i believe.

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 06:30 PM
Response to Reply #39
72. by what law
there is no law (federal or in my state) that prohibits carrying a gun within 1000 feet of a school

cite the law:

fwiw, in my jurisdiction it is illegal (for non lawenforcement) to carry at elementary or high school (not colleges) with certain exceptions. they are allowed to have it in their car , on school property, for instance, like when picking up kids, but cannot walk on campus with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluerthanblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 08:30 PM
Response to Reply #72
80. Federal Law-
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/922.html

section q, 2, a-

the guy had to move to "private property" (church grounds) in order to be within the law, from what I've been told.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 08:46 PM
Response to Reply #80
82. false
Edited on Wed Aug-12-09 08:46 PM by paulsby

try again.

you just cited a whole bunch of laws. NONE of them reference it being a crime to possess a firearm within 1000 ft of a school.

cite the law.

specifically. quote it. or give me a specific chapter/section/title, whatever.

hint: i've been in law enforcement 20+ yrs, including time on a violent crime task force where we specialized in gun crimes. if there was a law prohibiting pOSSESSION of a gun within 1000 ft of a school, trust me. i'd know about it. there is no such law.

i'd love to learn about such a law. but trust me, it does not exist. not in the state in question, or under federal codes (you referenced federal codes fwiw)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluerthanblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 09:00 PM
Response to Reply #82
83. i tried to cite the
specific chapter/section/title-

this is the relevant portion from the link i gave-


A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.
(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm
(i) on private property not part of school grounds;
(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;
(iii) that is
(I) not loaded; and
(II) in a locked container, or a locked firearms rack that is on a motor vehicle;
(iv) by an individual for use in a program approved by a school in the school zone;
(v) by an individual in accordance with a contract entered into between a school in the school zone and the individual or an employer of the individual;
(vi) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity; or
(vii) that is unloaded and is possessed by an individual while traversing school premises for the purpose of gaining access to public or private lands open to hunting, if the entry on school premises is authorized by school authorities.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 09:09 PM
Response to Reply #83
86. see subsection (ii)
fwiw, nowhere in the cite does it define "school zone" fwiw, but regardless, if the person is licensed in the state, it's not illegal, per (ii).

that's actually an interesting law though. thx. carrying in a school zone is illegal federally if the person is not legally licensed by the state. i did NOT know that, so thanks.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 10:12 AM
Response to Original message
25. there should be a no gun zone around a President Of the United States...imo
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 11:37 PM
Response to Reply #25
110. It makes sense when the object is to protect the President.
Bush had no-speech zones on top of his no-gun or anything-else zones.

These Neo Brown Shirts have a twisted sense of nostalgia.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ContinentalOp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 11:44 PM
Response to Reply #25
113. Agreed.
Preferably around 2000 miles. That should about cover it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasObserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 10:17 AM
Response to Original message
28. That case about the "burning Bush" was horrific.
I read extensively about the case when it occurred. The defendant was a harmless guy who was using Biblical imagery in a rant that displeased someone, who called police, and the police called in the Secret Service.

I could not believe they got a conviction AND sentenced the guy to prison.

That was an example of life under the Bush police state.

We are seeing the contrast with Obama's America, and it has more freedom, and therefore more risk to Obama and others. However, congress needs to pass a law making it a federal offense to carry a weapon within a mile of the president, unless one is fulfilling some law enforcement activity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karenina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #28
50. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #28
54. You shouldn't be allowed to carry a gun to a political rally, period
tension is high at such events already. Guys like that are just looking for any reason to open fire.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-13-09 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #28
138. I MADE BIG MISTAKE: Guy's name is RICHARD Humphreys. A BIG OMMISSION: Happened before 9-11.
Mr. Richard Humphreys was arrested, tried and convicted BEFORE 9-11 for his "burning Bush" joke.

Sorry about any confusion:



S.D. federal jury: Oregon man threatened president

S.D. federal jury: Oregon man threatened president

By The Associated Press
09.09.02

A federal jury in Sioux Falls, S.D., took just over an hour to return a guilty verdict last week in the case of an Oregon man accused of making threats against President Bush.

Meanwhile, a Pennsylvania man says he'll fight disorderly conduct charges stemming from his arrest during Bush's visit to that state last week.

In the South Dakota case, Richard Humphreys, of Portland, Ore., was arrested in Sioux Falls in March 2001, and indicted on a federal charge of threatening to kill or harm the president. The charge carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

A jury of seven men and five women received the case at mid-afternoon on Sept. 5.

Earlier that day, Humphreys told the jury that a comment about a "burning Bush" before President Bush's visit to Sioux Falls last year was a prophecy that offers First Amendment protection.

Humphreys, who calls himself prophet Israel Humphreys, said a similar reference he made in an Internet Christian chat room was a joke and that neither can be viewed as a threat on the president.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Ridgeway said the Secret Service and people who heard the remark thought otherwise.

"It wasn't a joke. It wasn't funny. Simply put, it was a threat," Ridgeway told the jury during Humphreys' trial.

"The documents, his actions, his words all speak to one thing," Ridgeway said in closing arguments.

Humphreys said his trip to South Dakota was the fourth of his "discipleship journeys" that began in 1993 and are meant to promote Christianity through controversial acts or unusual public statements.

He said he has been arrested 25 times with all but three cases dismissed and that his indictment on the threat charge was the result of government profiling.

Humphreys said he left Portland on March 1, 2001, and arrived in Watertown on March 8 where he got into a 1:20 a.m. barroom discussion with a truck driver about Christians who drink too much alcohol.

Realizing that President Bush was to visit Sioux Falls the next day, a bartender told police that Humphreys talked about a "burning Bush" and the possibility of someone pouring a flammable liquid on Bush and lighting it.

"I said God might speak to the world through a burning Bush... . I had said that before and I thought it was funny. It was prophetizing," Humphreys testified.

He was taken into custody the next day at a Sioux Falls motel just hours before the president arrived. Humphreys said he didn't threaten the president and didn't know he was visiting Sioux Falls.

CONTINUED...

http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?docu...



Very much appreciate that you understand, TexasObserver.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SalviaBlue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 11:29 AM
Response to Original message
40. The gun together with the sign is clearly a threat.
A man with a gun says that blood needs to be spilled... only in Bazarro World is this not a threat. These people have been saying up is down, wrong is right, good is evil, etc. etc. for so long that people must be confused. THIS IS A THREAT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #40
73. in a world where RULE OF LAW matters
it is not a threat. read brandenburg and other relevant case law.

carrying openly in a legal manner is IN NO WAY a criminal threat. nor is a sign or t-shirt. they are expressions of constitutional rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mopinko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #73
95. and added together what are they? np
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 09:34 PM
Response to Reply #95
97. expressions of civil rights
under the respective amendments.

if i carry a gun, that is not a threat.

if i carry said sign or t-shirt with the jefferson quote on it, that is not a threat.

the former is an expressionof my rights under the 2nd, and the latter an... under the 1st.

together, it's an expression of my rights under the 1st and 2nd.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mopinko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 09:46 PM
Response to Reply #97
98. remind me not to hire you if i need a lawyer.
it is not "a quote from jefferson". it is about killing people. specifically it is about killing leaders. add a gun, and a spot on the presidents route to a public meeting, and i really don't know what more you can ask for. and if this clown is ok, then how about if the next town hall draws a dozen like him? is it a threat to the president then?
sheesh
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-13-09 04:13 AM
Response to Reply #98
126. no, it's not
Edited on Thu Aug-13-09 04:14 AM by paulsby
you are doing what i like to refer to as jack mccoy'ism (from the law and order character). iow, you see something you don't like. then, you try to twist the law to somehow find a way to claim it's illegal. a PERFECT example of this was the lori drew case. she was an odious woman who did a terrible thing, but a thing that was not illegal. regardless, they prosecuted her under a ridiculous statute that essentially criminalizing contract violations. fortunately, reason, smart lawyering, and rule of law eventually prevailed.

this guy is clearly exercising bad judgment (imo) and trying to be provocative. however, that is simply not illegal.

i know the case law for threats cases. see: brandenburg to start. i once investigated a complex months long threats/witness intimidation case that got some scumbag a 5 yr sentence. i have no problems with the laws being enforced. i have a big problem with people trying to twist the law just to convict a putz.

the open carry part is irrelevant.

if an act is not a threat , and CLEARLY the saying is POLITICAL SPEECH and CLEARLY protected, then doing it while open carrying changes nothing.

some people may find open carry intimidating. great for them. some people find shaved heads, goatees and muscles intimidating too. when i worked undercover and was doing surveillance, in a two week period, i had citizens call me in as a suspicious person largely because of the way i looked. it doesn't justify their fear.

if you dispel any prejudice/dislike of open carry, you can look at this rationally. you HAVE to understand that in states that allow open carry, it is in now way , shape or form a threatening act in and of itself.

here's an example where it would make a difference. in an actual threats case, like where a guy is yelling at another guy and says in the course of the argument "i'll fucking shoot you, you piece of shit" and was open carrying, THAT strengthens the evidence for the crime (it would be harassment under my state's penal code. harassment is our "threats" crime).

because a huge part of justifying/convicting under harassment is that the recipient of the threat IS in fear (one prong), and that the fear is one that a reasonable person in his circumstances, with his base of knowledge, would feel. clearly, if you KNOW a person is in possession of a gun AND they threaten to shoot you, that enhances evidence for that prong of the crime.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #73
104. What about a joke? Why'd that guy get the slammer?
Unless it's the Monty Python version of the Secret Weapons of World War II, jokes are harmless compared to loaded guns within range of the President.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Caliman73 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-13-09 02:24 AM
Response to Reply #104
125. He was arrested and charged because Bush is a tyrant.
He did not care about the Constitution and the rule of law. He and his staff (all his staff) were always thinking of ways to oppress and control the population regardless of the legality. Do you not remember the memos building a legal framework for torture? That was something illegal that the Bush administration claimed was legal. That is why the "joke" guy was arrested. Bush cared nothing for the law.

The reason why the open carry idiot was not similarly arrested is because the Obama administration for the most part, understands the law and respects the Constitution. They are not going to deprive someone of their rights just because it makes people uncomfortable. That is the reason that this country will eventually get back on the right path to restoration of the rule of law not the rule of the oligarchy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-13-09 04:16 AM
Response to Reply #104
127. was he convicted?
give me the case cite, or at least the case name and i'll research it on westlaw.

i'd like ot know the case facts. that's what rational people do. look at the facts, THEN form an opinion.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-13-09 01:12 AM
Response to Reply #73
120. Bullshit!!! It's an abvious threat (n/t)
Edited on Thu Aug-13-09 01:13 AM by ProudDad
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-13-09 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #40
140. 'You can't deny them the right to demonstrate, but you can restrict where they demonstrate.'
It's very ironical: Secret Service figured out a way to protect pretzeldent Bush:



S.D. federal jury: Oregon man threatened president

By The Associated Press
09.09.02

A federal jury in Sioux Falls, S.D., took just over an hour to return a guilty verdict last week in the case of an Oregon man accused of making threats against President Bush.

Meanwhile, a Pennsylvania man says he'll fight disorderly conduct charges stemming from his arrest during Bush's visit to that state last week.

SNIP...

Neville police Superintendent Edward Selzer said most people cooperated with the protester corral, which was ordered by the Secret Service.

"You can't deny them the right to demonstrate, but you can restrict where they demonstrate," Selzer said. "It's best for everybody that way."

SNIP...

Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Ridgeway said the Secret Service and people who heard the remark thought otherwise.

"It wasn't a joke. It wasn't funny. Simply put, it was a threat," Ridgeway told the jury during Humphreys' trial.

CONTINUED...

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=3461



I very much appreciate your understanding, SalviaBlue. Let's speed the day when all people realize their fellow humans are more important than things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 02:02 PM
Response to Original message
58. Wish I Could R This More Than Once
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 06:26 PM
Response to Reply #58
70. Likewise.
It's rather revealing to look at the excuse-makers responses, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-13-09 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #70
135. Another fellah with a loaded handgun actually got arrested at an Obama appearance in Maine.
Police: Man arrested before Obama event had loaded gun

Tip o' the pin to our good friends at Raw Story:

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/08/12/man-arrested-out... /

Very much appreciate your understanding, H20 Man.

Don't understand people who put things ahead of people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-13-09 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #58
134. Gun Nuts vs Tree Huggers
Unfortunately, life and death are not at all like an All Star Game.



I very much appreciate your understanding, my Friend.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 06:12 PM
Response to Original message
59. except your premise is false
the sign did not "threaten" obama, not under any logical reading of brandenburg or any other relevant 'true threat" case law.

so, yea your argument SOUNDS logical, if one accepts the false premise you put out.

he did NOT threaten obama.

hth

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #59
66. He came as close
to the line, to deliver his message, as he could.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #66
74. not really
but he was certainly well within the case law established. the tree of liberty quote isn't even CLOSE to a criminal threat.

read brandenburg and subsequent case law pursuant to it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #74
75. I'm familiar with
the law. And I know what message this fellow was attempting to send. It's very clear, and anyone can see it, unless they close their eyes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #75
77. i suggest you also study the history of public political discourse
near the founding of our nation. y'know back in the day, like from when the jwfferson quote was penned.

you can try to mindread all you want about what he was "attempting to send". i'm not interested in mindreading. i'm interested in the law. you MAY be right. it's not relevant to whether what he said/did was constitutionally protected.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 08:05 PM
Response to Reply #77
78. I suggest
that you brush your teeth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 08:18 PM
Response to Reply #78
79. considering i just downed a
canadian bacon, swiss cheese, mustard, onion, and horseradish sandwich...

i agree.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 11:18 PM
Response to Reply #78
108. Don't you mean "tooth"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-13-09 09:20 AM
Response to Reply #66
129. Perhaps That Sign Was Merely A Hint
And therefore doesn't count :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #59
89. One false move outta that dumb-ass and he would have seen who was a threat to whom. I mean he would
have had to draw down in public. Dropped like a health insurance applicant with a pre-existing condition. Woopsie.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doctor_J Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 09:26 PM
Response to Reply #59
94. Neither did the guy who said "Burning Bush
I;m surprised that the wingers on this board are supportive of someone waving a gun in proximity to our president

:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #59
103. That's logical. How do you interpret this video from Love Field on Nov. 22, 1963?


http://video.google.com/videosearch?sourceid=navclient&...

It may not be a smoking gun to you, but it shows me that SSA Emory P. Roberts ordered JFK's protection off the bumper.
SSA Henry J. Rybka even throws up his arms in an obvious display of "what-the-hell?" body language.

Here's the story from the brilliant Vincent M. Palamara: http://www.jfklancer.com/LNE/limo.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-13-09 01:14 AM
Response to Reply #59
121. Bullshit on your bullshit
Just quit defending this fucked up terrorist asshole!

Real people don't like to hang out with assholes with loaded weapons!!!

I call bullshit on your bullshit!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 06:24 PM
Response to Original message
65. Jesus christ in taps
if the guy was a threat the SS would have blown his head into bite sized chunks with a 300 win mag. The only thing left would be his bottom jaw, from there up would be gone.

Take a fucking xanax and a bath, relax.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madeline_con Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 09:18 PM
Response to Original message
88. Maybe Bush being a paranoid wiener boy had something to do with it,
where Obama works more within the laws. Just a thought.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doctor_J Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 09:23 PM
Response to Original message
91. One of the features of the Nazis was that
leftists were prosecuted for every tiny offense while rightists were able to get away with just about anything. Another similarity between the 3rd Reich and us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mopinko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 09:32 PM
Response to Original message
96. i find ron kessler's book to be quite disturbing. is it a wink, wink?
saying that the secret service is stretched thin by the number of threats, and that it is hollowed out by the dhs. don't they have to get this kind of stuff cleared before printing? if so, wtf. even if not, wtf.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David Zephyr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 10:25 PM
Response to Original message
105. Thanks for some proper perspective. I worry about our Prez. I do.
I know the Secret Service has their hands full protecting our President, but they sure don't need all this inciting of violence by Fox and Limbaugh and Hannity.

I've not a young fellow and this sort of incindiary shit against Obama by these nuts is buiding to a very dangerous level.

What is nauseating is watching how cowardly senior Republicans like McCain are as this hatemongering builds. They are so afraid of their own little monsters that they can't speak out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 11:42 PM
Response to Original message
111. Gee... What Would Happen If 20 Or 30 William Kostnics Showed Up With Guns...
at a Presidential rally?

Or.. what do you suppose would happen if William Kostnic happened to be Muslim and showed up to a Presidential rally with a gun?

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proteus_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 11:42 PM
Response to Original message
112. He was an asshole but he wasn't threatening the POTUS.
The SS handled this situation well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-13-09 01:16 AM
Response to Reply #112
122. He was more than an asshole
he's a fucking terrorist...

I'd piss on his fucking leg but then I'd be the one arrested...

How's that for logic...

He's free to terrorize and threaten the President...

But we're not free to do anything about a terrorist in our midst...

Fucked up...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
troubledamerican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-13-09 12:46 AM
Response to Original message
114. But Obama's a fascist, you see.
Haven't you seen the Joker Posters?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kablooie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-13-09 01:00 AM
Response to Original message
115. Yep. Because the Obama administration is acting within the law.
I'm actually glad that they AREN'T acting like the Bush people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-13-09 01:04 AM
Response to Original message
116. That FUCKER with a gun can
terrorize the folks around him and by implication the President.

But if I decided to piss on his fucking penis substitute,

I'D BE THE ONE ARRESTED!

What a fucked up world...

Fucking handguns have no fucking useful purpose...

ban 'em all,

melt the fuckers down and build

a monument to human stupidity from the metal... :mad: :mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-14-09 09:26 AM
Response to Reply #116
141. He's for banning handguns, except for ones used by "political prisoners" like "Squeaky" Fromme
Edited on Fri Aug-14-09 09:28 AM by slackmaster
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Your favorite unrepentant follower of an ultra-racist death cult has just been released from prison.

Do you feel safer now, ProudDad?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-13-09 01:21 AM
Response to Original message
123. rale!
:thumbsup:



:hi: Oi Octafish!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-13-09 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #123
136. Thanks a lot, Compay. Just busted my neck bolts...
Whew! Just joking. They're still there.



Bueno verte, Herman'! Hechando te de meno. To' bien?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Supersedeas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-13-09 12:57 PM
Response to Original message
133. the Political use and abuse of the DoJ during the Bush years should not be forgotten
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CKennedy16 Donating Member (26 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-13-09 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #133
137. Why doesnt Obama do something?
And the Dems aren't taking action because...?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Sep 19th 2014, 02:53 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC