PN> DA> In fact, the 1994 Crime Act makes it a federal felony against a
PN> DA> speaker if a listener actually commits a violent crime after
PN> DA> hearing the so-called "incitement."
PN> ...and now it's a bad law that is coming around to bite him on his ass.
That law/provision would not apply unless someone who read his
message went and actually tried to harm the legislator.
The laws he is being charged under are most likely intimidation, or
incitement to commit a felony, or incitement to commit murder, or just
plain "making death threats." I don't know about most other states,
but Indiana *does* have a law against making public death threats.  As
I was reminding someone else, a local man was convicted of making
threats against the local prosecutor and against the parents of the
victims who were killed by 3 people, one of whom was his son. He said
something like "If my son receives the death penalty, then other death
sentences will be carried out."  There was more, too. He made the
statements to news reporters who got it on tape.  He got something
like a 1 or 2 year sentence, but is free on appeal.
PN> DA> After hearing the left whine and cry about Limbaugh and Liddy and
PN> DA> other rightist talkers, who do not advocate violence, this
PN> DA> coddling of a leftist who *did* encourage violence is very
PN> DA> offensive to me.
PN> While it's emotionally satisfying to see any statist get what's coming
PN> to him...I still have to come back to the basic premise.  IOW, there
PN> being no credible threat, what harm has this person caused?
I think there *was* a "credible threat" in the message in
question.  You don't have to be standing in front of someone with
weapon in hand to issue a "credible" threat.
PN> Since the threat isn't credible, since there's been no harm is it a
PN> _good_ thing that he's being prosecuted?  Or persecuted?
1. I think it was credible.  The object of the threats was a
   public figure, who could EASILY be tracked down.
2. I think there was a certain degree of harm done to the
   legislator being threatened.  Not bodily harm, but a degree of
   terror to the point of disturbing peace and order. Instead of
   living in "general" fear, now the object of those threats has to
   live in *specific* fear.
PN> To quote:
PN>  From: Dave Appel
PN>    To: Steve Elliott
PN>  Subj: carry extra ammo?
PN>The police fall back on the position of "no harm = no foul,"  so until
PN>someone is hurt or property is damaged, they don't make an arrest.
PN> End quote.
PN> Isn't that a better concept than prosecuting persons for speech?
Paul, not all speech is protected by the 1st amendment!  Yelling
"fire" in a crowded theater and all that.  When speech is used to
threaten, intimidate, coerce, incite, it is not protected.
How far can you take the "no *physical* harm = no foul" concept?
If someone swings his fist at you, and you duck, and he misses,
is all forgiven?  What if you do that to a cop?  If you swing and
miss at a cop, is the cop going to say "Gee, he didn't connect
and no harm was done, so I'll let him go on his way." If you
throw a rock and aim at a point 5 feet from a cop, and
intentionally miss the cop, is the cop going to say "no harm, no
foul" and just ignore you?
I was once attacked with chemical spray when I told some woman to
get her car out of my reserved spot.  I was out of range, so she
missed.  Cops didn't do a dang thing.  If I tried to spray a cop,
and missed, would the cop ignore that situation too?
PN> Now in the situation you describe in the post I've quoted from (above),
PN> was that threat credible?
Yes.  In close physical proximity, face to face, and "armed."
PN> Would a reasonable person have believed himself in immediate danger?
Yes.  A group of 6 teens, with one mouthy leader, frothing at the
mouth, yelling, standing against one adult.  It was not until
midway through the encounter that it became clear that the punk
was all talk and no action.
PN> Physical proximity, the individual being armed, (even if "only" a rock)
PN> and the stated threat to others' person(s)...well, you may have laws
PN> that make it illegal to do anything, but you're welcome to give him my
PN> address.
PN> He'll stop bothering you.
This makes me wonder where you are coming from.  If you really
think what the punk did on my porch was illegal (I do) or at
least arrestable, then we are on the same page in this matter.
The only difference between us would be what constitutes "credible".
BTW, I've been in proximity to him a couple times since then
during the normal course of our comings and goings.  He hasn't
said anything, so I figure he figures he's saved face by standing
up to whitey.
---
 þ SLMR 2.1a þ Wiggle is side to side - Jiggle is up and down.
(1:231/875)
---------------