It seems like a case of the government intimidating and harassing a guy (who is awful, no doubt) who seems to have done nothing illegal, based on the fact that he has not been arrested or charged with any crime.
Yes, I am absolutely okay with this. Violent threats and calls for murder are not protected speech, and there should be legal consequences for them. Free speech is not absolute.
It’s called being let go with a warning. It’s letting you know your threats are being taken seriously, and that consequences are coming if you don’t stop.
And what has he done since? Gone back online and said that killing Kamala Harris is constitutionally protected because of the Second Amendment… (It is not)
I hope they arrest him, because making terroristic threats is, in fact, a crime.
The guy I was responding to wasn’t earnestly saying that the guy should be charged. He was making a bad faith argument that any law enforcement interaction that doesn’t include an arrest is unlawful. He’s making it seem like the police have no authority to speak to you without a warrant. I was informing him of what is actually happening, not saying he shouldn’t be arrested.
Threats against the VP are very illegal. He’s trying the stupid age old trick “someone else would be a hero” routine. To which I say the FBI showing up and saying that’s not ok is fine by me. Don’t know if they have to give him a warning or what.
I think that the post may be a violation of law and it’s just not being charged. It’s like pulling someone over for speeding, and giving them a warning instead of a ticket.
I’m perfectly okay with people in charge of protecting national security following up on threatening posts that may put the life of the VP in danger. I wouldn’t be okay if they forced entry or overstepped their power. I didn’t think following up like this is crossing any lines and is arguably the best way to handle something like this.
What do you feel would be more prudent, just to leave it be?
Yes, we are. “Free speech” isn’t unlimited, and one of the limits is speech whose purpose is to encourage violence, aka. the “fighting words” doctrine.
So not only does he suck, but he did in fact do something illegal.
I hate cops and all that shit, but how was he intimidated and harassed? He got the response he wanted and now he can wave his little dick around fascist land.
Just because someone isn’t arrested doesn’t mean they haven’t done something illegal. It’s called an investigation and you can be arrested at a later time. I’d prefer that to just arresting people, wtf.
It seems like a case of the government intimidating and harassing a guy (who is awful, no doubt) who seems to have done nothing illegal, based on the fact that he has not been arrested or charged with any crime.
Are we really okay with this?
Yes, I am absolutely okay with this. Violent threats and calls for murder are not protected speech, and there should be legal consequences for them. Free speech is not absolute.
Right! Legal consequences; arrest the guy, charge him with something!
But showing up to intimidate him and not arrest him? I don’t want my government doing that to me the next time I say something they don’t like.
It’s called being let go with a warning. It’s letting you know your threats are being taken seriously, and that consequences are coming if you don’t stop.
And what has he done since? Gone back online and said that killing Kamala Harris is constitutionally protected because of the Second Amendment… (It is not)
I hope they arrest him, because making terroristic threats is, in fact, a crime.
Nah, the person you’re responding to is right. Arrest the fuckhead. No warning needed.
Im honestly agreeing with you but this shithead could stand to actually face consequences. He made a threat and should pay for it.
The guy I was responding to wasn’t earnestly saying that the guy should be charged. He was making a bad faith argument that any law enforcement interaction that doesn’t include an arrest is unlawful. He’s making it seem like the police have no authority to speak to you without a warrant. I was informing him of what is actually happening, not saying he shouldn’t be arrested.
Threats against the VP are very illegal. He’s trying the stupid age old trick “someone else would be a hero” routine. To which I say the FBI showing up and saying that’s not ok is fine by me. Don’t know if they have to give him a warning or what.
I think that the post may be a violation of law and it’s just not being charged. It’s like pulling someone over for speeding, and giving them a warning instead of a ticket.
I’m perfectly okay with people in charge of protecting national security following up on threatening posts that may put the life of the VP in danger. I wouldn’t be okay if they forced entry or overstepped their power. I didn’t think following up like this is crossing any lines and is arguably the best way to handle something like this.
What do you feel would be more prudent, just to leave it be?
Yes, we are. “Free speech” isn’t unlimited, and one of the limits is speech whose purpose is to encourage violence, aka. the “fighting words” doctrine.
So not only does he suck, but he did in fact do something illegal.
If he did something illegal – and I am not saying he didn’t – I am 100% in favor of the FBI showing up and arresting him.
You’re getting predictably trashed in this thread, but I wanted to thank you for bringing a small semblance of sanity to this ridiculous circle jerk.
I hate cops and all that shit, but how was he intimidated and harassed? He got the response he wanted and now he can wave his little dick around fascist land.
Just because someone isn’t arrested doesn’t mean they haven’t done something illegal. It’s called an investigation and you can be arrested at a later time. I’d prefer that to just arresting people, wtf.
deleted by creator