Is it not a crime to threaten someone's life in CA?
...to laughs and applause from the tea pary audience. Yeh, this crowd is real popular among minorities.
When did Patty Murray turn black ?
she didn't. but, when a bunch of angry white people get together and one of them wants to hang somebody, how many blacks do you think are going to be hanging around?
HA HA hanging around 
It was one dumb comment said in jest and cannot be construed as racist.
Was not said in the South either with a rope in her hand but out in the Wild WEST in Washington.
-- Modified on 2/18/2010 11:04:16 PM
There have been thousands of bunches of "angry whites" for decades, if you don't limit it to Tea Party. The "angry white" phrase has been around since the "law and order" days of the 1970's.
And the number of "hanging blacks" is close to non-existent in the last 50 years. Granted two would be two too many. But in a country of 300 million people there will always be a nut case or two, and if there are two (or four) that is so small it can't be said to reflect any significant part of society.
This is the typical paranoid hyperbole that you condemn by the original post.
"Hanging blacks." Count them.
Do you think she met it literally?
Personally, I don't think the average intelligent voter takes it literally. It is just they typical hyperbole that is not big deal except for the fact that people have to watch what they say. I don't think it is good that people have to watch every word, but that is my opinion.
I never got upset at Jesse Jackson for Hymie town or any other stupid remarks that people make off the cuff.
Big deal
...you say it's "off the cuff"?
Do YOU think it was meant literally?
Yeah, people say things that are not intended to be taken literally. They say it all the time. Liberals say it, conservatives say it, and moderates say it.
Yeah, people say things that are not to be taken at face value. I am crawling the walls going crazy over the fact that you take this to be a literal threat. All that in spite of the fact that I am sitting down rather calmly.
Do you think she is going to literally, physically storm the Senate or the guys house and drag him out with a rope around his neck? (If you don't think so, then it is not being said literally.)
Again, do you think she literally was calling for him to be strung up or do you think she was using a rather harsh form of rhetoric?
No, I don't think this woman will physically storm the gates. I think she's too much of a coward to do that. But does she want to? You betcha!
So does this mean that you don't take it literally? Try and be clear, like Obama.
If the answer is "no," you don't take it literally, and she is just mouthing off.
So silly to attribute her "wants" to something that you strongly imply is not literal.
BTY, if she is just mouthing off, it isn't that bad, so calling it "indefeansible" is kind of a hyperbole.
It is akin to Rahm's comment. Although I really don't like Rahm, A few days ago I spent a long time making a similar defense in his case, namely, it was a not really smart comment. BIG DEAL.
as an attorney, you should be able to answer this phil...
If someone, say pwilley (sorry man) sent a letter to the President and said, "I'm going to kill you" then that would NOT be a crime if pwilley just said, "hey I didn't mean it!"
As for Rahm, he just insulted people. Hardly a crime. Trying to incite a riot IS a crime. Calling for the assassination or the execution of a elected official IS a crime.
But saying you didn't mean it, negates such a crime? Really?
You asked as an attorney. Here goes:
The president is sui generis when it comes to threats.
If someone sends that letter to the president, they would investigate it and treat it differently than any other person in the United States. (That does not preclude them from concluding it was a joke and letting it go. But they will look into it.)
However, as I said, the Pres is unique and therefore, you can't use that an a comparison.
There are a small number of other times when casual comments are treated as if they are to be taken literally and acted up in a serious manner. Such an example would include making jokes about bombs at air port security.
However, apart from a very limited number of exceptions, generally they don't get upset about that type of comment.
As for threats to people other than the president, for "threats" to be a crime (in California, where I have some expertise) they must actually be intended by the speaker to be taken as a real threat and it must be unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and the person threatened must be reasonably afraid it will be carried out. (This is the thumbnail version) ALL of these must be met.
This comment was not intended to be an actual threat and there was no way that it would be taken as an immediate, unconditional..... threat, and there is no showing the victim was afraid.
Therefore, it fails in about 28 different ways to be a crime.
What she did is so far from actually inciting a crime that it is crazy to talk about it that way.
Even if you are saying someone should commit a crime that is not illegal. It is well established that advocacy of lawlessness is evidence of lawlessness. (Noto v. United States (1961) 367 U.S. 290, 298-299; Yates v. United States (1957) 354 U.S. 298, 329.)
Thus, merely saying someone should be hung is far from a crime. Inciting would be if they are outside his house and she is rallying the crowd to violent action.
You asked me as a lawyer. that is a fast brief for the defense.
Any legal rebuttal?????
Also, you didn't understand my comment about Rahm. I will write it slowly so you can get it. I was not saying it was a crime. I was saying that I think people whould have a lot of leeway in being able to just say things, and that we shouldn't get bent out of shape when people say things that may be dumb. that applies here becuase this isn't a crime either. (see above.)
So, you still never answered. DO YOU TAKE IT LITERALLY.
Phil, what I'm asking you, as an attorney, since I am not one, is if a threat against a sitting US Senator is the same as a threat against a sitting US President. I would like you to be perfectly clear about this point.
I would imagine that verbal threats (verbal assult?) would be treated differently in different states. I'm guessing California has a rather conservative definition of this (more requirements are needed to be met) than in other states such as say Georgia. My understanding, limited as it is with regards to the law, is that if the person who received the threats reasonably feels threatened, then it is a crime. Am I wrong here? Suppose for example if GaG called Pri's cell phone and told him, "I'm coming over to shoot you in the head", would that not be a crime?
As far as inciting a riot, what legal thresholds are required?
Just to be clear, you said that it is "well established that advocacy of lawlessness IS evidence of lawlessness". But it's NOT illegal? I'm not following. Does that mean that advocating a crime can be used as evidence against you if you commit such a crime, but advocating a crime does not mean you have committed a crime? Not, I dunno, aiding and abetting?
Do I take the hanging comment literally? Well, I don't think it matters what I think. I think what matters is what the speaker thought. Did she mean it literally? If I were a betting man, then yes, I think she did.
First, a threat against a senator is not the same as against a president. I already said that. Again, the president in sui generis. The rules that apply in relation to the president do not apply to other people. (Look at it this way. For the next 3 to 7 years, President Obama will never stop at a red light. Senators will.)
Second, threats are different in other states. But "conservative" states probably criminalize this type of thing less because they tend to have a more laisse faire attitude. Traditionally, the view was "one man's freedom stops at another' nose," and "Sticks and stones." Ilberal states have made more things crimes. (Look at the size of the CA Penal code.)
Robust and heated rhetoric was rarely, if ever, punished. (Look at the liberal states like California. THEY have the more restictive speech laws re sexual harrasment, etc. In the conservative state they tend NOT to punish that type of speech.)
In any event, I would put major money on the fact that most states require things like the threat has to be serious. (I.e., the person really intended to do it - not wants to, but intended to.) Likewise, I would be that most states require it be a real and immediate threat AND that the victim take it seriously.
If the victim blows it off as rhetoric, no one is going to be upset, except you.
As to the comment about advocacy: Those cases hold that you can believe (and say) that people should commit a crime, as long as you are not actually inciting someone to do so in a manner that will make it an immediate result. In other words, I could say, "I think that on April 15th no one should pay taxes and that way we will force the feds to listen."
I can print fliers and pass them around saying that this is what I favor. IT IS LEGAL. Until I get to the point where I am urging everyone, "okay, its the 14th. Don't pay" it is legal.
Another example, is the Noto case. It was illegal to be a member of a group that advocated the violent overthrow of the Government.
Noto said that even if the Communist party did advocate that, it could not be banned because they can't punish the abstract belief, and could only prohibit advocacy if it used language that really would incite people to violence rsons to action, immediately or in the future.
In other words, it really has to create the real danger. Not some abstract "gosh, maybe someone will go out and string him up."
As for GA calling and saying he was coming over to shoot someone in the head: THAT WOULD NOT BE A CRIME unless GA really intended to do and the other person reasonably believed it.
Finally, the reason it matters what you think - and why you missed the question - is if you think she was just blowing smoke in a stupid way, then that shows it is not a threat.
You misunderstood. It was NOT do you think she would like to do it. The question is "Do you think she really was going to hang him, or try" If she wasn't really going to hang him, what she likes to do is irrelevant.
This is why you didn't answer. Do you think she was really going to try to hang him? If not,she is just talking. (She may want to but she won't)
It's a question of whether she intended to hang him, would that not be attempted murder?
Do I believe that she wanted to hang her? Yes. Did she have the ability to? Probably not.
Does threatening someone's life, even in a passing way, not qualify as harrassment?
in 18 USC 871 and providing for no more than 5 years imprisonment.
This crime differs from state statutes criminalizing threats in that words that might otherwise be considered a threat are insulated when used in a political argument. Moreover, there is no requirement that the president feel threatened or even know about the threat.
In order to convict a person for threatening the President, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's statements were a knowing and willful threat to the President. The government must show a "true threat" by the defendant.
A true threat is a serious threat and not words uttered as mere political argument, idle talk, or jest. The context in which the words were spoken should be taken into consideration. Of course, it is not necessary to prove an intention to carry out the threat under § 871.
Without going back, in my first post I think I said that if there was a casual "threat" made against the President, the feds would look into it or check it out. In think the implicaition of saying they would look into it was that I didn't think I said it would per se be criminal in the sense of ending in a conviction.
Even that is pretty unique to the president in that they won't look into threats against others as quickly.
I don't think that I said that the person has to know about it or feel threatened about it when I was talking about the president. I said that in the context of normal (i.e., not presidential) threats.
" is a threat against a sitting US Senator is the same as a threat against a sitting US President."
Is it not a crime to threaten someone's life in CA?
Just saying it is about 426 miles away from a crime, if you can measure it in distance. In CA or most other states, I would wager.
Look at your link. There are so many conditions that need to be met. I forget what I said, but these are pretty close.
There has to be the actual (specific) intent to that it be percieved as such. Thus, if I say, "I am going to kill Willy tomorrow," knowing Willy is in Florida and I am in Los Angeles, that doesn't count.
It has to be "immediate." If it is just some vague, "sometime I might get around to going to Florida and maybe I will find Willy" That doesnt count.
You have to reasonably believe it. If you know I am in L.A. and can't get to Florida, then you can't reasonable be in fear. Therefore it doesnt count.
Harping back to the thing that made this an issue, if the Senator's reaction was, "Wow. What a jerk. I'm strolling down to the cafe alone for a cup of coffee" it isn't a crime.
Look at the link you sent me. It is a half decent summary.
Oh really? On the Letterman Show once, Chris Rock said about GWB, "Someone needs to get a gun and shoot that MFer." I'm sure many shared that opinion, but to say it on national TV??? That's a felony, by the way. Nothing became of it. Guess it doesn't matter if you're a leftie.
However I think it is a disgusting comment even though she wasn't planning a lynching party..and I didn't even think of it from a racial view as a whole lot of crackers hung not so long ago for a simple theft of a horse..
Subtle hints at violence are protected under Free speech but are not of any value in a civilized productive society..
I think she crossed the line.
Anytime you are talking about -- not merely conservatives, liberals, Democrats or Republicans -- but actual hardcore believers and activists; you are going to hear rhetoric of this nature.
Just yesterday I was speaking with a liberal activist who firmly believes that Bush and Cheney need to be given a speedy trial and then the death penalty by firing squad for what she describes as the murders of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis.
This lady happens to be a lesbian (married to a woman) in a very liberal state. She also happens to be of Jewish ancestry.
Bush and Cheney are heterosexual male European-derived gentiles.
Should I draw the conclusion from this that all lesbians of Jewish ancestry wish to murder all heterosexual male European-derived gentiles?
Of course not! That would be STUPID.
First off, her problems with Bush and Cheney have nothing whatsoever to do with her or their sex, sexual orientation or ancestry. NOTHING.
Her advocacy, even though I may disagree with it, is based on ISSUES and directed at SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALS for specific supposed CRIMES she believes them to have committed.
Because she is a hardcore activist; her rhetoric in demanding death for these supposed crimes is not particularly unusual.
And -- yes -- you WILL hear such advocacy from the RIGHT as well, and it hasn't got a damned thing to do with ethnicity. It has to do with ideology, supposed crimes, etc.
My own advocacies are FAR more devastating than hers. And, frankly, I think my own advocacies make the Tea Party Movement look like a bunch of wimps.
Besides being in bad taste it is also a Federal Crime!
I hope she enjoys her time in prison!
Its called a bad crude joke and a lot are laughing if you really think she could get prison time
Could she get time in prison? Yes. It is a crime to threaten a member of Congress.
Will she? Most likely she will not be charged.
I was trying to make a point that statements like this are not just in bad taste.
For me the biggest issue is that someone take a statement like this and decide to make it come true.
If you're a liberal and you protest a Republican President or wear a t-shirt he may not like at a public event you get thrown out or thrown into an abandoned underground bus depot for hours on end before you get sent to prison. If you're really nice they're put you behind a barbed wire fense like a criminal.
If you're a conservative and you protest a Democratic President you can bring loaded firearms to where he is speaking and be seen as a hero. You can threaten the life of public officials all you like, and nothing will happen to you.
I think she crossed the line just like Jesse but there is no law on the books that could hold a charge and gain a conviction against either one of them .Not in the United States anyway.
In Iran for sure, but very few would like those rules..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aLGkFpsdHo
Willie, This is hilarious coming from you, you have called for the deaths of several conservatives right here on this board, what a hypocrite you are to bash an activist from the other side for doing the same.
As I have said in the past, "all partisans are idiots", I don't necessarily mean you, but if the hanging rope fits.......lmao
When did I call for the deaths of several people on this board, regardless of their political affiliation?
About the closest I ever came to that, is saying that I thought the rules established at Nuremburg should be applied to US Presidents, regardless of their party.
Is there no difference between someone saying that a sitting US Senator should be hung for god knows what reason, and saying that international law should be upheld?
As I recall Snow, I said the country would be better off if Limbaugh kicked the bucket. That's hardly calling for the death of someone, and it's hardly calling for the death of someone on this board...unless you know something about Limbaugh that I don't know.
I said that your statements were made right here on this board.
You have repeatedly endorsed the "death penalty" for politicians that dissappoint or disagree with you. I would assume that your comments were not to be taken literally,which is why I find your comments to be so hypocritical.
I don't have the time to go back through the hundreds of posts you make each month to find the specific ones I am referring to, but they are there. Maybe Snow or PW has the time and/or energy???
"you have called for the deaths of several conservatives right here on this board". You do see how that can be taken both ways?
Yes, I have said that politicians shouldn't get a free pass when it comes to the death penalty. If you're convicted of a crime that is punishable by death, being a sitting or former politician shouldn't allow someone to get more lenient treatment.
And nowhere does he say that Presidents should only be subject to execution for committing war crimes or for violating international law.
Posted by willywonka4u Send Mail to willywonka4u , 2/14/2010 8:47:23 AM [willywonka4u has 7 reviews]
...but I also think we should expect FAR more from our elected representatives. I don't expect them to have a crystal ball, but I do expect them not to fuck up royally. Personally, I think the American People should be able to vote on whether or not a President should be executed when he leaves office based upon his performance.
So typical liberal...
What, me, I never said that!!!
Damn Willy, do you even read the stuff you write ?!?!?!?
Nice work Mr. Wedge and Mr. Gambler (assuming Mr. as we are all pretty annonymous). Unlike Willy, many of us have to work and can not literally live on the board.
You're the one who called for the Death of Rush Limbaugh.
With that said, I suggest you get off the soap box before you slip on a big pile of hypocricy.
Opps. too late...