Skip to main content

View Diary: This is What a Police State Looks Like. (172 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  He's not charged with incitement. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jpmassar, Lujane

    He's charged under a different law.

    Any person who willfully threatens to commit a crime which will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, with the specific intent that the statement, made verbally, in writing, or by means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out, which, on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made, is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to convey to the person threatened, a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat, and thereby causes that person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her own safety or for his or her immediate family's safety, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison.

    We were not ahead of our time, we led the way to our time.

    by i understand on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 06:59:34 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  What State law are you quoting here? (5+ / 0-)

      You are missing the operative points, are you not?

      is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to convey to the person threatened,
      Who is the specific person identified here?  What specific person was threatened again?

      -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

      by gerrilea on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 07:46:14 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  California (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jpmassar, Lujane

        As far as the specific person, Moody is named right in the post.

        We were not ahead of our time, we led the way to our time.

        by i understand on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 07:48:26 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  How does this section of statute comply with (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jpmassar, FrankRose, lyvwyr101

          Brandenburg V. Ohio?

          That statute may only apply to citizens, not government agents.  I don't know yet.  

          It does seem clear by the wording in the decision that the statute you're quoting could not constitutionally be applied in this case, because what was said is clearly protected speech.

          Meaning their prosecution is unlawful and would be dismissed by the Supreme Court.

          -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

          by gerrilea on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 08:06:16 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I suppose we'll see (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jpmassar

            Not unlawful at all. It may turn out to be unconstitutional, but it takes a court ruling (and a case) to determine that. It's how our system is designed after all.

            We were not ahead of our time, we led the way to our time.

            by i understand on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 08:09:29 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  It's clear the police and the DA are being (5+ / 0-)

              malicious in their prosecution of this case.  They can be held liable for it personally.

              After all, they are paid to know the law and how to enforce it.

              http://www.law.cornell.edu/...

              Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

              -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

              by gerrilea on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 08:21:00 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I don't see that. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                jpmassar

                I think that facebook post is exactly the kind of thing that would, and should, be prosecuted under this law. And thus far, the law has not been ruled unconstitutional.

                We were not ahead of our time, we led the way to our time.

                by i understand on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 08:30:23 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (154)
  • Community (61)
  • Environment (36)
  • Culture (34)
  • Memorial Day (31)
  • Republicans (31)
  • 2016 (28)
  • Elections (26)
  • Civil Rights (25)
  • Bernie Sanders (25)
  • Science (23)
  • Media (22)
  • Climate Change (22)
  • Education (22)
  • Labor (21)
  • Spam (21)
  • GOP (20)
  • Law (20)
  • Rescued (19)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (16)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site