Mrs.PatsFanInVa

With very little background and without telling anyone who said them and possibly prejudicing them ahead of time, which of the following sounds threatening?

Which, if any of them, should have been taken seriously?

Which, if any of them, would deserve investigating or action?

Which, if any of them, actually resulted in an arrest?


1. "If ballots don't work, bullets will."

2. "I feel that the Second Amendment is the right to keep and bear arms for our citizenry. This not for someone who's in the military. This not for law enforcement. This is for us. And in fact when you read that Constitution and the founding fathers, they intended this to stop tyranny. This is for us when our government becomes tyrannical...it's to defend ourselves. And you know, I'm hoping that we're not getting to Second Amendment remedies. I hope the vote will be the cure for the Harry Reid problems."

3. I swear to God, I am going to hunt you down and kill you like a dog. I mean it.

4. "I am thinking about killing Michael Moore. I am wondering if I could do it myself or if I would have to hire someone to do it for me."

5. "I'll take you out."

6. "You're dead."

khayos

It's all in the context.

Patters

Obviously, using the standards applied to Fuller in AZ, they should all be arrested. I expect Khayos will agree

khayos

Nope. Direct threats should always be investigated. Allusions to politics as war are par for the course... we call them campaigns and battlegrounds for a reason... but direct threats and violence are an issue. You can say someone is dead politically. You cannot say you intend to kill someone. How you lefties keep mixing that up is beyond me.

Patters

So, people in influential positions are allowed to make threats, but the rest of us aren't. I get it.

Of course you can say someone is dead politically, but some of the examples posted aren't like that:

3. I swear to God, I am going to hunt you down and kill you like a dog. I mean it.

That said, I agree with you that it has to do with context, but the context in which Fuller made his remarks on a tv show after being shot himself I also think should be considered. I expect the charges against him will be dropped, but I'll keep in mind your point of view for future reference, which I understand to be that important people on tv and radio can make threats, but the rest of us can't. I think your traditional values predate our Constitution.

Harry Boy

Death Threats:
Bullet Proof Vests are a big item in the Palin/Bush/Beck/Limbaugh/Cheney/Coulter Families, they give them to each other for Christmas.

death threats from the left wing liberals - Yahoo! Search Results

__________________
Harry Boy (Genius)

In The Absence Of Law And Order Society Will Surely Destroy Itself

Mrs.PatsFanInVa

So 1 & 2 are out but 3, 4,and 5 are definitely in?

I'm confused about 6, however. Is that in or out as a threat? How do you define dead as "political" or literal? How do you know what the person saying it intends if it is said in both a political and emotional scene?

Patters

If we're going to consider every angry post and every angry statement a threat, then we can do the same thing for the right wing, no doubt:

death threats from the right wing conservatives - Google Search

Of course I have no idea what evidence there is for those, and think that idle threats are fairly common in politics, not that they should be accepted. In my opinion, threats by people in positions of influence or actual actions are more significant that the kind of noise that occurs at rallies and on the web, though that noise certainly should not be ignored.

chicowalker

How you keep mixing up direct threats with violence is beyond me.

chicowalker

is 1 out? wouldn't that mean that any mere reference to the political process makes the threat ok? After all, isn't 1 saying that if we can't defeat you politically, we'll kill you?