TexasCHLforum.com

The Annoyed Man wrote:Should government be able to arrest you for saying that it would be your desire to assassinate a government official, or former official, or foreign dignitary? At what point does free speech - no matter how obnoxious or seditious or dangerous - become a crime?

I think you should be able to say what you want. The penal code says force is not justified "in response to verbal provocation alone" and I think the same should apply (speech alone is not enough) whether the person threatened is a public figure or a normal person who doesn't have bodyguards.

However, threats combined with actions to carry out the threat crosses the line and, here too, I think the same laws should apply whether the person threatened is a public figure or a normal person. If someone says they're going to break my skull and grabs a baseball bat, a just and moral legal system would treat that the same as someone threatening to assassinate a public official and then taking action to make good on the threat.

Oldgringo wrote:Now from another point of view:

We should all be glad that this jihadist wannabe was scoped out when he was. As for the alleged shooter named Lochner in Tucson, he gave off enough wierdo signals that someone should have had a serious chat with him...before the fact.

As for me, I'm cool and mean no harm to nobody.

Old gringo, don't get me wrong... I agree with what you've just said here. I think part if the issue is that we truly live in the age of information these days, and that has altered both the implications of our public utterances, and law enforcement's access to and consideration of our words. The problem is that we have a certain anonymity on the web, and some people take that as permission to say things that they might not give voice to in face to face encounters, and a lot of that is simply bluff and bluster.

So, if I post something like, "I absolutely loathe [Insert Politician's Name Here], and I could just kill him, he makes me so mad. Now that can mean anything from an actual statement of intention to a harmless venting of frustration. So the next day I go buy a pistol, on the same day that this politician is going to be visiting DFW. Is that reasonable cause for the FBI or the Secret Service to come pick me up and charge me with making a terrorist threat, or with plotting an assassination?

I'm not sure it should be.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:Now from another point of view:

We should all be glad that this jihadist wannabe was scoped out when he was. As for the alleged shooter named Lochner in Tucson, he gave off enough wierdo signals that someone should have had a serious chat with him...before the fact.

As for me, I'm cool and mean no harm to nobody.

Old gringo, don't get me wrong... I agree with what you've just said here. I think part if the issue is that we truly live in the age of information these days, and that has altered both the implications of our public utterances, and law enforcement's access to and consideration of our words. The problem is that we have a certain anonymity on the web, and some people take that as permission to say things that they might not give voice to in face to face encounters, and a lot of that is simply bluff and bluster.

So, if I post something like, "I absolutely loathe [Insert Politician's Name Here], and I could just kill him, he makes me so mad. Now that can mean anything from an actual statement of intention to a harmless venting of frustration. So the next day I go buy a pistol, on the same day that this politician is going to be visiting DFW. Is that reasonable cause for the FBI or the Secret Service to come pick me up and charge me with making a terrorist threat, or with plotting an assassination?

I'm not sure it should be.

TAM, I see your point and I think that I understand and agree with you.

Our way of life is under attack from outside and from within. Someone (?) must be alert and paying attention to threats to our way of life. Now comes the hard part of separating the destructive terrorist chaff from the wholesome wheat. This is not your father's Oldsmobile, "...the times, they are a changin'....",etc., etc.

Thank goodness, we still have our U.S. Constitution.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:Now from another point of view:

We should all be glad that this jihadist wannabe was scoped out when he was. As for the alleged shooter named Lochner in Tucson, he gave off enough wierdo signals that someone should have had a serious chat with him...before the fact.

As for me, I'm cool and mean no harm to nobody.

Old gringo, don't get me wrong... I agree with what you've just said here. I think part if the issue is that we truly live in the age of information these days, and that has altered both the implications of our public utterances, and law enforcement's access to and consideration of our words. The problem is that we have a certain anonymity on the web, and some people take that as permission to say things that they might not give voice to in face to face encounters, and a lot of that is simply bluff and bluster.

So, if I post something like, "I absolutely loathe [Insert Politician's Name Here], and I could just kill him, he makes me so mad. Now that can mean anything from an actual statement of intention to a harmless venting of frustration. So the next day I go buy a pistol, on the same day that this politician is going to be visiting DFW. Is that reasonable cause for the FBI or the Secret Service to come pick me up and charge me with making a terrorist threat, or with plotting an assassination?

I'm not sure it should be.

You can add to your worry if said politician died in non-natural, non-accidental causes. Now some one has to ask questions and read your blogs.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:Now from another point of view:

We should all be glad that this jihadist wannabe was scoped out when he was. As for the alleged shooter named Lochner in Tucson, he gave off enough wierdo signals that someone should have had a serious chat with him...before the fact.

As for me, I'm cool and mean no harm to nobody.

Old gringo, don't get me wrong... I agree with what you've just said here. I think part if the issue is that we truly live in the age of information these days, and that has altered both the implications of our public utterances, and law enforcement's access to and consideration of our words. The problem is that we have a certain anonymity on the web, and some people take that as permission to say things that they might not give voice to in face to face encounters, and a lot of that is simply bluff and bluster.

So, if I post something like, "I absolutely loathe [Insert Politician's Name Here], and I could just kill him, he makes me so mad. Now that can mean anything from an actual statement of intention to a harmless venting of frustration. So the next day I go buy a pistol, on the same day that this politician is going to be visiting DFW. Is that reasonable cause for the FBI or the Secret Service to come pick me up and charge me with making a terrorist threat, or with plotting an assassination?

I'm not sure it should be.

For this specific scenario, "could" does not imply intent to do something as I read it and makes it clear it is venting. I don't think it would be right to arrest him since he hasn't actually harmed anyone or attempted to harm anyone to the point of using justified force against him. I don't see victimless crimes and potential crimes as crimes. Who was hurt? In this case I think the FBI or Secret Service would be right to keep a very close eye on him and be prepared to use force, but not justified to arrest him yet since he hasn't done anything or made any clear attempts to. Just like us CHL holders can't go around shooting people just because they seem menacing; we can stay alert and be prepared to shoot if an overt attack is made.

WildBill wrote:

4copas wrote:I would say if enough of the right pieces fit together, something should be done. For example, Jared Loughner, where nothing was done. Just my 2 cents.........

I disagree. The crimes alledgedly committed by Jared Loughner, are tragic, heinous and dispicable, but they could not be prevented by our current legal system.

Tragic, heinous and dispicable crimes are the pieces I would say need a second look. Arrested? Maybe so, maybe not, but someone should be watching. Hindsight is 20/20.

Beiruty wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:So, if I post something like, "I absolutely loathe [Insert Politician's Name Here], and I could just kill him, he makes me so mad. Now that can mean anything from an actual statement of intention to a harmless venting of frustration. So the next day I go buy a pistol, on the same day that this politician is going to be visiting DFW. Is that reasonable cause for the FBI or the Secret Service to come pick me up and charge me with making a terrorist threat, or with plotting an assassination?

I'm not sure it should be.

You can add to your worry if said politician died in non-natural, non-accidental causes. Now some one has to ask questions and read your blogs.

You're absolutely right. Now in the case of the jihadist mentioned in the article I posted in the OP, I think he made an unusual tactical error in broadcasting, repeatedly, what he intended to do. That's incredibly odd. Real pros would have maintained operational security. He's a kook. A dangerous kook who would have carried out his plan if not caught, but a kook nonetheless. So what happens if they arrest someone who has been sharing his murderous phantasies on the web, and someone else blows up Dubyah's home anyway because the authorities were focused on the kook with the e-pulpit rather than looking for the pros out there?

The Annoyed Man wrote: So, if I post something like, "I absolutely loathe [Insert Politician's Name Here], and I could just kill him, he makes me so mad. Now that can mean anything from an actual statement of intention to a harmless venting of frustration. So the next day I go buy a pistol, on the same day that this politician is going to be visiting DFW. Is that reasonable cause for the FBI or the Secret Service to come pick me up and charge me with making a terrorist threat, or with plotting an assassination?

I'm not sure it should be.

Well, if they were watching you as a result of your comment, they could certainly pick you up for questioning. If during the questioning/investigation it's shown you have 10 handguns at home, as well as assault rifles, an avid shooter and CHL holder, then buying a gun today wouldn't mean too much. But if this was your one and only gun purchase, I'd say there's a chance you'd be charged. Doesn't matter what your real intentions were, the jury decides that. Juries don't decide fact, only what they perceive as fact. MHO.

What started the ball rolling on this Saudi's arrest was that he
ordered some chemicals from a North Carolina company. A man at
that company smelled a rat for some reason and dropped a dime on this
jihadi to the local NC FBI office.

The NC FBI agents contacted Texas FBI agents and the arrest was made in Lubbock.

Apparently this young man had planned for years to go to college in the US
in order to perpetrate his killing of US citizens.

There's been a lot of discussion above in this thread about words/intentions/
are we being surveilled fairly or not. In this case it seems like the proper guy
was busted.

SIA

@TAM: actually that exact situation happened to JFK in Chicago a couple weeks before he went to Dallas as yes, the FBI and SS in Chicago rounded up some of the suspects and held them until Kennedy cancelled the trip. So, in effect yes.

One thing is still in his favor, he was a Chemical Engineer Student. He claimed he ordered small quantity of some chemical for research which what he actually stated on the order. He did not use fake name or tried to dodge the final destination of his order. Someone who has an evil intent does not do that.

Unless there is some real recording of conversation what he wanted to do, with the material, plan to make a bomb, the selected target. It could be a tough case to prove.

Also, if thety keep zeroing on persons like this guy and the like of the Samadi in Dallas and not dragging in the next Attah, we are in trouble.

Beiruty wrote:One thing is still in his favor, he was a Chemical Engineer Student. He claimed he ordered small quantity of some chemical for research which what he actually stated on the order. He did not use fake name or tried to dodge the final destination of his order. Someone who has an evil intent does not do that.

Unless there is some real recording of conversation what he wanted to do, with the material, plan to make a bomb, the selected target. It could be a tough case to prove.

Also, if thety keep zeroing on persons like this guy and the like of the Samadi in Dallas and not dragging in the next Attah, we are in trouble.

If they had zeroed in on persons like this guy earlier, the cowardly murder of nearly 3,000 civilian non-combatants might not have happened on 11 September 2001.

OOPS!

I left out that guy who murdered the folk at Ft. Hood...

Oldgringo wrote:If they had zeroed in on persons like this guy earlier, the cowardly murder of nearly 3,000 civilian non-combatants might not have happened on 11 September 2001.

The MSM and many in the government told the passengers to cooperate with the terrorists. Some of them still repeat that bad advice today, and tell crime victims "don't resist", "cooperate", "give them what they want" and other bad advice.

How many innocent lives could have been saved if the passengers in three of the planes ignored the bad advice from the MSM terrorist sympathizers and fought back? If the brave people on Flight 93 had ignored the bad advice immediately, maybe they could have saved their own lives.

I'm glad they caught him before he hurt anyone.
I wish he hadn't been in Lubbock.

threoh8 wrote:I'm glad they caught him before he hurt anyone.
I wish he hadn't been in Lubbock.

Having found Terrorist in the relatively tame city of Lubbock, where they aren't so "anti-gun" I wonder if registration at CHL classes will increase there even more now. I like the city, the people, the lack of traffic, the wide streets, but hate the wind, dirt storms, cold, and lack of places to kayak and fish.