Blogger Charged With Threatening 7th Circuit Judges Gets Home Confinement~ - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Sunshine · #1 (**permalink**) 09-15-2009

This is the kind of rhetoric one sees on discussion boards all the time. People are always stating what they think would be just desserts for some famous person. I would wonder where does hyperbole end and a real threat begins? Who gets to decide?

Quote:

Blogger Charged With Threatening 7th Circuit Judges Gets Home Confinement

U.S. District Judge Donald Walter has ordered the release of Internet blogger and Web talk show host Hal Turner, who was arrested in June for declaring in an online posting that three Chicago-based federal judges "deserve to be killed."

Turner is on his way back to his home state of New Jersey after Walter decided in a Wednesday conference call meeting with lawyers that Turner could be released under "strict conditions," including a prohibition on his speaking to the media, home confinement and electronic monitoring, said Michael Oroczo, who represents Turner. He said his client was currently in the U.S. Marshal Service's custody in Oklahoma City as he's being transferred to New Jersey.

"The government didn't even come close to proving he was a danger to the public," said Oroczo of Newark, N.J.'s Bailey & Oroczo.

In the conference call, federal prosecutors from the Northern District of Illinois argued, as they had previously in court, that Turner should remain in custody, said Randall Samborn, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office in Chicago. The release order by Walter, a U.S. district judge from Western Louisiana who was assigned the case to avoid potential bias, runs counter to a decision made last month by Chicago-based U.S. Magistrate Judge Martin Ashman, who found that Turner should remain in custody until his trial. It's not clear if a bond amount was set for the release.

Turner was charged by the U.S. Attorney's Office in Chicago with threatening to assault and murder three judges in retaliation for a June 2 decision they made. In a Web posting the same day, Turner called the 7th Circuit ruling, which declined to overturn laws banning handguns in Chicago and a nearby suburb, an "outrage" and said that the judges behind the decision "deserve to be killed." The judges who decided the case were Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook, Judge Richard Posner and Judge William Bauer. In a second posting on June 3, Turner provided the names, work addresses, phone numbers and photos of the judges.

Walter last week also allowed Turner's case to be transferred to the Eastern District of New York, granting his request for a change of venue from Chicago to Brooklyn. Walter granted the venue change partly because he agreed the defendant would have a harder time getting a fair trial in Chicago where there was significant media coverage of the 2005 murder of U.S. District Judge Joan Lefkow's mother and husband. Turner said in his postings that federal judges in Chicago hadn't gotten "the hint" from those killings.

"Memories are not so short as to erase the event from the public mind," Walter wrote in a Sept. 8 decision. "On balance, it is this court's opinion that granting the motion would best serve, not only justice, but the appearance of justice.

Walter also allowed the postponement of the trial from Oct. 5 to Nov. 30. Samborn declined to comment on whether the Chicago-based prosecutors, Assistant U.S. Attorneys William Hogan and William Ridgway, will remain on the case or whether it will be transferred to another U.S. Attorney's office.

Law.com - Blogger Charged With Threatening 7th Circuit Judges Gets Home Confinement

Where does it end? What about statements to other posters like 'watch your back' or 'I've got your number?'

John Drake · #2 (**permalink**) 09-16-2009

Is there any better argument for gun control than a gun nut threatening to kill people for not rescinding laws already in force against guns?

"We're law abiding citizens, we're not violent people and we'll kill you if you don't agree."

Sunshine · #3 (**permalink**) 09-16-2009

This type of rhetoric is all too common on discussion boards. It has been removed, but just last night someone on here one who knows nothing about me or my family suggested that my children, who he does not know and who have never posted here, are deserving of violence. There are about 3 people on here who make me ashamed to call myself a political conservative because of their RADICAL ravings. One certainly hopes that we do not ALL get lumped together.

I too have guns, and believe that it is wise to have them because I live so far away from the nearest town where there is law enforcement.

Steve · #4 (**permalink**) 09-16-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Drake

Is there any better argument for gun control than a gun nut threatening to kill people for not rescinding laws already in force against guns?

"We're law abiding citizens, we're not violent people and we'll kill you if you don't agree."

By God, Drake, you're right! Some idiot blogger says something stupid, so we should repeal the 2nd Amendment!

If we repealed Amendments based on the stupid things that idiots say, the 1st Amendment would've been gone a long time ago...

goober · #5 (**permalink**) 09-16-2009

I guess when the crime is threatening to kill a judge, you can't expect much sympathy from the judge.
But Right Wing Crazy is going around, and it has to be dealt with.

LeatherneckPM · #6 (**permalink**) 09-16-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Drake

Is there any better argument for gun control than a gun nut threatening to kill people for not rescinding laws already in force against guns?

"We're law abiding citizens, we're not violent people and we'll kill you if you don't agree."

Ever heard the expression 'taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut'? That about sums up your attitude.

John Drake · #7 (**permalink**) 09-17-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve

By God, Drake, you're right! Some idiot blogger says something stupid, so we should repeal the 2nd Amendment!

If we repealed Amendments based on the stupid things that idiots say, the 1st Amendment would've been gone a long time ago...

Maybe just stop misinterpreting it. The Amendment says we should be able to keep and bear arms IF it is necessary to our national defense it doesn't say that every terrrifying Tom, Dangerous Dick and Lunatic Larry has an inalienable RIGHT to have one for no frakkiing reason whatsoever. The FF were mainly LAWYERS, if they had wanted to grant such a right they would have simply said..."the right to keep arms shall not be infringed," and not put in the clearly limiting clause ( a well regulated militia being necessary) before they even wrote the other one down.

John Drake · #8 (**permalink**) 09-17-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by goober

I guess when the crime is threatening to kill a judge, you can't expect much sympathy from the judge.
But Right Wing Crazy is going around, and it has to be dealt with.

Judges are a whole lot more powerful than people think. Contempt of Court frex is purely at their discretion and there's no appeal from it.

Swoop187 · #9 (**permalink**) 09-17-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunshine

This type of rhetoric is all too common on discussion boards. It has been removed, but just last night someone on here one who knows nothing about me or my family suggested that my children, who he does not know and who have never posted here, are deserving of violence. There are about 3 people on here who make me ashamed to call myself a political conservative because of their RADICAL ravings. One certainly hopes that we do not ALL get lumped together.

I too have guns, and believe that it is wise to have them because I live so far away from the nearest town where there is law enforcement.

The main problem republicans have recently had has been being too bland. No one remembers the intellectual guy, they remember the guy who says crazy shit. Thats why I love the "you lie" outburst, now thats golden and its being talked about. Now being a dumb fuck conservative sitting in a corner trying to convince less educated brainwashed people to be logical and thing about the future rather then the now; does not and will not work.

As far as people attacking your family, that's just not right.

EricOKC · #10 (**permalink**) 09-17-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Drake

Maybe just stop misinterpreting it. The Amendment says we should be able to keep and bear arms IF it is necessary to our national defense it doesn't say that every terrrifying Tom, Dangerous Dick and Lunatic Larry has an inalienable RIGHT to have one for no frakkiing reason whatsoever. The FF were mainly LAWYERS, if they had wanted to grant such a right they would have simply said..."the right to keep arms shall not be infringed," and not put in the clearly limiting clause ( a well regulated militia being necessary) before they even wrote the other one down.

I'm sorry you do not understand English and are so behind on current events.

In short, you're utterly wrong, but you're used to that.

Its not a limiting clause - at least according to people who actually understand English grammar and the law.

Swoop187 · #11 (**permalink**) 09-17-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by EricOKC

I'm sorry you do not understand English and are so behind on current events.

In short, you're utterly wrong, but you're used to that.

Its not a limiting clause - at least according to people who actually understand English grammar and the law.

Not to mention the gun was the way of life when the constitution was wrote. The gun was means of protection and means of putting food on the table then. The idea that their was some kind of "gun control idea" back then is absurd.

Even today, people still use guns to put food on the table in places like Alaska or the 48 NW.

Guns are a livelihood for many people and we should ban them because gang bangers in cities kill one another?

I figure I'm preaching to the choir but I find it amazing how people are so wrapped up in their own shit to not even respect the given or even respect our Constitution.

IMO this is one of this issues that really shows peoples true colors.

Mrs. M · #12 (**permalink**) 09-17-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Drake

Is there any better argument for gun control than a gun nut threatening to kill people for not rescinding laws already in force against guns?

"We're law abiding citizens, we're not violent people and we'll kill you if you don't agree."

A threat is "I will kill you"...stating "He deserves to be killed" is not the same thing. I know quite of few people that deserve to die but that doesn't mean I'm threatening to kill them. The problem is that anti-gun freaks latch on to the least little thing to try and justify their warped minds but fail miserably.

Mrs. M · #13 (**permalink**) 09-17-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Drake

Maybe just stop misinterpreting it. The Amendment says we should be able to keep and bear arms IF it is necessary to our national defense it doesn't say that every terrrifying Tom, Dangerous Dick and Lunatic Larry has an inalienable RIGHT to have one for no frakkiing reason whatsoever. The FF were mainly LAWYERS, if they had wanted to grant such a right they would have simply said..."the right to keep arms shall not be infringed," and not put in the clearly limiting clause ( a well regulated militia being necessary) before they even wrote the other one down.

Considering that even the USSC has interpreted it the same way, maybe you're the one that doesn't get it????? Have you thought ever about that????

sinebar · #14 (**permalink**) 09-18-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunshine

This is the kind of rhetoric one sees on discussion boards all the time. People are always stating what they think would be just desserts for some famous person. I would wonder where does hyperbole end and a real threat begins? Who gets to decide?

Law.com - Blogger Charged With Threatening 7th Circuit Judges Gets Home Confinement

Where does it end? What about statements to other posters like 'watch your back' or 'I've got your number?'

If that's all he said where's the threat? I thought a threat had to be direct and imminent.

sinebar · #15 (**permalink**) 09-18-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by goober

I guess when the crime is threatening to kill a judge, you can't expect much sympathy from the judge.
But Right Wing Crazy is going around, and it has to be dealt with.

Where's the threat though? He stated what he thought should happen but didn't state that he was going to do it. However I don't think it was wise for him to post the work addresses, phone numbers and photos. That alone could provoke some nut.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode