MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
ARLINGTON (CBS) – A blog threatening members of Congress in the wake of the Tucson, Arizona shooting has prompted Arlington police to temporarily suspend the firearms license of an Arlington man.
[...]
In his blog Corcoran writes, “It is absolutely, absolutely unacceptable to shoot indiscriminately. Target only politicians and their staff and leave regular citizens alone.”
.
Police visited Corcoran’s home and found a “large amount” of weapons and ammunition. Sources told WBZ-TV that 11 guns were removed.
Comments
I saw this mentioned on the tube somewhere flipping around. It was eerie because just yesterday, when I went to the FBI's site looking for any news they might have up on the Spokane bomb story, I ran across the following which is about a prosecution for threatening government officials via websites and email
It's @ http://newyork.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel11/nyfo011411a.htm
but I am pasting the whole thing as it's a press release:
It's a very interesting topic about free speech and threats, and law enforcement checking out people based on verbal threats. And questions are only going to grow regarding these issues. For example, what if the guy in the Arlington story didn't end up having any guns?
We are all long accustomed to it not being appropriate to make threats against the president (or likewise, we know not to joke about blowing up airplanes while at the airport.) But until recently, speech threats aren't always taken so seriously unless they result in actions, i.e., threats on the internet not taken seriously until the perp starts with phone calls or standing outside your door as well. It seems that's changing.
BTW, the FBI "news blog"
http://www.fbi.gov/news/news_blog?b_start:int=10&-C=
suprisingly looks like a great place to find undercovered news about a lot of things that might interest blogophere people.
by artappraiser on Fri, 01/21/2011 - 11:49pm
Wow. Thanks for this ArtA. What the press release doesn't tell you, but the actual complaint against him does, is that McCrudden was sending the emails and posting to the website from Singapore much of the time. Wonder if he felt safer there.
Interesting question about what if the Arlington guy didn't have any guns. As it is, he hasn't been arrested nor does he face any charges.
In this case, I'm guessing the gun laws in Massachusetts allow for this type of suspension and investigation by the local police. I'm not so sure the same could be said for Arizona's and other state laws.
But when I think about it, what's the difference between threatening phone calls and threatening emails or internet posts?
by seashell on Sat, 01/22/2011 - 1:58am
Your last link, which I missed the last go round, says
Threatening a federal official is punishable by up to 10 years in prison.
Sounds like they don't care which "wires" you use. And whether or not its the case that they are amping up prosecution or have been doing it all along, it's clear in both press releases that they are making linkage in the p.r. to the Arizona story.
As to internet posts vs. email/phone there is the one difference that the former is public speech. Which gets into the issue of agitating others to violence. At the same time, the more public it is, the more complaintants and witnesses. These two are very blatant cases, i.e., "I'm going to kill you," but it's easy to see the problem of "what really constitutes a threat?" coming down the line. In the past, we haven't a tradition of criminal prosecution for verbal abuse. I am reminded of this:
by artappraiser on Sat, 01/22/2011 - 1:30pm
Not that anyone is reading this post but I do discuss this mess:
http://dagblog.com/reader-blogs/miranda-8672
by Richard Day on Sat, 01/22/2011 - 5:11pm
Good for you, you were way ahead of us seeing the problems--and that is probably part of the problem regarding us--as you had been thinking on it longer, you start out talking about Miranda, and us just getting cognizant about it all did not see the connection and might have thought it was just a post about Miranda.
by artappraiser on Sat, 01/22/2011 - 6:52pm