Wednesday, April 7, 2010

The Stupid, It Burns...

Man accused of death threats against U.S. senator
(CNN) -- Police arrested a 64-year-old Washington state resident who authorities say made death threats against Democratic Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, the Justice Department announced Tuesday.

A department statement said the suspect, identified as Charles Alan Wilson of Selah, Washington, made the threats in phone messages to Murray's office between March 22 and April 4.

YOU. ARE. NOT. HELPING. Not only that, get the hell off our side. If you can't abide by the rules, STFU and stop helping the goddamned socialists by providing them with handy examples of rightwing jackasses. Phoning in a death threat is about the dumbest thing you can do short of showing up outside her office with a chloroform-soaked rag, okay?

That's not the only thing that's torqued my gears, though. There's also this little bit of "some animals are more equal than others":
Threatening a federal official is punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine, the Justice Department statement said.

Are you kidding me? By virtue of being a Fed, there's penalties above and beyond mere assault? Because that's all this is, so far: assault. But because Murray is a federal official, it's somehow worth more jail time? Extra punishment for threatening the ruling elites?

I swear to G-d, some days I half-expect the media to break out into bleats of "Four legs good, two legs better"...

That is all.

9 comments:

SeaDrive said...

All sort of people get special protection in the law. Cops for example. At least you can cuss out a politician, but you can't cuss out a cop.

Weer'd Beard said...

I dunno if I can disagree with that. Elected officials are there to represent all of us (weather they do is a topic for another day) so a crime against their person is technically a crime against all of us, and it creates a lot of turmoil and red tape replacing them.

So yeah that's worth a little extra on the sentencing if you ask me, and no it doesn't matter if I voted for them or even like them.

Anonymous said...

I have to agree with Weer'd Beard on this one. The idea is to prevent undue and improper influence on government officials - think of it as being like threatening a juror.

The penalty for threatening someone on a jury is higher than for threatening that same person when they are not on a jury, because such threats subvert the process of a trial. The penalty for threatening a government official is higher than threatening someone else because such threats subvert whatever function of government they are part of (all questions of legitimacy aside, for the purpose of this argument).

The idea is to preserve the proper functioning of the government, not to give them extra protection because they are special.

Anonymous said...

I have to agree with Weer'd Beard on this one. The idea is to prevent undue and improper influence on government officials - think of it as being like threatening a juror.

The penalty for threatening someone on a jury is higher than for threatening that same person when they are not on a jury, because such threats subvert the process of a trial. The penalty for threatening a government official is higher than threatening someone else because such threats subvert whatever function of government they are part of (all questions of legitimacy aside, for the purpose of this argument).

The idea is to preserve the proper functioning of the government, not to give them extra protection because they are special.

Anonymous said...

Crap. Sorry for the double post. Blogger doesn't seem to play well with Wordpress.

Unknown said...

I am curious. I've seen several posts about this, but nothing regarding the actual threat or how it was made.

(ie: there is a difference between calling up a Senator's office and saying "I am going to kill you!" versus saying an off-the-cuff comment such as "Everyone in Congress needs to be dragged out and shot."

Heck, even saying "you deserve to be shot Senator Joe Blow!" is far different than declaring intention to do so. Though both are poor judgment.

Anyone seen anything regarding the actual threat made?

--

I ask, because this is significant. We could very well in our lifetime reach a point where we do need to raise arms against our government. But there is a big difference between me stating such, or even stating that what our government has done is so heinious we'd be justified in raising arms. And actually raising arms.

KurtP said...

So they're starting to arrest people who make death threats to politicians.
I'm sure quite a few Republicans would LOVE to let the FBI listen to some of their voice mail.
Not to mention the Executive officers of AIG and all the others demonized by the current administration.

jetfxr69 said...

Radio this morning said that the guy "who owns a gun", had left a voicemail that said "you've got a target on your back now." Nothing in there to suggest he was going to shoot her, but they put those together and called it a threat.

No, I haven't read transcripts or seen interviews. Simply reporting what was on WTOP this morning.

rick said...

"ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL, BUT SOME ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS"
- George Orwell, Animal Farm, Ch. 10