Man convicted of making online threats to Obama

ixtow wrote:

Armed wrote:

I noticed he waived his right to jury trial. I would think that was a bad move.

Click to expand...

Depends... In the particular County in FL that I live, I have witnessed plenty of circumstances where the defendant has no choice. sure, the technicality of law exists that says you have a right to a trial, etc... but One Judge in particular around here, is quite bold in stating that if you choose to go to trial, then his mind is already made up that you are guilty and if you waive your right, at least you'll see the light of day again someday. This man also forbids any public viewing, monitoring, or recording of any of his proceedings (no public trials) not even other defendants ('the guilty' as he calls them) are allowed in the room. His SOP is that if you have been charged with a misdemeanor, you'll get the maximum allowable for it if you waive your right. But if you choose to fight the charge, he'll find any way possible to make the most serious felony of it that he can imagine, and you are guilty no matter what evidence (or lack of it) is presented in your defense. This man has NEVER, not even once, determined that a defendant was 'not guilty.' Most of his 'trials' have no minutes available to review.

Been this way for almost 15 years.

Click to expand...

Have you ever been before this judge you're describing?

For what charge(s)?

Click to expand...

In fairness, nothing in the constitution says "There shall be no czars"

Click to expand...

Armed wrote:

I noticed he waived his right to jury trial. I would think that was a bad move.

Click to expand...

Depends... In the particular County in FL that I live, I have witnessed plenty of circumstances where the defendant has no choice. sure, the technicality of law exists that says you have a right to a trial, etc... but One Judge in particular around here, is quite bold in stating that if you choose to go to trial, then his mind is already made up that you are guilty and if you waive your right, at least you'll see the light of day again someday. This man also forbids any public viewing, monitoring, or recording of any of his proceedings (no public trials) not even other defendants ('the guilty' as he calls them) are allowed in the room. His SOP is that if you have been charged with a misdemeanor, you'll get the maximum allowable for it if you waive your right. But if you choose to fight the charge, he'll find any way possible to make the most serious felony of it that he can imagine, and you are guilty no matter what evidence (or lack of it) is presented in your defense. This man has NEVER, not even once, determined that a defendant was 'not guilty.' Most of his 'trials' have no minutes available to review.

Been this way for almost 15 years. I'd rather not mention the name, because I've already been locked up for Opposing Obama... I like being a thorn in their side, but push too much and you're just another missing person.

Click to expand...

ixtow wrote:

Armed wrote:

I noticed he waived his right to jury trial. I would think that was a bad move.

Click to expand...

Depends... In the particular County in FL that I live, I have witnessed plenty of circumstances where the defendant has no choice. sure, the technicality of law exists that says you have a right to a trial, etc... but One Judge in particular around here, is quite bold in stating that if you choose to go to trial, then his mind is already made up that you are guilty and if you waive your right, at least you'll see the light of day again someday. This man also forbids any public viewing, monitoring, or recording of any of his proceedings (no public trials) not even other defendants ('the guilty' as he calls them) are allowed in the room. His SOP is that if you have been charged with a misdemeanor, you'll get the maximum allowable for it if you waive your right. But if you choose to fight the charge, he'll find any way possible to make the most serious felony of it that he can imagine, and you are guilty no matter what evidence (or lack of it) is presented in your defense. This man has NEVER, not even once, determined that a defendant was 'not guilty.' Most of his 'trials' have no minutes available to review.

Been this way for almost 15 years. I'd rather not mention the name, because I've already been locked up for Opposing Obama... I like being a thorn in their side, but push too much and you're just another missing person.

Click to expand...

Where is this... North Korea??? :what:

Is recall applicable to Judges?

Click to expand...

Il_Duce wrote:

In fairness, nothing in the constitution says "There shall be no czars"

Click to expand...

Here we go again. Nothing in the Constitution AUTHORIZES "czars" or for that matter czarinas or czardines. Although I do find the notion of a pack of Neo-Bolsheviks running around demanding "czars" a bit amusing; if bizarre.

Click to expand...

Alexcabbie wrote:

Il_Duce wrote:

In fairness, nothing in the constitution says "There shall be no czars"

Click to expand...

Here we go again. Nothing in the Constitution AUTHORIZES "czars" or for that matter czarinas or czardines. Although I do find the notion of a pack of Neo-Bolsheviks running around demanding "czars" a bit amusing; if bizarre.

Click to expand...

Everything not forbidden is allowed. Welcome to law.

Click to expand...

Il_Duce wrote:

Alexcabbie wrote:

Il_Duce wrote:

In fairness, nothing in the constitution says "There shall be no czars"

Click to expand...

Here we go again. Nothing in the Constitution AUTHORIZES "czars" or for that matter czarinas or czardines. Although I do find the notion of a pack of Neo-Bolsheviks running around demanding "czars" a bit amusing; if bizarre.

Click to expand...

Everything not forbidden is allowed. Welcome to law.

Click to expand...

AMENDMENT 10: "The powers NOT DELEGATED TO THE UNITED STATES BY THE CONSTITUTION; Nor prohibited by it to the States; are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

In other words, the Feds (thats Ubama & Co) can only do what is specifically PERMITTED. It is for the States or the individual People that "everything not forbidden is allowed".

Welcome to the Supreme Law of the Land.

Click to expand...

Well, sorry to hear about your incident.

I find it hard to believe that Judge X has "NEVER, not even once, determined that a defendant was 'not guilty.'"

Are you sure about that? Never?

Click to expand...

Here is an example of a serious miscarriage of justice.

Saying you hope someone gets shot and saying you want to shoot someone are two very different meanings. I read this mans post when the news first broke... someone posted a copy of what he wrote on another blog.... and at no time did he say he was going to shoot the Obama, nor did he say he wanted to shoot Obama. Granted, the man was ranting, but at no time did he even imply a direct threat. So I have no idea how they were able to convict him. I sure hope the ACLU is on this like white on rice as it is a clear case of a 100% violation of this man's 1st Amendment freedom of speech. While hoping for someone's death may be in poor taste, it isn't illegal, nor should it ever be illegal.

If this conviction stands, this is a very sad day for Liberty in our quickly deteriorating Republic.

Click to expand...

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

Here is an example of a serious miscarriage of justice.

Saying you hope someone gets shot and saying you want to shoot someone are two very different meanings. I read this mans post when the news first broke... someone posted a copy of what he wrote on another blog.... and at no time did he say he was going to shoot the Obama, nor did he say he wanted to shoot Obama. Granted, the man was ranting, but at no time did he even imply a direct threat. So I have no idea how they were able to convict him. I sure hope the ACLU is on this like white on rice as it is a clear case of a 100% violation of this man's 1st Amendment freedom of speech. While hoping for someone's death may be in poor taste, it isn't illegal, nor should it ever be illegal.

If this conviction stands, this is a very sad day for Liberty in our quickly deteriorating Republic.

Click to expand...

Hell, I hope Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Kenedy, Schumer, and Feinstein all get shot. No, blown up. No, a homemade cruise missile through their bedroom windows. No, poisoned. No, mortars. No, Grenades. Aw, I can't make up my mind, I just hope they all die a violent and ugly death.

I don't drink, not a drop. No drugs either. But if that happens, Keg Party in the Street! I might even fire up a joint, except, I have no idea where to get one....

Click to expand...

ixtow wrote:

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

Here is an example of a serious miscarriage of justice.

Saying you hope someone gets shot and saying you want to shoot someone are two very different meanings. I read this mans post when the news first broke... someone posted a copy of what he wrote on another blog.... and at no time did he say he was going to shoot the Obama, nor did he say he wanted to shoot Obama. Granted, the man was ranting, but at no time did he even imply a direct threat. So I have no idea how they were able to convict him. I sure hope the ACLU is on this like white on rice as it is a clear case of a 100% violation of this man's 1st Amendment freedom of speech. While hoping for someone's death may be in poor taste, it isn't illegal, nor should it ever be illegal.

If this conviction stands, this is a very sad day for Liberty in our quickly deteriorating Republic.

Click to expand...

Hell, I hope Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Kenedy, Schumer, and Feinstein all get shot. No, blown up. No, a homemade cruise missile through their bedroom windows. No, poisoned. No, mortars. No, Grenades. Aw, I can't make up my mind, I just hope they all die a violent and ugly death.

I don't drink, not a drop. No drugs either. But if that happens, Keg Party in the Street! I might even fire up a joint, except, I have no idea where to get one....

Click to expand...

Threatening online to shoot someone....saying online that someone should be shot...or wishing/hoping onlinethat someone should be shot....

Ahhh, especially coming from gun guys.....that kind of stuff ....is the stuff of bubbas.

People who say that kind of shiz (with a Z) online are simply not to be taken seriously...

I'm sure they are burping, farting and drooling when they do it.

Click to expand...

I'm scratching my balls just for you, Hank.

and just for the record, I'm, not wishing or hoping it online, that occurs in my heart and mind. And, I get warm fuzzy feelings all over whenever I do!

I have lots of guns, and even more ammo, what of it?

"I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure." - Clarence Darrow.

Those mentioned above, could possibly create such a scene of glee and rapture that I should not be in public upon receipt of such news, when they come to pass. I am perpetually glad to see evil removed from the world, and always hope for it.

Click to expand...

ixtow wrote:

I'm scratching my balls just for you, Hank.

and just for the record, I'm, not wishing or hoping it online, that occurs in my heart and mind. And, I get warm fuzzy feelings all over whenever I do!

I have lots of guns, and even more ammo, what of it?

"I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure." - Clarence Darrow.

Those mentioned above, could possibly create such a scene of glee and rapture that I should not be in public upon receipt of such news, when they come to pass. I am perpetually glad to see evil removed from the world, and always hope for it.

Click to expand...

"So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."


Guy nailed it.

Have a, um, good time, ix.

BTW, are you sure it's just itching?

Click to expand...

Okay, Ix. Lemme get this straight. You said online that you hope someone shoots the President and you are dismayed at the attention given you by the SS?? For what? So JOE BIDEN CAN BE PRESIDENT? Or, maybe him too so we can have NANCY PELOSI for prez? Her too? Oboy, PRESIDENT HILLARY CLINTON. The possibilities just get worse and worse the further down the line of succession we go.

At least with Obama we have someone who has quickly established that, whatever the folks who put him over the top were voting for, he is not and never was it. He managed to fool them enough to get their votes. He is finding out quickly that Americans will NOT just follow like sheep. Democrat apologists for Obamacare have in the last couple days been jeered off the stage at these phony "town hall" meetings. Despite our misgivings the American people are not complete idiots (despit decades of effort to render them so). Asassinating a politician so the nation will return to conservative values is like shooting out all the streetlights to make the sun go down.

I am glad the SS is protecting this poltroon and I hope the continue to do a good job. Because if they fail, he will be a martyr to the socialist scum and it will likely breathe new life into the statist movement. He and the DemonRatz are sinking into the very quicksand they have attempted to lure the American people into. No need for force of arms. They will drown themsilves quite handily.

Now take your meds and cool it, Ixtow. For real.

Click to expand...

Great.  Well, try this on for size.  I WILL SAY WHATEVER I DAMN WELL PLEASE.  i DO NOT LIKE THIS PRESIDENT AND THINK HE GOT INTO THE WHITE HOUSE BY FRAUD AND LIES.   I WILL OPPOSE HIM UNTIL HE IS FORCED OUT, AND I HOPE WE CAN IMPEACH HIS COMMUNIST ASS. 

Now arrest me.  I f*&king DARE YOU. 

Click to expand...

Alexcabbie wrote:

Great. Well, try this on for size. I WILL SAY WHATEVER I DAMN WELL PLEASE. i DO NOT LIKE THIS PRESIDENT AND THINK HE GOT INTO THE WHITE HOUSE BY FRAUD AND LIES. I WILL OPPOSE HIM UNTIL HE IS FORCED OUT, AND I HOPE WE CAN IMPEACH HIS COMMUNIST ASS.

Now arrest me. I f*&king DARE YOU.

Click to expand...

What you said falls within fair comment.
You didn't suggest anybody be shot. You didn't threaten to shoot anybody.

Vast difference.

Click to expand...