chevysoldier Posted March 7, 2012 Report Share Posted March 7, 2012 http://www.policeone.com/Officer-Safety/articles/5195441-Man-charged-for-1M-per-head-cop-killing-Craigslist-ad/?doit=submit&vid=5195441&member_id=&username=&password=forever43&comment= Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grapesmuggler27 Posted March 7, 2012 Report Share Posted March 7, 2012 Wow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jst2fst Posted March 7, 2012 Report Share Posted March 7, 2012 Wow just wow I'll pay one dollar to see his face when the cops come to take him away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sniper_308 Posted March 7, 2012 Report Share Posted March 7, 2012 Classic! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speedytriple Posted March 7, 2012 Report Share Posted March 7, 2012 Someones been watching to many movies.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snot Posted March 7, 2012 Report Share Posted March 7, 2012 Pretty stupid...hopefully they keep him for a while. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
attentiongetter92 Posted March 7, 2012 Report Share Posted March 7, 2012 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redkow97 Posted March 7, 2012 Report Share Posted March 7, 2012 I'm not sure who is dumber; the guy who posted that, or anyone who thinks someone who posted that actually has millions of dollars to pay them. That said, I bet that is the defense's strategy. "your honor, my client was mad about his _________ ticket and posted this without thinking. He was never seriously soliciting anyone to assassinate police officers. The ridiculous bounties are direct evidence that he couldn't have been serious." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kawi kid Posted March 7, 2012 Report Share Posted March 7, 2012 Wow lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jblosser Posted March 7, 2012 Report Share Posted March 7, 2012 ...I'm curious to know if he actually broke any laws' date=' though...[/quote']The "murder-for-hire" statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1958, was enacted as part of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, Pub.L. 98-473, Ch. X, Part A (Oct. 12, 1984). Section 1958(a) provides:Whoever travels in or causes another (including the intended victim) to travel in interstate or foreign commerce, or uses or causes another (including the intended victim) to use the mail or any facility in interstate or foreign commerce, with intent that a murder be committed in violation of the laws of any State or the United States as consideration for the receipt of, or as consideration for a promise or agreement to pay anything of pecuniary value, or who conspires to do so [violates this statute].Full text here (click)I guess teh intarwebz are considered "interstate commerce" ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Posted March 7, 2012 Report Share Posted March 7, 2012 (edited) he should have just used 7 proxies. Edited March 7, 2012 by John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jblosser Posted March 7, 2012 Report Share Posted March 7, 2012 Just use a computer at the library...or a co-loafer's machine... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redkow97 Posted March 8, 2012 Report Share Posted March 8, 2012 Those were my thoughts. He's clearly just blowing off steam and being an adolescent about it. I'm curious to know if he actually broke any laws' date=' though. I know police are special people, just like politicians, so I'm sure he will get pinned with something. Police = Politician. Kind of makes you feel dirty, eh Coppers?[/quote']Politicians are "public figures," which only makes them harder to slander. You can openly criticize them because they've put themselves out there as a public figure.The next step down would be a "limited-purpose public figure" where someone can be attacked on a given issue or controversy where they've injected themselves as an expert or something (like OJ's attorneys could be attacked during and about the trial, but you couldn't just slander them about any old issue)I don't think police would be public figures. YOu can criticize their work as a whole, or one officer's conduct by name, but this is a direct call to violence. The "speaker" is actively attempting to get someone else to act violently, and that will not be protected speech. It's "low value" speech that the Supreme Court won't condone.As noted, the question will be weather or not the "speaker" can be taken seriously. There was a Vietnam era case where some yahoo claimed that if they drafted him, the first person he'd take aim at with his rifle was the President. That was deemed an off-the-cuff overstatement that wasn't meant to be taken seriously. This guy took the time to type out an ad, post it, and left it up for how long?The $1,000,000 bounties are a bit outlandish, but maybe not so crazy that he can't be taken seriously. if he'd said $100,000,000 or $1 billion, then I think he'd be a lot safer.At the very least, this guy is guilty of being stupid, and stupid should have consequences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redkow97 Posted March 8, 2012 Report Share Posted March 8, 2012 In Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 (1969) [66], the Supreme Court sided with an anti-war protester who was being prosecuted for threatening President Lyndon Baines Johnson. The defendant was arrested at an anti-war rally for telling a crowd of demonstrators: “If they ever make me carry a rifle, the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J.” He was convicted under a federal statute that criminalizes any threat to kill or injure the President. Though the Court deemed the statute constitutional on its face, it held that the defendant’s remark was the sort of “political hyperbole” that did not constitute a “true threat.” Id. at 708. Accordingly, it could not be deemed to fall within the statute’s reach and could not be punished under the First Amendment.Not exactly the same scenario, for the reasons I stated above, but this will probably be the loose basis for his defense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.