jetboatdeath
Blue Belt
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 253
- Reaction score
- 9
Protest Obama get a visit from the feds
- Thread starter jetboatdeath
- Start date
Monadnock
2nd Black Belt
"could construe this as a threat against President Obama,"
Yea...like that Chimp cartoon could be too
but it's easier to shout racism...
Yea...like that Chimp cartoon could be too
but it's easier to shout racism...
Gordon Nore
Senior Master
Damn liberal cops.
Lets be blunt, they are going to over react when it comes to Obama's security. I don't agree with alot of whats happening, but I understand the concern, especially given the high number of legit threats being investigated. There are those who would see him dead just because.
Me personally, whether I agree with him or not, I don't wish him any harm.
Me personally, whether I agree with him or not, I don't wish him any harm.
OP
jetboatdeath
Blue Belt
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 253
- Reaction score
- 9
- Thread Starter
- #5
I wish him no harm either. But the man explained what his intent was.
The Secret Service doing a walk of his house, come on thats a tad over the top don't you think?
The Secret Service doing a walk of his house, come on thats a tad over the top don't you think?
Bad guys lie.
Point is, they asked. He could have said no. They would likely have come back with a warrant or cited "National Security" and been a lot less friendly.
The cops who took the guys sign, were wrong.
The SS, I don't see a problem with.
Point is, they asked. He could have said no. They would likely have come back with a warrant or cited "National Security" and been a lot less friendly.
The cops who took the guys sign, were wrong.
The SS, I don't see a problem with.
grydth
Senior Master
This man, after the advice of counsel, consented to the Secret Service going through the house and voluntarily participated in an interview with them. Where's the issue here?
The Oklahoma City Police have admitted their error in seizing the sign. Again, where's the issue?
The Oklahoma City Police have admitted their error in seizing the sign. Again, where's the issue?
Gordon Nore
Senior Master
I agree with you, Bob, about threats to the President. I think this is also pretty much in line with how agencies have to assess threats post 9/11.
The source of the over-reaction -- assuming that Chip Harrison's account of the traffic stop is accurate -- is the police officer himself. Once the Secret Service was contacted, there are no take-backs. I think the traffic stop was wrong, but I have no idea how much pressure LEOs are under in light of the Patriot Act.
The Internal Investigations officer who called Harrison obviously dotted his i's and crossed his t's. Harrison has that right to complain. I bet he can launch a suit and settle before it gets to court -- none of which makes the stop right.
Xue Sheng
All weight is underside
Want to get a visit from the Secret Servive and get on one of those Secret Service lists that make it necessary to know EXACTLY where you are in the event the president is near.
Make a threat, even a veiled or an unintentional one, against the president and this likely goes doubly so for President Obama
.
Make a threat, even a veiled or an unintentional one, against the president and this likely goes doubly so for President Obama
.
OP
jetboatdeath
Blue Belt
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 253
- Reaction score
- 9
- Thread Starter
- #10
I think the fact that after the officer that pulled him over found the intent of the message he still called the Feds. This man is now on a "list" the feds could make him leave his home if Obama ever comes to his home town. The man that was pulled over should have never been pulled over in the first place. The cops admitted this. Even if he was pulled over I am sure the cops ran his name and found him "clean" but that was not good enough for them. I agree bad guys lie and threats on the president need to be taken seriously. But a sign on your car protesting a decision does not in my book constitute a threat.
Now if his sign said "I am off to assassinate the president... please help me pay for the gas" that may be another story but even then I don't think so.
I don't know maybe I am old school and just figure only criminals should be punished.
So are boards like this one going to be watched for any anti-Obama statements and will we MT members get knocks on our doors from sunglassed suits flashing an SS badge/ID ?
I think our freedom of speech should still allow us to critique the current administration as long as there are no overt or subliminal threats against it/him. I mean people bitched and moaned about the past presidents ... are they saying it's wrong to do so now?
If that's the case then we're no longer two steps away from Fascism we're only one step away.
I think our freedom of speech should still allow us to critique the current administration as long as there are no overt or subliminal threats against it/him. I mean people bitched and moaned about the past presidents ... are they saying it's wrong to do so now?
If that's the case then we're no longer two steps away from Fascism we're only one step away.
OP
jetboatdeath
Blue Belt
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 253
- Reaction score
- 9
- Thread Starter
- #12
Yes there was a case of a teen girl putting up a photo of Bush with the caption "kill Bush" she was rolled on by the feds. So it is not just an Obama thing, but as it was said I am sure it will be worse now.
Xue Sheng
All weight is underside
But there is the thing; Making a violent statement in relation to the president WILL bring in the Secret Service.
Saying you think that a president is a jerk, idiot or is only capable of ventose utterances of vacuity or any other non-violent statement will not. Threaten violence and expect them to look for and likely find you.
Yes but that can and was construed as a threat... an open invitation to anyone to do so. Saying "Kill" means you want the man dead. It cannot and should not be viewed in any other way except that... particularly in relation to the president of these United States. It's radically different than say at a High School Football Rally where signs could be posted "Kill Midtown High!" would be seen. These days I don't think they're even allowed to do THAT anymore. "Beat" or "Crush" is alright just not "KILL".
Saying back then Bush is a bad president or is doing a piss-poor job of running this country isn't a threat... it's an observation or an opinion.
Question is if we say the same about Obama are we going to get rolled up?
Deaf Smith
Master of Arts
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2008
- Messages
- 1,722
- Reaction score
- 85
But Bush was threatend all the time. People protested when ever Bush went anywhere. No one ever sent the SS to every protestors house.
This is just the Liberals ideas of free speech. Just like professors on college campuses. It's free only as long as you agree with them.
Deaf
You mean to tell me that you don't get visits from the SS on a regular basis? I thought everyone got those visits.
Like him or not, I will defend this country and all of its citizens from harm. The only exception tot his is if an individual goes against The Constitution or the people of this country.
BEEP! Too late already has happened... a little place down in Cuba? Unwarranted wire-taps, video surveillance?
Yes.
My ex-bf (U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security employee,, active security clearance) and I attended a large, outdoor USDHS event in July 2004. We were sitting close to the events stage. After a few hours I excused myself to go to the ladies room, which involved a bit of a trip. As soon as I left my bf's side he was almost instantly questioned by the Secret Service (part of USDHS) about who he was and why he was their. My BF presented a Massachusetts driver's license, DHS paperwork related to the event and his role there, and his own DHS photo ID yet he was still subject to a significant degree of intrusion. The Secret Service offered no reason for doing yet commented repeatedly on his turban and asking multiple questions about his appearance and ethnicity.
Neither one of us is anyone with an unsupportive attitude towards law enforcement but as far as we could tell, he fell under suspicion because the DNC was holding their convention in Boston that year, the Secret Service already had a significant presence, and my then-bf had brown skin, a turban and full beard. Neither one of us were talking politics or controversial statements...we weren't really deep in conversation other than some lighthearted chit-chat. We had spent a good part of the day in the July sun and we were a bit tired from the exposure.
We aren't the only ones that had that experience, a more public encounter was had by a Boston College senior a few weeks prior:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2004/07/30/sikh_student_detained_by_secret_service/
"I don't want you pulling an Uzi out of your turban" This is an elite LE agency?
The U.S. Secret Service can be more than a tad bit over the top, and at least in 2004 they were not the most enlightened lot.
I may be weird, but I can actually see some irony in this situation.
The crust of the biscuit is whether or not the verbiage constitutes a 'threat', which is not protected speech.
The key to the sentence is the word 'abort'.
Funny thing is, conservatives tend to view 'abortion' as murder (if they are pro-life, which many are).
Liberals tend to view 'abortion' as removal of something unwanted (if they are pro-choice, which many are).
So one would think that a liberal administration would read the sign to say "Remove Obama, not the Unborn."
And yet, it seems some read it as "Murder Obama, not the unborn."
A tacit admission that abortion is murder by people who would otherwise not make such a statement?
And by the same token, the guy who made the sign is obviously pro-life - and feels that abortion is the same as murder. So arguing that when he used the word 'abort' with reference to the President, he didn't mean 'murder', but 'remove from office', seems a little weak.
Anyway...
The sign, IMHO, was borderline. The officer was right to pull traffic on the guy if he felt it constituted a threat. If he did not have cause to arrest the driver, however, he should not have confiscated his sign. That was a mistake. The rest was pretty much by-the-book, and to be expected as a logical course of events.
The guy with the sign did nothing wrong, but it was a rather poor choice of words for someone who feels - as he clearly does - that abortion is murder.
The crust of the biscuit is whether or not the verbiage constitutes a 'threat', which is not protected speech.
The key to the sentence is the word 'abort'.
Funny thing is, conservatives tend to view 'abortion' as murder (if they are pro-life, which many are).
Liberals tend to view 'abortion' as removal of something unwanted (if they are pro-choice, which many are).
So one would think that a liberal administration would read the sign to say "Remove Obama, not the Unborn."
And yet, it seems some read it as "Murder Obama, not the unborn."
A tacit admission that abortion is murder by people who would otherwise not make such a statement?
And by the same token, the guy who made the sign is obviously pro-life - and feels that abortion is the same as murder. So arguing that when he used the word 'abort' with reference to the President, he didn't mean 'murder', but 'remove from office', seems a little weak.
Anyway...
The sign, IMHO, was borderline. The officer was right to pull traffic on the guy if he felt it constituted a threat. If he did not have cause to arrest the driver, however, he should not have confiscated his sign. That was a mistake. The rest was pretty much by-the-book, and to be expected as a logical course of events.
The guy with the sign did nothing wrong, but it was a rather poor choice of words for someone who feels - as he clearly does - that abortion is murder.
Folks, at the risk of someone telling me I'm wearing tinfoil on my head again, let me assure you that the boys in DC are aware of our existence, and regular visitors. There's enough .gov's showing up in our logs to let me know that they are monitoring web boards like MT. It's the ones that aren't obvious that might be of more interest. Kinda like, don't worry about those 2 uniforms in the black and white. Worry about those 2 homeboys in the rusty bronco. You all are aware that we have a high LEO level here. While most of em are here socially, a few are most likely not. That's their jobs, looking for problems, ie threats to national security. They will also over react, disturb alot of innocents, and so on, because they are protecting people with giant bullseyes on them. Like I said, I understand it, even when I don't agree with the methods sometimes.
