UFC fighter gets visit from Secret Service!

reply to post by SlovenlyGhost


BUT!!!! There was NO threat made. That is the point. He said "he'd like to fight Obama" not that he was going to attack him. And he said "someone should knock some sense into him".

Sawani asked who Volkmann wanted to fight next. He answered. He then went on to vent on why. It is a complaint not a threat.

BUT!!! there was no legal action the secret service talked to him. He was not hauled off in the middle of the night by the CIA nor was he imprisoned in a FEMA camp. He was not even given a 5 dollar fine. They just talked to him.

No harm no foul

So it's not that bad.

Originally posted by gnosis111
reply to post by SlovenlyGhost

 

BUT!!!! There was NO threat made. That is the point. He said "he'd like to fight Obama" not that he was going to attack him. And he said "someone should knock some sense into him".

Sawani asked who Volkmann wanted to fight next. He answered. He then went on to vent on why. It is a complaint not a threat.

Not only was it not a threat, but the context was who he wanted to fight next. That is pretty key considering this is a professional fighter. So in the context in which he answered the question, the assumption is naturally he wants to fight Obama in a professional fight. Now professional fights are regulated heavily. This is no threat. It is the same thing if an interviewer were to ask Kobe Bryant who he would like to play next, Kobe being a basketball star, and he were to say Obama.

To answer a previous poster who wanted to know where in the constitution it says police and secret service can not question the citizens, the standard is you must be suspected of wrong doing. There is nothing to suspect here. The context in which he says he would like to fight Obama is very very clear. So there is no suspicion of a threat. Sorry, but your argument holds no water. Plus, what about the freedom of speech? The constitution is very clear on this issue. When one remembers that the Freedom of Speech of meant to protect unpopular speech, such as disagreeing or complaining about your Government or elected Officials, the problem here is quite clear.

Originally posted by Kayzar
BUT!!! there was no legal action the secret service talked to him. He was not hauled off in the middle of the night by the CIA nor was he imprisoned in a FEMA camp. He was not even given a 5 dollar fine. They just talked to him.

When being "talked to" by the secret service, it is not a "conversation" as you and I would have. It is an interrogation to determine how much of a threat you are. That is a huge difference. Again, I also want to point out the financial aspect as well. Your tax dollars paid for this trip to the midwest to find out how much of a threat this man is to the President. I can already tell you how much of a threat he is, without spending a dime, by watching the interview he gave.

This is just the way of the world. Any threat against a sitting or former POTUS is registered and investigated, no matter how mundane.

In fact, just a supportive statement in this thread, theoretically, might invoke some level of scrutiny. Most people who incur this scrutiny are never aware of it until such a time as a POTUS visits their town. And even then they may not realize that they are being watched or monitored.

~Heff

reply to post by Hefficide


This whole site is watched and monitored simply for dissenting opinions. I have no doubt that I am already on a list some where and I would expect a visit if the President ever came to my town. That does not make it right.

Oh? THAT'S the way it works. Man, all this time I thought the way IT worked in this country was by the rule of the constitution. Which expresses we have the right to freedom of speech. But thanks for setting me straight.

Just to add, here is an interview with Volkmann after the incident. www.sherdog.com...

So........I guess it is just an SOP type of procedure. The officer went on to say that he was embarrassed he even had to come out to investigate the incident. But I still believe I am only half wrong! It is still ridiculous that they even visited this man.



And it appears citizens prompted the investigation. So if you learn anything, know that your neighbors are always there to turn you in. Seig Heil!

reply to post by gnosis111

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 41 > § 871
Prev | Next
§ 871. Threats against President and successors to the Presidency

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

Source
Additional information
More Additional Information

These laws have been around for a very long time. They are nothing new. Claiming blind allegiance to the First Amendment is an overly simple interpretation. There are, and always have been, exclusions to it.

Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and by many state constitutions and state and federal laws. Criticism of the government and advocacy of unpopular ideas that people may find distasteful or against public policy, such as racism, sexism, and other hate speech are generally permitted. There are exceptions to these general protection, including the Miller test for obscenity, child pornography laws, speech that incites imminent danger, and regulation of commercial speech such as advertising. Within these limited areas, other limitations on free speech balance rights to free speech and other rights, such as rights for authors and inventors over their works and discoveries (copyright and patent), interests in "fair" political campaigns (Campaign finance laws), protection from imminent or potential violence against particular persons (restrictions on fighting words), or the use of untruths to harm others (slander). Distinctions are often made between speech and other acts which may have symbolic significance.

Source

Armchair Constitutionalists tend to lack an understanding that the Constitution of the United States is a living and evolving document. This is why we have the ability to amend as well as a penal and criminal code.

~Heff

reply to post by Hefficide

potential violence against particular persons (restrictions on fighting words), or the use of untruths to harm others (slander). Distinctions are often made between speech and other acts which may have symbolic significance.

Hmmmm....