It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"It's going to be another Sandy Hook." - Man gets 41 Months in Prison For Threats.

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 05:57 PM
link   

MysterX
He threatened to kill, actually threatened mass murder.

OK, maybe he didn't really mean it who knows, but he made the threats..now he'll have plenty of time to regret it.



People make threats everyday. You only hear about them because someone actually believed it. When was the last headline "Man made threat and proceeded to…"

Threats and action are two separate things. While I believe where mental health issues are prevalent, long time threats may develop into something if certain conditions are met. I'm under the impression that people who make threats simply do because they lack better negotiation and social skills.




posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 06:33 PM
link   
I think the threat of terrorism, is terrorism. If the threat is believed, then it puts into motion all of the machinery necessary to combat it. This can also put members of the public at risk as well. So, by making the threat, this man waisted emergency and specialised resources which could be better put elsewhere, perhaps creating an even greater vulnerability for a real terrorist action, in addition to potentially placing members of the public at risk.

Personally, in this instance, I think he got off lightly



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 06:37 PM
link   

boncho
A threat is a threat is a threat.

I thought that was a slap on the wrist kind of thing (still taken seriously though).

And shouldn't a mental health component be added to that?



Yepp....

And the person who made the threat should end up on some SERIOUS watch lists for a period of time....just to make sure...

But 41 months....we're seeing thought-crime in action.....

And I love the addition of "and some of his statements were racial slurs...".....as in, in comparison, that freaking matter at all...



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 07:19 PM
link   
Let me ask the ATS members another question.

If this were anyone of us, and someone called us up and made threats like this, we legally recorded the conversation, would the perpetrator get 41 months of Jail?


I believe since it was a large corporation and he made death threats against multiple people, that he sunk his own ship. And that resulted in the harsh sentence he received.


It goes to show that in the heat of the moment, a slip of the tongue can be very costly.



RT
edit on 15-1-2014 by Realtruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 07:30 PM
link   

thisguyrighthere
So here we have some guy who's hot enough and unstable enough to threaten mass murder.

It's important here to note that the target of his rage is a big bureaucracy. Namely corporate customer service.

Now we take this angry and unstable man, who is angry at a bureaucracy, and lock him up with murderers and rapists and theives for about four years.

He's supposed to come out what exactly? Calm? Rehabilitated? Pleasant? Respectful?

This is like when I was in high school and some kid would threaten to "beat me up" for calling him an asshole. My response was always "and that proves you're not an asshole how exactly?"

I know everybody feels like they have to do "something" whatever that "something" is no matter how futile or even harmful that "something" may be but what exactly is the point of this punishment here? What does it hope to achieve?

Because nobody has ever come out of prison pissed off and out for revenge, right?


Star for you, I hadn't even thought about that angle. The man's mental state is already in question, incarceration is not going to make him 'better.'



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Realtruth
 


Pretty sure they would get a 'stern talking to,' and it would have been over at that point. But since it's a bizznizz... *le sigh*



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 07:41 PM
link   
I'd say the punishment was just. A threat is a crime and sometimes we forget that it seems. These threats were particularly horrible and to be honest, the punishment could have been worse.

As to the mental state, if a person knows what they are doing is wrong it does not matter and they are still a danger to society.

Assault is just the threat and it seems often people don't realize that. Assault is a threat to do harm and the ability to do so. It is a Felony in many circumstances for a reason. Anyone who thinks they can threaten to kill people and get away with it are dangerous enough to be punished IMO. When they get away with it, it seems to me they are far more likely to eventually act on it.



for them locking this fellow up.



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 08:27 PM
link   
I may disagree with some here, but I think this kind of sentence for a verbal utterance is patently absurd!

Now, should someone do some time for threats of major injury or death, delivered in a meaningful way? Depends... They DO need talked to. They absolutely need screened by someone experienced in mental health interventions or the like ...and maybe, if people were really (HONESTLY ..not just "Yeah..he scared me! get him!") scared..then a few months in a county jail probably works too. Almost 4 years in federal lock-up? ...and he'll come out a convicted felon with significant time served.... So good luck with getting anything particularly attractive for work any time soon after, if ever again. For what? Oh.. yeah.. he got stupid and made some very dumb statements.

...Question?

When was the last spree killer or mass shooter that made obvious and specific threats to the target in advance? Serious ones seem to understand...silence is golden..and it's the quiet ones that go cold you need to be concerned with. Not the hot heads more likely to have a stroke on the phone than carry through on the threat.

That's my view.
edit on 15-1-2014 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by spacedog1973
 





I think the threat of terrorism, is terrorism.


He threatened to shoot somebody in the face, that's no terrorism, that's murder. He threatened it would be another Sandy Hook, maybe he meant he was going to be conducting an active shooter drill in their corporate office or maybe he meant he was going shoot more than one person in a fit of rage, that is also not terrorism, that is multiple counts of first degree murder.

Terrorism isn't what everyone on TV tells you it is.



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Helious
reply to post by spacedog1973
 





I think the threat of terrorism, is terrorism.


He threatened to shoot somebody in the face, that's no terrorism, that's murder. He threatened it would be another Sandy Hook, maybe he meant he was going to be conducting an active shooter drill in their corporate office or maybe he meant he was going shoot more than one person in a fit of rage, that is also not terrorism, that is multiple counts of first degree murder.

Terrorism isn't what everyone on TV tells you it is.


Well, if he is saying 'its going to be another Sandy Hook', then to me, what he is threatening is more than one shooting. The threat it made toward random people, its a threat intended to cause widespread fear. Thats terrorism.

If police take his threat seriously, based upon the quote, they will see it as a terrorist threat and act accordingly. Terrorism is terror, to cause terror through the spread of fear. Whether the end of that terrorism is a charge of murder or multiple murders is immaterial.



Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics: Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population


Thats not from TV, but from the FBI site. One of the definitions.

FBI Terrorism definition
edit on 15-1-2014 by spacedog1973 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by spacedog1973
 


He had a billing problem with a utility company....How was he trying to spread widespread fear? He was angry and unfortunately expressed it in the worst possible way. An extreme version of i'm so hungry I can eat a horse.
Yes he did something he should not have and may have legitimately scared the person he was on the phone with. But that is not terrorism and he should not be branded as such.

That word wasn't tossed around so much till 19 of them ran two planes into some buildings.. Is this on the same level as that? That is terrorism........ planned or not



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by spacedog1973
 





Well, if he is saying 'its going to be another Sandy Hook', then to me, what he is threatening is more than one shooting. The threat it made toward random people, its a threat intended to cause widespread fear. Thats terrorism.

If police take his threat seriously, based upon the quote, they will see it as a terrorist threat and act accordingly. Terrorism is terror, to cause terror through the spread of fear. Whether the end of that terrorism is a charge of murder or multiple murders is immaterial.


It wasn't a threat made to cause "widespread fear" he was talking to one person, not posting it on Facebook or Twitter. Domestic terrorism isn't statistically real in the United States, it is just portrayed to be by an ever increasing fascist government to increase fear based control through subtle manipulation on the citizenry which in some cases...... Looks like it's working.

Crime is crime, crime doesn't turn into terrorism because the DHS, NSA or Obama says so.



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Realtruth
reply to post by Liquesence
 


You are correct in your assessment and I was hoping someone with legal case history would weigh in.

Now I will add some interesting information to the topic.

Dearborn, Michigan has the highest Arabic population in the USA, so are they possibly profiling him as a potential terrorist due to his ethnic background?


i notice the article refers to him as mustafa, instead of Sami
very carefully picked the islamist sounding part of his name



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Helious

Crime is crime, crime doesn't turn into terrorism because the DHS, NSA or Obama says so.


The terrorism definitions are a catch-all, they are designed specifically for that purpose; to be stretched to where they can be applied where necessary. Identical acts can have different names for their crimes. It depends on how the government sees it or chooses to prosecute it.

In this climate, acts such as these can very easily be labelled terrorism. Its a hard/sad fact that people have been prosecuted under terrorism laws for far less. Thats whether we like it or not. Its the times we live in.



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 09:09 PM
link   

spacedog1973

Helious

Crime is crime, crime doesn't turn into terrorism because the DHS, NSA or Obama says so.


The terrorism definitions are a catch-all, they are designed specifically for that purpose; to be stretched to where they can be applied where necessary. Identical acts can have different names for their crimes. It depends on how the government sees it or chooses to prosecute it.

In this climate, acts such as these can very easily be labelled terrorism. Its a hard/sad fact that people have been prosecuted under terrorism laws for far less. Thats whether we like it or not. Its the times we live in.


So are you for or against this catch-all terrorism definition? Any one that seems crazy just label them a terrorist and we will pick and choose who gets the label taken off? Seems fair, and no an act like this should NOT be easily labelled as terrorism. And all this case would do is add to your "hard/sad" fact that people are unjustly branded as terrorist.



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by spacedog1973
 





In this climate, acts such as these can very easily be labelled terrorism. Its a hard/sad fact that people have been prosecuted under terrorism laws for far less. Thats whether we like it or not. Its the times we live in.


Spot on my man bravo! Lets just go ahead and call a spade a spade though, "In this climate" loosely translates into this unprecedented descent of America into a totalitarian police state who is adopting fascism as it's mantra at an alarming rate.


edit on 15-1-2014 by Helious because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Helious
reply to post by spacedog1973
 





I think the threat of terrorism, is terrorism.


He threatened to shoot somebody in the face, that's no terrorism, that's murder. He threatened it would be another Sandy Hook, maybe he meant he was going to be conducting an active shooter drill in their corporate office or maybe he meant he was going shoot more than one person in a fit of rage, that is also not terrorism, that is multiple counts of first degree murder.

Terrorism isn't what everyone on TV tells you it is.


No, he didn't threaten to shoot anyone in the face.

Read what he said.

“Do you want to get shot in the face over a couple of dollars,”
That's not a threat. If he had said been standing there holding a gun to said person's face, or had he said over the phone, "I'm going to shoot you in the face," THAT would be a threat,

ETA: Even saying "It's going to be another sandy hook" is not specific enough to warrant a threat. See case law
edit on 15-1-2014 by Liquesence because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Realtruth
 


You know not long ago I was arguing with someone in a thread telling them you can be thrown in jail for making threats.

I cant remember who it was or if they are even on ATS anymore.

But if they are....


I told you so.



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Liquesence
 


I get where your coming from and trust me, I sympathize. In my own opinion, I find the comments made to be criminal in some sense in that I do think a crime was committed. A misdemeanor maybe? There is no bigger freedom of speech activist than myself but that was a very poor choice of words on what was most likely a recorded conversation.

Terrorism? No. Felony? No. Years in prison? For Gods sake, no. A crime? In my opinion yes, a low level one that would seem to demand some anger management and probation / community service at worse.



posted on Jan, 15 2014 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ScientiaFortisDefendit
 

Thats the bizarreness (is bizarreness a word?) of today's culture.

There was a time when people could be heard saying "I could kill him, her, them, he, she it" etc., and it was no big deal.

Today, its a "threat".

In .001% of cases, the person uttering these words followed through. So now we arrest everyone who says it?

Its like stripping people of gun rights because .001% of "legal" gun owners misused a firearm.

Seems to me that its just another excuse to incarcerate people in the for-profit prison system aka the Police State Industrial Complex.

As soon as you're convicted of any type of felony, you lose a LOT of rights.


edit on 15-1-2014 by gladtobehere because: wording



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join