FBI Snitch/Internet/Radio Shock Jock Convicted of Threatening Federal Judges w/ Blog Post
 

The government tightens it's grip around the throat of those who dare
question their agents actions.


A Brooklyn jury took less than two hours Friday to convict right-wing
loudmouth Harold (Hal) Turner of threatening to kill three Chicago
judges.
Turner's mom and teenage son gasped and sobbed as the jury found the
Internet shock jock guilty of a single charge of threatening to murder
the judges - a charge that carries up to 10 years in prison.
An ashen-faced Turner stripped off his tie and belt and handed his
wallet to a clerk before he was led out of the courtroom in downtown
Brooklyn.
"I love you, dad," his son, Michael Turner, 16, said after the verdict
was read.
Relatives of Turner angrily denounced the lightning-quick verdict,
which came on the fourth day of his second retrial.
Two previous trials ended in mistrials after jurors were unable to
agree on a verdict.
"There goes the First Amendment for everyone," said Kathy Diamond,
Turner's mother. "These judges, their job is to protect the
Constitution, not shred it.
She hugged her grandson who also insisted his father did nothing wrong.
"It's totally wrong," Michael Turner. "It's (his) opinion not a threat."
Jurors rushed out of the Brooklyn Heights courtroom without speaking to
reporters. No date was set for sentencing.
Prosecutors say the former radio host threatened federal judges Richard
Posner, William Bauer and Frank Easterbrook after they upheld Chicago's
ban on handguns.
"Let me be the first to say this plainly: these judges deserve to be
killed," Turner posted on his website in June 2009.
Turner, 48, of North Bergen, N.J., also posted the judges' phone
numbers and office addresses, federal prosecutor Diane MacArthur told
the jury.
The first two trials for Turner ended in deadlocked juries. The case
was heard in Brooklyn so Turner would not be on trial in the judges'
own courthouse.


Read mo
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_c...8-13_conservat
ive_internet_shock_jock_harold_hal_turner_convicte d_of_threatening_to_k.
html#ixzz0wn9QqZjO

--
Best Regards, Keith
http://home.comcast.net/~kilowattradio/
Tired of Google Groups? Free Usenet Access & Programs
http://home.comcast.net/~kilowattradio/usenet.html

FBI Snitch/Internet/Radio Shock Jock Convicted of ThreateningFederal Judges w/ Blog Post
 

On Aug 16, 1:43*pm, Keith wrote:


[...]


"Let me be the first to say this plainly: these judges deserve to be
killed," Turner posted on his website in June 2009.



I dunno, that sounds like merely an opinion to me. He never personally
threatened to kill the judges. But then again I guess when the
government considers itself to be a god, it can railroad anyone who
doesn't bow down before it.

FBI Snitch/Internet/Radio Shock Jock Convicted of Threatening Federal Judges w/ Blog Post
 

FBI Snitch/Internet/Radio Shock Jock Convicted of ThreateningFederal Judges w/ Blog Post
 

Keith wrote:
The government tightens it's grip around the throat of those who dare
question their agents actions.


A Brooklyn jury took less than two hours Friday to convict right-wing
loudmouth Harold (Hal) Turner of threatening to kill three Chicago
judges.
xxxx
Sounds like this moron got what he deserves.

FBI Snitch/Internet/Radio Shock Jock Convicted of ThreateningFederal Judges w/ Blog Post
 

On 8/16/10 14:08 , SMITH29 wrote:
Keith wrote:
The government tightens it's grip around the throat of those who dare
question their agents actions.

A Brooklyn jury took less than two hours Friday to convict right-wing
loudmouth Harold (Hal) Turner of threatening to kill three Chicago
judges.
xxxx
Sounds like this moron got what he deserves.



Be that as it may, when the government goes after an outspoken
critic with criminal charges, it should give all of us the willies.

And reason to look more closely at what actually took place.

FBI Snitch/Internet/Radio Shock Jock Convicted of ThreateningFederal Judges w/ Blog Post
 

D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 8/16/10 14:08 , SMITH29 wrote:
Keith wrote:
The government tightens it's grip around the throat of those who dare
question their agents actions.

A Brooklyn jury took less than two hours Friday to convict right-wing
loudmouth Harold (Hal) Turner of threatening to kill three Chicago

judges.
xxxx
Sounds like this moron got what he deserves.



Be that as it may, when the government goes after an outspoken critic
with criminal charges, it should give all of us the willies.

And reason to look more closely at what actually took place.

xxxx
What gives me the willies is someone with a microphone advocating
bloodshed concerning gun laws.
NO Second Amendment advocate wants to hear or read this kind of language.

"Let me be the first to say this plainly: these judges deserve to be
killed,"

He was WAYYYY out of bounds and he has to take responsibility for
broadcasting that about principals of the court.

FBI Snitch/Internet/Radio Shock Jock Convicted of ThreateningFederal Judges w/ Blog Post
 

On Aug 16, 2:59*pm, (Drooling Idiot) wrote:
wrote:
The government tightens it's grip around the throat of those who dare
question their agents actions.

"There goes the First Amendment for everyone," said Kathy Diamond,
Turner's mother.

I mean, if you can't threaten to kill a federal judge, who can you make
death threats to? *Next they'll be telling us we can't threaten to rape our
girlfriends or blow up a building!! *Why the hell can't I threaten to kill
a federal official? *I pay their salary, doesn't that mean that I own them
and can end their lives or make their lives a living hell???

Sarcasm off


But he didn't threaten to kill them. He merely stated his opinion that
they should be killed for their unconstitutional ruling. He never
stated or implied that he himself wanted, or would even try, to kill
them. A big difference IMO.

FBI Snitch/Internet/Radio Shock Jock Convicted of Threatening...
 

We Have Met The Enemy And He Is Us ~ Pogo Possum.
cuhulin

FBI Snitch/Internet/Radio Shock Jock Convicted of ThreateningFederal Judges w/ Blog Post
 

On Aug 16, 3:37*pm, "D. Peter Maus" wrote:
On 8/16/10 14:08 , SMITH29 wrote:

Keith wrote:
The government tightens it's grip around the throat of those who dare
question their agents actions.

A Brooklyn jury took less than two hours Friday to convict right-wing
loudmouth Harold (Hal) Turner of threatening to kill three Chicago
judges.
xxxx
Sounds like this moron got what he deserves.

* *Be that as it may, when the government goes after an outspoken
critic with criminal charges, it should give all of us the willies.

* *And reason to look more closely at what actually took place.


Apparently Turner was an FBI informant trying to flush out anti-
government types with his inflammatory rhetoric. I wonder why they
REALLY threw one of their own overboard?

FBI Snitch/Internet/Radio Shock Jock Convicted of ThreateningFederal Judges w/ Blog Post
 

DEFCON 88 wrote:
On Aug 16, 2:59 pm, (Drooling Idiot) wrote:
wrote:
The government tightens it's grip around the throat of those who dare
question their agents actions.
"There goes the First Amendment for everyone," said Kathy Diamond,
Turner's mother.
I mean, if you can't threaten to kill a federal judge, who can you make
death threats to? Next they'll be telling us we can't threaten to rape our
girlfriends or blow up a building!! Why the hell can't I threaten to kill
a federal official? I pay their salary, doesn't that mean that I own them
and can end their lives or make their lives a living hell???

Sarcasm off


But he didn't threaten to kill them. He merely stated his opinion that
they should be killed for their unconstitutional ruling. He never
stated or implied that he himself wanted, or would even try, to kill
them. A big difference IMO.

xxxx
To say they " deserve to be killed " over a ruling is to go off the end
of reasonable speech. And Federal Judges no less?
He advocated an act of violence against three officers of the court.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/advocate
Sorry, I see jail time for this blabber mouth.

FBI Snitch/Internet/Radio Shock Jock Convicted of ThreateningFederal Judges w/ Blog Post
 

On 8/16/10 15:02 , SMITH29 wrote:
D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 8/16/10 14:08 , SMITH29 wrote:
Keith wrote:
The government tightens it's grip around the throat of those who dare
question their agents actions.

A Brooklyn jury took less than two hours Friday to convict right-wing
loudmouth Harold (Hal) Turner of threatening to kill three Chicago

judges.
xxxx
Sounds like this moron got what he deserves.



Be that as it may, when the government goes after an outspoken critic
with criminal charges, it should give all of us the willies.

And reason to look more closely at what actually took place.

xxxx
What gives me the willies is someone with a microphone advocating
bloodshed concerning gun laws.
NO Second Amendment advocate wants to hear or read this kind of language.

"Let me be the first to say this plainly: these judges deserve to be
killed,"

He was WAYYYY out of bounds and he has to take responsibility for
broadcasting that about principals of the court.


Not disputing that he was way out of bounds. Nor that he did not
represent the Second Amendment in the spirit in which it was intended.

The point is that the government went after him, a loud and
outspoken critic of the government, with criminal charges.

That's a very troubling situation, and close scrutiny is not only
warranted, but required.

Further, the issue of his FBI involvement raises deeply
concerning questions about the very nature of the case, and the
actions of the government in not only this pursuit, but in his
actions that brought this pursuit in the first place.

Make no mistake. I'm no fan of Turner. And have told him directly
a number of times.

But I get shivers when I read about this pillory, the very loud
and public government action against him while using him for their
covert surveillance, and the nature of the publicity that surrounds
him.

Eternal vigilance, here. When the government goes after its
critics, nothing is as it seems.

FBI Snitch/Internet/Radio Shock Jock Convicted of ThreateningFederal Judges w/ Blog Post
 

On 8/16/10 15:08 , DEFCON 88 wrote:
On Aug 16, 3:37 pm, "D. Peter wrote:
On 8/16/10 14:08 , SMITH29 wrote:

Keith wrote:
The government tightens it's grip around the throat of those who dare
question their agents actions.

A Brooklyn jury took less than two hours Friday to convict right-wing
loudmouth Harold (Hal) Turner of threatening to kill three Chicago
judges.
xxxx
Sounds like this moron got what he deserves.

Be that as it may, when the government goes after an outspoken
critic with criminal charges, it should give all of us the willies.

And reason to look more closely at what actually took place.


Apparently Turner was an FBI informant trying to flush out anti-
government types with his inflammatory rhetoric. I wonder why they
REALLY threw one of their own overboard?



That's the question, isn't it.

Eternal vigilance.

FBI Snitch/Internet/Radio Shock Jock Convicted of ThreateningFederal Judges w/ Blog Post
 

On 8/16/10 15:10 , SMITH29 wrote:
DEFCON 88 wrote:
On Aug 16, 2:59 pm, (Drooling Idiot) wrote:
wrote:
The government tightens it's grip around the throat of those who dare
question their agents actions.
"There goes the First Amendment for everyone," said Kathy Diamond,
Turner's mother.
I mean, if you can't threaten to kill a federal judge, who can you make
death threats to? Next they'll be telling us we can't threaten to
rape our
girlfriends or blow up a building!! Why the hell can't I threaten to
kill
a federal official? I pay their salary, doesn't that mean that I own
them
and can end their lives or make their lives a living hell???

Sarcasm off


But he didn't threaten to kill them. He merely stated his opinion that
they should be killed for their unconstitutional ruling. He never
stated or implied that he himself wanted, or would even try, to kill
them. A big difference IMO.

xxxx
To say they " deserve to be killed " over a ruling is to go off the end
of reasonable speech. And Federal Judges no less?
He advocated an act of violence against three officers of the court.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/advocate
Sorry, I see jail time for this blabber mouth.



And just who gets to define the term 'reasonable.'

FBI Snitch/Internet/Radio Shock Jock Convicted of ThreateningFederal Judges w/ Blog Post
 

On Aug 16, 4:15*pm, "D. Peter Maus" wrote:
On 8/16/10 15:08 , DEFCON 88 wrote:





On Aug 16, 3:37 pm, "D. Peter *wrote:
On 8/16/10 14:08 , SMITH29 wrote:

Keith wrote:
The government tightens it's grip around the throat of those who dare
question their agents actions.

A Brooklyn jury took less than two hours Friday to convict right-wing
loudmouth Harold (Hal) Turner of threatening to kill three Chicago
judges.
xxxx
Sounds like this moron got what he deserves.

* * Be that as it may, when the government goes after an outspoken
critic with criminal charges, it should give all of us the willies.

* * And reason to look more closely at what actually took place.

Apparently Turner was an FBI informant trying to flush out anti-
government types with his inflammatory rhetoric. I wonder why they
REALLY threw one of their own overboard?

* *That's the question, isn't it.

* *Eternal vigilance


Maybe he knew too much about the Communist coup of our government?

FBI Snitch/Internet/Radio Shock Jock Convicted of ThreateningFederal Judges w/ Blog Post
 

D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 8/16/10 15:02 , SMITH29 wrote:
D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 8/16/10 14:08 , SMITH29 wrote:
Keith wrote:
The government tightens it's grip around the throat of those who dare
question their agents actions.

A Brooklyn jury took less than two hours Friday to convict right-wing
loudmouth Harold (Hal) Turner of threatening to kill three Chicago

judges.
xxxx
Sounds like this moron got what he deserves.



Be that as it may, when the government goes after an outspoken critic
with criminal charges, it should give all of us the willies.

And reason to look more closely at what actually took place.

xxxx
What gives me the willies is someone with a microphone advocating
bloodshed concerning gun laws.
NO Second Amendment advocate wants to hear or read this kind of language.

"Let me be the first to say this plainly: these judges deserve to be
killed,"

He was WAYYYY out of bounds and he has to take responsibility for
broadcasting that about principals of the court.


Not disputing that he was way out of bounds. Nor that he did not
represent the Second Amendment in the spirit in which it was intended.

The point is that the government went after him, a loud and outspoken
critic of the government, with criminal charges.

That's a very troubling situation, and close scrutiny is not only

warranted, but required.

Further, the issue of his FBI involvement raises deeply concerning
questions about the very nature of the case, and the actions of the
government in not only this pursuit, but in his actions that brought
this pursuit in the first place.

Make no mistake. I'm no fan of Turner. And have told him directly a
number of times.

But I get shivers when I read about this pillory, the very loud and
public government action against him while using him for their covert
surveillance, and the nature of the publicity that surrounds him.

Eternal vigilance, here. When the government goes after its critics,
nothing is as it seems.

xxxx
Sounds like he had become a loose cannon on the deck of the good ship
" Whistle Blow "

FBI Snitch/Internet/Radio Shock Jock Convicted of ThreateningFederal Judges w/ Blog Post
 

On 8/16/10 15:21 , DEFCON 88 wrote:
On Aug 16, 4:15 pm, "D. Peter wrote:
On 8/16/10 15:08 , DEFCON 88 wrote:





On Aug 16, 3:37 pm, "D. Peter wrote:
On 8/16/10 14:08 , SMITH29 wrote:

Keith wrote:
The government tightens it's grip around the throat of those who dare
question their agents actions.

A Brooklyn jury took less than two hours Friday to convict right-wing
loudmouth Harold (Hal) Turner of threatening to kill three Chicago
judges.
xxxx
Sounds like this moron got what he deserves.

Be that as it may, when the government goes after an outspoken
critic with criminal charges, it should give all of us the willies.

And reason to look more closely at what actually took place.

Apparently Turner was an FBI informant trying to flush out anti-
government types with his inflammatory rhetoric. I wonder why they
REALLY threw one of their own overboard?

That's the question, isn't it.

Eternal vigilance


Maybe he knew too much about the Communist coup of our government?


I doubt that. I doubt that he knew his ass from his appetite. But
your question still stands.

What really happened here.

I'd also be interested in knowing who issued the burn notice.

FBI Snitch/Internet/Radio Shock Jock Convicted of ThreateningFederal Judges w/ Blog Post
 

D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 8/16/10 15:10 , SMITH29 wrote:
DEFCON 88 wrote:
On Aug 16, 2:59 pm, (Drooling Idiot) wrote:
wrote:
The government tightens it's grip around the throat of those who dare
question their agents actions.
"There goes the First Amendment for everyone," said Kathy Diamond,
Turner's mother.
I mean, if you can't threaten to kill a federal judge, who can you make
death threats to? Next they'll be telling us we can't threaten to
rape our
girlfriends or blow up a building!! Why the hell can't I threaten to
kill
a federal official? I pay their salary, doesn't that mean that I own
them
and can end their lives or make their lives a living hell???

Sarcasm off


But he didn't threaten to kill them. He merely stated his opinion that
they should be killed for their unconstitutional ruling. He never
stated or implied that he himself wanted, or would even try, to kill
them. A big difference IMO.

xxxx
To say they " deserve to be killed " over a ruling is to go off the end
of reasonable speech. And Federal Judges no less?
He advocated an act of violence against three officers of the court.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/advocate
Sorry, I see jail time for this blabber mouth.



And just who gets to define the term 'reasonable.'

xxxx
And just who gets to decide who can decide who gets to make the
definition? This can go on and on and on to infinity.

In this case I decided I felt it was beyond reasonable speech and was an
advocation for violence against officers of the court.
You are supposed to say " Yes your honor and no your honor " and treat
them with respect to the court. Going beyond that protocol can be
hazardous to your freedom and your bank account.
It's basically just plain old common sense.

FBI Snitch/Internet/Radio Shock Jock Convicted of ThreateningFederal Judges w/ Blog Post
 

DEFCON 88 wrote:
On Aug 16, 4:15 pm, "D. Peter Maus" wrote:
On 8/16/10 15:08 , DEFCON 88 wrote:





On Aug 16, 3:37 pm, "D. Peter wrote:
On 8/16/10 14:08 , SMITH29 wrote:
Keith wrote:
The government tightens it's grip around the throat of those who dare
question their agents actions.
A Brooklyn jury took less than two hours Friday to convict right-wing
loudmouth Harold (Hal) Turner of threatening to kill three Chicago
judges.
xxxx
Sounds like this moron got what he deserves.
Be that as it may, when the government goes after an outspoken
critic with criminal charges, it should give all of us the willies.
And reason to look more closely at what actually took place.
Apparently Turner was an FBI informant trying to flush out anti-
government types with his inflammatory rhetoric. I wonder why they
REALLY threw one of their own overboard?
That's the question, isn't it.

Eternal vigilance


Maybe he knew too much about the Communist coup of our government?

xxxx
Used to the drift would be to Hitler. ( Goodwin )
Now I see a trend towards reference to Communism which is a far greater
threat than Hitler is today. I think this is good.

--

FBI Snitch/Internet/Radio Shock Jock Convicted of ThreateningFederal Judges w/ Blog Post
 

On 8/16/10 15:33 , SMITH29 wrote:
D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 8/16/10 15:10 , SMITH29 wrote:
DEFCON 88 wrote:
On Aug 16, 2:59 pm, (Drooling Idiot) wrote:
wrote:
The government tightens it's grip around the throat of those who dare
question their agents actions.
"There goes the First Amendment for everyone," said Kathy Diamond,
Turner's mother.
I mean, if you can't threaten to kill a federal judge, who can you
make
death threats to? Next they'll be telling us we can't threaten to
rape our
girlfriends or blow up a building!! Why the hell can't I threaten to
kill
a federal official? I pay their salary, doesn't that mean that I own
them
and can end their lives or make their lives a living hell???

Sarcasm off


But he didn't threaten to kill them. He merely stated his opinion that
they should be killed for their unconstitutional ruling. He never
stated or implied that he himself wanted, or would even try, to kill
them. A big difference IMO.

xxxx
To say they " deserve to be killed " over a ruling is to go off the end
of reasonable speech. And Federal Judges no less?
He advocated an act of violence against three officers of the court.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/advocate
Sorry, I see jail time for this blabber mouth.



And just who gets to define the term 'reasonable.'

xxxx
And just who gets to decide who can decide who gets to make the
definition? This can go on and on and on to infinity.

In this case I decided I felt it was beyond reasonable speech and was an
advocation for violence against officers of the court.
You are supposed to say " Yes your honor and no your honor " and treat
them with respect to the court. Going beyond that protocol can be
hazardous to your freedom and your bank account.
It's basically just plain old common sense.



A man must consider what a rich realm he abdicates when he
becomes a conformist. ~Ralph Waldo Emerson


In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to hang a
question mark on the things you have long taken for granted.
~Bertrand Russell


Just because something is tradition doesn't make it right.
~Anthony J. D'Angelo, The College Blue Book



p

FBI Snitch/Internet/Radio Shock Jock Convicted of ThreateningFederal Judges w/ Blog Post
 

DEFCON 88 wrote:
On Aug 16, 1:43 pm, wrote:


[...]


"Let me be the first to say this plainly: these judges deserve to be
killed," Turner posted on his website in June 2009.



I dunno, that sounds like merely an opinion to me. He never personally
threatened to kill the judges. But then again I guess when the
government considers itself to be a god, it can railroad anyone who
doesn't bow down before it.

He also published personal information. I think he'll win on appeal.
"You can beat the rap but you can't beat the ride"

FBI Snitch/Internet/Radio Shock Jock Convicted of ThreateningFederal Judges w/ Blog Post
 

DEFCON 88 wrote:
On Aug 16, 4:15 pm, "D. Peter wrote:

Eternal vigilance


Maybe he knew too much about the Communist coup of our government?

There is no such takeover happening. I suggest you Google "naomi klein
milton friedman" to see what is happening.

Be careful to align with no one but real way-back personal friends and
very trusted acquaintances. Learn to live with much less. Resist.

FBI Snitch/Internet/Radio Shock Jock Convicted of ThreateningFederal Judges w/ Blog Post
 

D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 8/16/10 15:33 , SMITH29 wrote:
D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 8/16/10 15:10 , SMITH29 wrote:
DEFCON 88 wrote:
On Aug 16, 2:59 pm, (Drooling Idiot) wrote:
wrote:
The government tightens it's grip around the throat of those who
dare
question their agents actions.
"There goes the First Amendment for everyone," said Kathy Diamond,
Turner's mother.
I mean, if you can't threaten to kill a federal judge, who can you
make
death threats to? Next they'll be telling us we can't threaten to
rape our
girlfriends or blow up a building!! Why the hell can't I threaten to
kill
a federal official? I pay their salary, doesn't that mean that I own
them
and can end their lives or make their lives a living hell???

Sarcasm off


But he didn't threaten to kill them. He merely stated his opinion that
they should be killed for their unconstitutional ruling. He never
stated or implied that he himself wanted, or would even try, to kill
them. A big difference IMO.

xxxx
To say they " deserve to be killed " over a ruling is to go off the end
of reasonable speech. And Federal Judges no less?
He advocated an act of violence against three officers of the court.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/advocate
Sorry, I see jail time for this blabber mouth.



And just who gets to define the term 'reasonable.'

xxxx
And just who gets to decide who can decide who gets to make the
definition? This can go on and on and on to infinity.

In this case I decided I felt it was beyond reasonable speech and was an
advocation for violence against officers of the court.
You are supposed to say " Yes your honor and no your honor " and treat
them with respect to the court. Going beyond that protocol can be
hazardous to your freedom and your bank account.
It's basically just plain old common sense.



A man must consider what a rich realm he abdicates when he becomes a
conformist. ~Ralph Waldo Emerson


In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to hang a question
mark on the things you have long taken for granted. ~Bertrand Russell


Just because something is tradition doesn't make it right. ~Anthony J.
D'Angelo, The College Blue Book



p
xxxx
Will you visit him often?

FBI Snitch/Internet/Radio Shock Jock Convicted of Threatening Federal Judges w/ Blog Post
 

On 16 Aug 2010, SMITH29 posted some
m:

Keith wrote:
The government tightens it's grip around the throat of those who dare
question their agents actions.


A Brooklyn jury took less than two hours Friday to convict right-wing
loudmouth Harold (Hal) Turner of threatening to kill three Chicago
judges.
xxxx
Sounds like this moron got what he deserves.

Where are the trials for the thousands of liberals who were screaming
to kill George Bush and more recently Jan Brewer?

It's apparently permissible for liberals, illegals and homosexuals to
threaten to kill judges, governors and presidents, but it's not okay for
anyone else?

Maybe Hal was right.

FBI Snitch/Internet/Radio Shock Jock Convicted of Threatening Federal Judges w/ Blog Post
 

"D. Peter Maus" wrote:
On 8/16/10 14:08 , SMITH29 wrote:
Keith wrote:
The government tightens it's grip around the throat of those who dare
question their agents actions.

A Brooklyn jury took less than two hours Friday to convict right-wing
loudmouth Harold (Hal) Turner of threatening to kill three Chicago
judges.
xxxx
Sounds like this moron got what he deserves.

Be that as it may, when the government goes after an outspoken
critic with criminal charges, it should give all of us the willies.

So, you are saying that because this guy is a critic of the government the
government should not prosecute???

And reason to look more closely at what actually took place.

Look more closely, like in a court of law?

FBI Snitch/Internet/Radio Shock Jock Convicted of Threatening Federal Judges w/ Blog Post
 

"D. Peter Maus" wrote:
On 8/16/10 15:10 , SMITH29 wrote:
DEFCON 88 wrote:
On Aug 16, 2:59 pm, (Drooling Idiot) wrote:
wrote:
The government tightens it's grip around the throat of those who
dare question their agents actions.
"There goes the First Amendment for everyone," said Kathy Diamond,
Turner's mother.
I mean, if you can't threaten to kill a federal judge, who can you
make death threats to? Next they'll be telling us we can't threaten
to rape our
girlfriends or blow up a building!! Why the hell can't I threaten to
kill
a federal official? I pay their salary, doesn't that mean that I own
them
and can end their lives or make their lives a living hell???

Sarcasm off


But he didn't threaten to kill them. He merely stated his opinion that
they should be killed for their unconstitutional ruling. He never
stated or implied that he himself wanted, or would even try, to kill
them. A big difference IMO.

xxxx
To say they " deserve to be killed " over a ruling is to go off the end
of reasonable speech. And Federal Judges no less?
He advocated an act of violence against three officers of the court.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/advocate
Sorry, I see jail time for this blabber mouth.

And just who gets to define the term 'reasonable.'

Apparently a jury.

FBI Snitch/Internet/Radio Shock Jock Convicted of ThreateningF...
 

Any Doubting Thomasas out there?
cuhulin

FBI Snitch/Internet/Radio Shock Jock Convicted of ThreateningFederal Judges w/ Blog Post
 

On 8/16/10 16:30 , SMITH29 wrote:
D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 8/16/10 15:33 , SMITH29 wrote:
D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 8/16/10 15:10 , SMITH29 wrote:
DEFCON 88 wrote:
On Aug 16, 2:59 pm, (Drooling Idiot) wrote:
wrote:
The government tightens it's grip around the throat of those who
dare
question their agents actions.
"There goes the First Amendment for everyone," said Kathy Diamond,
Turner's mother.
I mean, if you can't threaten to kill a federal judge, who can you
make
death threats to? Next they'll be telling us we can't threaten to
rape our
girlfriends or blow up a building!! Why the hell can't I threaten to
kill
a federal official? I pay their salary, doesn't that mean that I own
them
and can end their lives or make their lives a living hell???

Sarcasm off


But he didn't threaten to kill them. He merely stated his opinion
that
they should be killed for their unconstitutional ruling. He never
stated or implied that he himself wanted, or would even try, to kill
them. A big difference IMO.

xxxx
To say they " deserve to be killed " over a ruling is to go off the
end
of reasonable speech. And Federal Judges no less?
He advocated an act of violence against three officers of the court.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/advocate
Sorry, I see jail time for this blabber mouth.



And just who gets to define the term 'reasonable.'

xxxx
And just who gets to decide who can decide who gets to make the
definition? This can go on and on and on to infinity.

In this case I decided I felt it was beyond reasonable speech and was an
advocation for violence against officers of the court.
You are supposed to say " Yes your honor and no your honor " and treat
them with respect to the court. Going beyond that protocol can be
hazardous to your freedom and your bank account.
It's basically just plain old common sense.



A man must consider what a rich realm he abdicates when he becomes a
conformist. ~Ralph Waldo Emerson


In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to hang a question
mark on the things you have long taken for granted. ~Bertrand Russell


Just because something is tradition doesn't make it right. ~Anthony J.
D'Angelo, The College Blue Book



p
xxxx
Will you visit him often?


I'll bring the cold cuts, you bring the cattle prod.

FBI Snitch/Internet/Radio Shock Jock Convicted of ThreateningFederal Judges w/ Blog Post
 

On 8/16/10 18:48 , Drooling Idiot wrote:
"D. Peter wrote:
On 8/16/10 14:08 , SMITH29 wrote:
Keith wrote:
The government tightens it's grip around the throat of those who dare
question their agents actions.

A Brooklyn jury took less than two hours Friday to convict right-wing
loudmouth Harold (Hal) Turner of threatening to kill three Chicago
judges.
xxxx
Sounds like this moron got what he deserves.

Be that as it may, when the government goes after an outspoken
critic with criminal charges, it should give all of us the willies.

So, you are saying that because this guy is a critic of the government the
government should not prosecute???

I didn't say that at all.


And reason to look more closely at what actually took place.

Look more closely, like in a court of law?


Far more closely than that.

FBI Snitch/Internet/Radio Shock Jock Convicted of ThreateningFederal Judges w/ Blog Post
 

On 8/16/10 18:49 , Drooling Idiot wrote:
"D. Peter wrote:
On 8/16/10 15:10 , SMITH29 wrote:
DEFCON 88 wrote:
On Aug 16, 2:59 pm, (Drooling Idiot) wrote:
wrote:
The government tightens it's grip around the throat of those who
dare question their agents actions.
"There goes the First Amendment for everyone," said Kathy Diamond,
Turner's mother.
I mean, if you can't threaten to kill a federal judge, who can you
make death threats to? Next they'll be telling us we can't threaten
to rape our
girlfriends or blow up a building!! Why the hell can't I threaten to
kill
a federal official? I pay their salary, doesn't that mean that I own
them
and can end their lives or make their lives a living hell???

Sarcasm off


But he didn't threaten to kill them. He merely stated his opinion that
they should be killed for their unconstitutional ruling. He never
stated or implied that he himself wanted, or would even try, to kill
them. A big difference IMO.

xxxx
To say they " deserve to be killed " over a ruling is to go off the end
of reasonable speech. And Federal Judges no less?
He advocated an act of violence against three officers of the court.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/advocate
Sorry, I see jail time for this blabber mouth.

And just who gets to define the term 'reasonable.'

Apparently a jury.


The jury doesn't get to define terms. The jury applies terms
defined for them.

FBI Snitch/Internet/Radio Shock Jock Convicted of ThreateningFederal Judges w/ Blog Post
 

On Mon 8/16/10 15:02, SMITH29 wrote:
D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 8/16/10 14:08 , SMITH29 wrote:
Keith wrote:
The government tightens it's grip around the throat of those who dare
question their agents actions.

A Brooklyn jury took less than two hours Friday to convict right-wing
loudmouth Harold (Hal) Turner of threatening to kill three Chicago

judges.
xxxx
Sounds like this moron got what he deserves.



Be that as it may, when the government goes after an outspoken critic
with criminal charges, it should give all of us the willies.

And reason to look more closely at what actually took place.


One must presume that the jury looked very closely at what took place.


xxxx
What gives me the willies is someone with a microphone advocating
bloodshed concerning gun laws.
NO Second Amendment advocate wants to hear or read this kind of language.

"Let me be the first to say this plainly: these judges deserve to be
killed,"

He was WAYYYY out of bounds and he has to take responsibility for
broadcasting that about principals of the court.

FBI Snitch/Internet/Radio Shock Jock Convicted of ThreateningFederal Judges w/ Blog Post
 

On 8/17/10 07:57 , Dakota wrote:

D. Peter Maus wrote:

Be that as it may, when the government goes after an outspoken critic
with criminal charges, it should give all of us the willies.

And reason to look more closely at what actually took place.


One must presume that the jury looked very closely at what took place.



One must presume nothing of the sort. The jury are only able to
look at what has been presented them. Which is, in all cases, not
the whole story.

What the jury can look at CLOSELY is limited by the attorneys who
present the evidence, and the judges who allow it. It's never ALL
the evidence.

What they ACTUALLY look at closely, no one ever knows.

FBI Snitch/Internet/Radio Shock Jock Convicted of ThreateningF...