Lawyer: Gun emails to Colo. lawmaker not threats

[appleannie1]

DENVER — A man accused of threatening a Colorado lawmaker pushing for stricter gun control measures plans to challenge the charges filed against him.

Franklin Sain's lawyer told a judge Friday that Sain admits calling and sending emails laced with profanities and racial slurs to state Rep. Rhonda Fields. Lawyer Siddhartha Rathod said that while the messages were offensive, they were not threatening. They were constitutionally protected political speech, he said.

In one message, police say Sain told Fields he hoped someone would "Gifords" her, an apparent reference to the 2011 shooting and wounding of U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona. A police affidavit said Sain apologized for his comments.

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/03/08/2735652/lawyer-gun-emails-to-colo-lawmaker.html#storylink=cpy

Sain also admitted to using profanity and "racist names" in the calls and emails, the affidavit said.

Sain's attorney says the messages were not threats, and are protected by free speech.

According to the affidavit, police suspect Sain also sent Fields an anonymous letter that refers to the lawmaker with the same obscene, racist phrase repeatedly used in emails and phone messages that Sain admitted sending to the lawmaker. The letter also contains a reference to "30 round magazines," a reference used in Sain's emails.

"I will keep my 30 round magazines. There will be blood! I'm coming for you (expletive)," states the letter, received at Fields' Capitol office on Feb. 21.

The letter names Fields and her daughter and states, "Death to Both."

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/exec-franklin-sain-accused-of-threatening-lawmaker-over-gun-control-measures-due-in-court

If those are not threats what is considered a theat these days?

[Ikonoklast]

1. Seems like just another rational, law-abiding gun owner.

Just another gun owner that has no problem issuing death threats to people he doesn't agree with politically.

Lots of them around theses days.

[apocalypsehow]

8. +1000. n/t.

[HereSince1628]

2. In the US, even the worst offenders are entitled to a defense

I have no problem with a defense attorney trying to provide the best defense that is possible, even if it seems a stretch to common sense. The worst of the accused may not have a better defense.

I was raised to think that approach lifts society to a higher plane.

[Robb]

3. LOL

Good luck with that.

[dballance]

4. I Have to Agree with HereSince1628. ALL Accused in the US are Entitled to a Defense.

Sounds like the guy in his interview with police admitted to what might be considered harassing phone calls and e-mails including ethnicity-based harassment. Then his lawyer further backed that up in court. Since I don't know the specific CO statutes under which this person was charged, nor do I know the content of his e-mails and phone calls I can't just say "hang him high." Even if I might like to. If the news articles are accurate it sounds like he might not beat the misdemeanor on this. Making a statement that he hopes someone would "Giffords" her is a far cry from being found guilty of saying "I'm coming for you (expletive)" though. The former could be perceived as harassment. However, the latter seems to my simple non-attorney self to be a threat. I find it highly unlikely the state will go to the expense to DNA test the letter to determine if it came from Sain for a misdemeanor offense. But they might.

As for the felony of "attempt to influence a public servant" I think the DA is SOL on this. Of course he was attempting to influence a lawmaker. Probably just about everyone who talks to their lawmakers through phone calls, e-mails, petitions, etc. is trying to influence a lawmaker. Somehow I suspect the news stories left out the part of the statute he was charged under that makes a distinction between simple contact, no matter how vile and profanity filled, and perhaps contact with some sort of implied bribe or negative consequences a felony. Of course I'm simply speculating here but I'd be willing to bet that the felony statute includes some more specific wording than "attempt to influence" which includes intent and rewards or consequences on the part of the defendant that must be sincerely believed by the person who was offered the bribe or threatened by the consequences. If it doesn't include that sort of language I'd say the DA has a pretty weak case because the language is pretty vague and broad. Of course, it's not unusual for a DA to charge a person with everything they can in order to be able to deal on the lesser charges by dropping the more severe ones.

If the language in the letter that appears to be a threat is consistent with Sain's e-mails and calls then maybe the state will DNA-test the letter and envelope to make the case for the felony. Who knows? Should be interesting.

[backscatter712]

5. Ah, he was being metaphorical when he said "There will be blood! I'm coming for you, n***** b****!"

Obviously, he was evoking a scene from one of the classics!

[Donald Ian Rankin]

6. If he were telling the truth, he'd be right, but it sounds like he isn't.

Insulting your lawmakers is protected free speech.

Threatening them is not.

Profanities and racial slurs are not threats.

"There will be blood! I'm coming for you", however, is.

[apocalypsehow]

7. "admits calling and sending emails laced with profanities and racial slurs..." - Another gem

in the ranks of the "pro-RKBA" movement. What was all that furor over my sig line about again?

"Sain told Fields he hoped someone would "Gifords" her...admitted to using profanity and 'racist names' in the calls and emails...also sent Fields an anonymous letter that refers to the lawmaker with the same obscene, racist phrase repeatedly used in emails and phone messages that Sain admitted sending to the lawmaker...'I will keep my 30 round magazines. There will be blood! I'm coming for you (expletive),'...The letter names Fields and her daughter and states, 'Death to Both."

I'll bet he could babble on for hours about his "enumerated right" to strut through Wal Mart with a pistol perched in his pants or own a .50 caliber military sniper rifle used for taking out armored cars supposedly conferred on him by the 2nd amendment, too.

[talkingmime]

9. I read several reports on that. If they don't call his words "a threat", I'd like to know what is!

It wasn't just the racism, it was the threat against her person and against her daughter's. That's not "free speech", that's terroristic threats. How can anyone think she wasn't scared shitless by that, both for herself and her daughter? That claim is simply rediculous. I hope the guy does some hard and well deserved time.