So they found and fired TWO cops for threatening the life of the President and First Lady

[bigtree]

Last edited Fri Jul 13, 2012, 09:33 PM - Edit history (1)

. . . why should we be certain it ends with these two? Is there some kind of ad-hoc coup that was bubbling up among these official haters with this most sensitive duty? This needs a fuller investigation. Who knew what, when?

8:04 pm, July 13, 2012

Central Virginia, city leaders say two Richmond police officers accused of making threats against the president and first lady during their last visit have been fired.

CBS 6 News’ Shelby Brown received a statement from Mayor Dwight Jones’s office Friday afternoon:

“The mayor agreed with the recommendations brought forward by Police Chief Norwood and CAO Byron Marshall and the two officers are no longer in service.”

Brown reports the two men were fired last week.

There have also been reports that an area pastor has called for Richmond Police Chief Bryan Norwood’s resignation over how the investigation was handled. And a state lawmaker has also called for the two men to be fired.


read more: http://fox8.com/2012/07/13/officers-fired-after-alleged-president-obama-first-lady-threats/

How many time do we have to endure this before we can get a healthy amount of outrage and objection expressed by those in our national government in response to this trend of racism and intimidation?

[malaise]

1. Just fired - not charged? These racists must pay

two Richmond police officers accused of making threats against the president and first lady during their last visit have been fired.

[sarcasmo]

3. How can they be free?

[Grown2Hate]

2. I don't get how these MOTHER FUCKERS aren't in PRISON right now.

Just IMAGINE if that was said on a President Shrub detail. I still can't believe it.

[lolly]

8. Maybe if they'd worn anti-Obama shirts?

Since that's all it took to be arrested at one of Bush's events.

[zbdent]

13. not even that ... (anti-bush shirts)

one guy was arrested for making a joke in a bar two days before Bush was appearing in a nearby town ...

AND THIS WAS WELL BEFORE 9/11/2001 ...

[spanone]

4. making threats against the President and the First Lady?

and they are walking the streets?

[malaise]

5. I'm wondering if this is another incident because none of the reports

before this one mentioned the President - they said the first lady - this is frightening

[bigtree]

12. that was a D.C. cop that threatened Michelle, if I'm not mistaken

these two fired in the report were Richmond, Va. police.

They are still trying to downplay the D.C. threat as a 'joke,' I believe. I don't think there should be room made for that kind of 'humor' among those sworn to protect and serve.

[malaise]

15. That's what I thought

I don't find it funny at all

[Frustratedlady]

6. I thought of that situation when I saw the President

walking up the steps with a security guy as well as a photo of Obama in deep and serious thought. (Guess that was a national security guy.)

I worry so much for their safety. I don't trust one of these clowns...they are out to incite. Obama terrifies them because he's too intelligent for them.

[KeepItReal]

7. How does the Secret Service not find any wrongdoing?!?!

Who did *that* investigation?

[enough]

9. This appears to be an entirely different situation from the one reported yesterday.

These are Richmond VA police, the other was DC police. Or am I confused?

[bigtree]

10. three cops to date; the D.C. threat was made by a D.C. motorcycle cop

this appears to be a separate incident

[enough]

11. Appalling. (nt)

[Canuckistanian]

16. Wow, I assumed this was the D.C. cop story

WTF is happening when cops are arrested for threats against the first family?

[bigtree]

19. arrested

. . . I don't think that's happened yet in any of these cases. I'm almost certain that private citizens have been arrested and charged for as much. I'd like to see some comparisons.

[H2O Man]

14. Incarcerate them.

Recommended.

[Dawson Leery]

17. How many other of the 800,000 cops out there have the same feelings as these two?

[demosincebirth]

18. Isn't it a fed crime?

[bigtree]

20. murky, I think, if spoken. More prosecutable if written, posted or mailed; insults allowed by courts

. . . but here's some of the relevant law:

United States Code, Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 41 – Extortion and threats.

Sec. 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.

(b) The terms "President-elect" and "Vice President-elect" as
used in this section shall mean such persons as are the apparent
successful candidates for the offices of President and Vice
President, respectively, as ascertained from the results of the
general elections held to determine the electors of President and
Vice President in accordance with title 3, United States Code,
sections 1 and 2.

Sec. 875. Interstate communications

(c) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any
communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any
threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

Sec. 879. Threats against former Presidents and certain other persons

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully threatens to kill, kidnap, or inflict bodily harm upon -
(1) a former President or a member of the immediate family of a former President;
(2) a member of the immediate family of the President, the
President-elect, the Vice President, or the Vice President-elect;
(3) a major candidate for the office of President or Vice
President, or a member of the immediate family of such candidate; or
(4) a person protected by the Secret Service under section
3056(a)(6); shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

[demosincebirth]

22. Then it's no good, even, if overheard by a fed or a few peace officers?

[bigtree]

24. I think there has to be clear intent or some imminent danger

What type of threat is need? Professor Volokh of UCLA summarizes § 871:

First, simply advocating crime, including murder of a particular politician, is not constitutionally punishable under the “incitement” exception. “George Bush deserves to die” is generally constitutionally protected speech, unless it falls within the “true threats” exception (more on that shortly). Such advocacy of violence is punishable only if it’s intended to and likely to cause imminent action by another, or if it’s a solicitation of a specific criminal act. (The boundaries of this “solicitation” exception are not clear, but it seems likely that, to be solicitation, speech would have to be much more specific than just a statement that some political figure ought to be killed.)

Second, the Supreme Court’s first case discussing the “true threats” exception, Watts v. United States (1969), held that even some language that appears to overtly threaten political leaders is nonetheless constitutionally protected:

Third, the Court’s latest true threats case, Virginia v. Black (2003), stated that “‘[t]rue threats’ encompass those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals.” This seemed to reject some lower court decisions that said that the exception covers statements that are reasonably perceived as threatening, regardless of whether the speaker intends them to be perceived. Since then, lower courts have disagreed about whether Black deliberately rejected those lower court decisions, especially given that the court didn’t really discuss that particular controversy in detail. But the Ninth Circuit panel in Bagdasarian expressly held (and on this the judges were unanimous) that Black’s adoption of the “means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence” really does require proof of the speaker’s intent.


read: http://asiancorrespondent.com/72734/threatening-poems-and-lese-majeste/

[xfundy]

21. The guy who joked about a "burning bush" -- is he still in jail?

Anyone who dared stand up, even through words alone, to the criminal regime from 2001-2008 was prosecuted, jailed, possibly killed by "compassionate conservatives." Recall the guy at the gym who dissed the Asshole in Chief at the time--thrown in jail.

[Tsiyu]

23. The cops will all be unemployed if Rmoney gets the win

or they'll be working for some privatized corp for nothing, no bennies, no retirement.

That's how absolutely stupid these three criminals are.

And they are criminals. And they are a disgrace to their former badges. And they should be in jail awaiting trial.