Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Man informs County Commission of little known Florida law that allows him to shoot each of them if they sell his home. Promptly learns of revised statute about threatening public servants   (saintpetersblog.com) divider line 63
    More: Florida  
•       •       •

5914 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Jul 2014 at 10:08 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



63 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-07-17 08:23:33 AM  
he then said that if the county sold his home, he would have the right to shoot every member of the commission.

Well, is he right?
 
2014-07-17 08:45:42 AM  

dookdookdook: he then said that if the county sold his home, he would have the right to shoot every member of the commission.

Well, is he right?


That's what I want to know.
If he's right, is that really a threat?

Where is the line drawn between warning someone of the consequences of their actions and threatening them?
 
2014-07-17 08:45:43 AM  

dookdookdook: he then said that if the county sold his home, he would have the right to shoot every member of the commission.

Well, is he right?


After all, he was just standing his ground.
 
2014-07-17 08:50:58 AM  

dookdookdook: Well, is he right?


Judging from his beard and eyes, Imma gonna go with "no".
 
2014-07-17 08:52:19 AM  

dookdookdook: he then said that if the county sold his home, he would have the right to shoot every member of the commission.

Well, is he right?


He's wearing an anti-'UN Agenda 21' t-shirt in the photo, so chances are he's full of sovereign citizen craziness.  He probably imagines he has the right in the same way that he imagines courts with gold fringed flags don't have jurisdiction over him.
 
2014-07-17 08:53:49 AM  
See, libs? POLITE SOCIETY. He didn't shoot them, he just reminded them he could and would.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-07-17 08:58:22 AM  
Honest Bender

I have a notion that conditional threats -- "I'll commit a crime if some condition comes to pass" -- are not a crime in Massachusetts, but I can't find a source so I may be misremembering. I'll quote the notes to the Massachusetts District Court model jury instructions for the crime of threatening to commit a crime:
The offense of threatening to commit a crime only reaches cases of "true threats," which do not qualify as protected speech. Commonwealth v. Sholley, 432 Mass. 721, 727, 739 N.E.2d 236, 241 (2000). The term "true threat" distinguishes between words that literally threaten but have an expressive purpose such as political hyperbole, and words that are intended to place the target of the threat in fear. Commonwealth v. Chou, 433 Mass. 229, 236, 741 N.E.2d 17, 23 (2001). Compare Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705, 706, 708 (1969) (per curiam ) (statement at political rally that, if inducted into Army and made to carry rifle, "the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J.," was, given its conditional nature and context in which it was m ade, political hyperbole and, therefore, not a "true threat" under 18 U.S.C. § 871[a]), with United States v. Fulmer , 108 F.3d 1486, 1490, 1492 (1st Cir. 1997) (voicemail message to Federal agent that "[t]he silver bullets are coming. . . . Enjoy the intriguing unraveling of what I said to you" was, given defendant's history of threats against the agent, reasonably understood as a "true threat" under 18 U.S.C. § 875[c]). See also Chou , 433 Mass. at 237, 741 N.E.2d at 23 (2001) (missing person flyer describing ex-girlfriend in sexually offensive and abusive language was a "true threat").
 
2014-07-17 09:03:37 AM  
ZAZ:

Thanks for the education! :-)
 
2014-07-17 09:51:07 AM  
Hey schlubby, it's statue....

i1.ytimg.com
 
2014-07-17 09:54:48 AM  

dookdookdook: Well, is he right?


Good question, this is Florida after all.
 
2014-07-17 10:11:05 AM  
Wearing an anti-agenda 21 shirt too. This guy is going for the high score.
 
2014-07-17 10:12:00 AM  
Even if he is wrong, his threat alone is sufficient reason to entirely repeal the "self defense" statutes in the state of Florida.
 
2014-07-17 10:13:00 AM  
That article is a little light on the details.
 
2014-07-17 10:14:25 AM  
Couple things:

1: He is waring an "Agenda 21" t-shirt.
2: How do you owe a county $300k?
 
2014-07-17 10:14:50 AM  
www.saintpetersblog.com

Bet his home is full of Glen Beck books.
 
2014-07-17 10:19:00 AM  
Pettin' my dog? That's a shootin'.
Lookin' at my wife all googly-eyed? That's definitely a shootin'.
Collecting money from me for bills I owe? Oh you better believe that's a shootin'.
 
2014-07-17 10:19:03 AM  

Yakk: Couple things:

1: He is waring an "Agenda 21" t-shirt.
2: How do you owe a county $300k?


Late fees.
 
2014-07-17 10:20:20 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: [www.saintpetersblog.com image 300x199]

Bet his home is full of Glen Beck books.


Insert - Reading is for pussies.jpg
 
2014-07-17 10:20:20 AM  
From the looks of the motherjumper, he's capable of acting on his threat. Gee, I wonder if he owns any weaponry? Whadyathink?
 
2014-07-17 10:23:27 AM  
If I was going to do something crazy when the county tried to take my land I think quietly dumping lots of mercury and other chemicals all over the property would be the most effective. Dangerous, nobody is going to want the property because of cleanup costs, you don't actually have to kill anyone, and the worst they can do is punish you for illegal dumping.

If I was going to go really crazy I'd replace the mercury with landmines. Lets see you build your Walmart now assholes.
 
2014-07-17 10:23:42 AM  
My name is Jose Antonio Fernandez. You sold my house. Prepare to die.

img.fark.net
 
GBB
2014-07-17 10:23:58 AM  

Yakk: Couple things:

1: He is waring an "Agenda 21" t-shirt.
2: How do you owe a county $300k?


This guy owes $1.5M
 
2014-07-17 10:28:20 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: [www.saintpetersblog.com image 300x199]

Bet his home is full of Glen Beck books.




So the EPA will have to be called in to clean up the mess. You can't just throw Glen Beck books into a landfill
 
2014-07-17 10:29:16 AM  

Russ1642: Yakk: Couple things:

1: He is waring an "Agenda 21" t-shirt.
2: How do you owe a county $300k?

Late fees.


Even with late fees, it would take me 100 years to owe that much.
 
2014-07-17 10:31:05 AM  

Yakk: 2: How do you owe a county $300k?


Dodge paying taxes.  Then accumulate late fees.  Then accumulate interest on the principle tax payment for years.

Compounding interest is a biatch.
 
2014-07-17 10:31:29 AM  
It's a little known law, because it's only written down in his head.
 
2014-07-17 10:31:43 AM  

To The Escape Zeppelin!: If I was going to do something crazy when the county tried to take my land I think quietly dumping lots of mercury and other chemicals all over the property would be the most effective. Dangerous, nobody is going to want the property because of cleanup costs, you don't actually have to kill anyone, and the worst they can do is punish you for illegal dumping.

If I was going to go really crazy I'd replace the mercury with landmines. Lets see you build your Walmart now assholes.


Indeed -- there must be some "poison pill" that would make it more more of a liability than an asset.  Mercury would be hard to get these days, but you could probably find enough lead, chromium, and other heavy metals to make the remediation costs exorbitant.  Yea, they could bill you, but if you're already in debt for $300k, it's not like another few million in bills are probably going to make any practical difference.  The practical effect would be that the county would get stuck with the bill.
 
2014-07-17 10:33:36 AM  
If that's all he said, it does not rise to the level of a threat.
 
2014-07-17 10:34:31 AM  
I thought everyone in Florida had a right to shoot anyone else?
 
2014-07-17 10:36:11 AM  

wambu: If that's all he said, it does not rise to the level of a threat.


LOL
 
2014-07-17 10:37:36 AM  
You people see this as a lunatic making crazy threats.  I see this as a man who is about to get thrown out of his house making contingency plans to get free housing for the next 25 years to life.
 
2014-07-17 10:41:47 AM  

wambu: If that's all he said, it does not rise to the level of a threat.


He promised violence as retaliation for a lawful action. His intent was to use fear to intimidate public officials out of doing something that it is their job to do. He's lucky he isn't being charged as a terrorist.
 
2014-07-17 10:42:51 AM  

wambu: If that's all he said, it does not rise to the level of a threat.


Legally, it does, from what I've read in similar cases.  Whether or not you say you're actually going to do it, claiming you'd be within your legal rights to kill someone (when you do not, in fact, have that right) constitutes a threat of imminent harm in the eyes of the law.

My GED in law notwithstanding.  This comes from a casual reading of similar incidents, nearly all were found guilty.
 
2014-07-17 10:43:18 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: wambu: If that's all he said, it does not rise to the level of a threat.

LOL


Technically, I don't think that's wrong.  Strictly speaking, just saying that the law exists (or that he believes it does) doesn't constitute a threat.  If he said that he would exercise the law if they tried to sell his home, that would be a (conditional) threat, because it involved a statement of intent, but there's nothing to suggest that he said that.  A threat might have been inferred from the context, and that was probably the intent, but the words themselves do not constitute a threat.
 
2014-07-17 10:46:04 AM  

Last Man on Earth: HotWingConspiracy: wambu: If that's all he said, it does not rise to the level of a threat.

LOL

Technically, I don't think that's wrong.  Strictly speaking, just saying that the law exists (or that he believes it does) doesn't constitute a threat.  If he said that he would exercise the law if they tried to sell his home, that would be a (conditional) threat, because it involved a statement of intent, but there's nothing to suggest that he said that.  A threat might have been inferred from the context, and that was probably the intent, but the words themselves do not constitute a threat.


It's this kind of idiocy that ends with a gun owner killing a bunch of people with everyone standing around scratching their heads asking "how could this happen? There was no warning. We only ever inferred his obvious threats to people's lives."
 
2014-07-17 10:55:18 AM  

Last Man on Earth: Technically, I don't think that's wrong. Strictly speaking, just saying that the law exists (or that he believes it does) doesn't constitute a threat. If he said that he would exercise the law if they tried to sell his home, that would be a (conditional) threat, because it involved a statement of intent, but there's nothing to suggest that he said that. A threat might have been inferred from the context, and that was probably the intent, but the words themselves do not constitute a threat.


Otherwise "Stop, or I'll shoot" would be an illegal threat.
 
2014-07-17 10:57:00 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Last Man on Earth: HotWingConspiracy: wambu: If that's all he said, it does not rise to the level of a threat.

LOL

Technically, I don't think that's wrong.  Strictly speaking, just saying that the law exists (or that he believes it does) doesn't constitute a threat.  If he said that he would exercise the law if they tried to sell his home, that would be a (conditional) threat, because it involved a statement of intent, but there's nothing to suggest that he said that.  A threat might have been inferred from the context, and that was probably the intent, but the words themselves do not constitute a threat.

It's this kind of idiocy that ends with a gun owner killing a bunch of people with everyone standing around scratching their heads asking "how could this happen? There was no warning. We only ever inferred his obvious threats to people's lives."


I don't necessarily disagree, but 1st Amendment protections are as strong as they are for a reason.  On a case-by-case basis, it can seem stupid, but the law can't operate on a case-by-case basis.  Good law needs to have some measure of predictive power, and saying "it kind of sounded like he was threatening somebody, therefore the 1st Amendment doesn't protect him" can lead to some really shiatty results down the line as well.
 
2014-07-17 10:57:13 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Last Man on Earth: HotWingConspiracy: wambu: If that's all he said, it does not rise to the level of a threat.

LOL

Technically, I don't think that's wrong.  Strictly speaking, just saying that the law exists (or that he believes it does) doesn't constitute a threat.  If he said that he would exercise the law if they tried to sell his home, that would be a (conditional) threat, because it involved a statement of intent, but there's nothing to suggest that he said that.  A threat might have been inferred from the context, and that was probably the intent, but the words themselves do not constitute a threat.

It's this kind of idiocy that ends with a gun owner killing a bunch of people with everyone standing around scratching their heads asking "how could this happen? There was no warning. We only ever inferred his obvious threats to people's lives."


i.imgur.com
 
2014-07-17 10:58:40 AM  

This text is now purple: Last Man on Earth: Technically, I don't think that's wrong. Strictly speaking, just saying that the law exists (or that he believes it does) doesn't constitute a threat. If he said that he would exercise the law if they tried to sell his home, that would be a (conditional) threat, because it involved a statement of intent, but there's nothing to suggest that he said that. A threat might have been inferred from the context, and that was probably the intent, but the words themselves do not constitute a threat.

Otherwise "Stop, or I'll shoot" would be an illegal threat.


If you're ordering someone to stop doing something they're perfectly free to do and threatening them with death for non compliance with your impotent order, I'm confident the local constabulary can bring charges against you.
 
2014-07-17 11:00:57 AM  
Why do public service members need special protections? A threat is a threat no matter who you work for. More thought crime?
 
2014-07-17 11:01:42 AM  
Oh. And can we drop the whole servants bullshiat. They arent servants. Proven true by their extra protections.
 
2014-07-17 11:03:10 AM  

Dimensio: Even if he is wrong, his threat alone is sufficient reason to entirely repeal the "self defense" statutes in the state of Florida.


Why? His legal defense of self defense wouldnt work under current law. So you wish to scrap laws that wouldnt apply here. Why not ask for speeding laws and no touch strip club laws to be removed as well.
 
2014-07-17 11:05:21 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: This text is now purple: Last Man on Earth: Technically, I don't think that's wrong. Strictly speaking, just saying that the law exists (or that he believes it does) doesn't constitute a threat. If he said that he would exercise the law if they tried to sell his home, that would be a (conditional) threat, because it involved a statement of intent, but there's nothing to suggest that he said that. A threat might have been inferred from the context, and that was probably the intent, but the words themselves do not constitute a threat.

Otherwise "Stop, or I'll shoot" would be an illegal threat.

If you're ordering someone to stop doing something they're perfectly free to do and threatening them with death for non compliance with your impotent order, I'm confident the local constabulary can bring charges against you.


Unless you're a cop.
 
2014-07-17 11:05:26 AM  

MyRandomName: Dimensio: Even if he is wrong, his threat alone is sufficient reason to entirely repeal the "self defense" statutes in the state of Florida.

Why? His legal defense of self defense wouldnt work under current law. So you wish to scrap laws that wouldnt apply here. Why not ask for speeding laws and no touch strip club laws to be removed as well.


Even if his claims have no standing under law, media reports of his claims may cause others to believe that the law would allow deadly force in such a circumstance. To prevent this confusion, all laws allowing any form of defense should be repealed.
 
2014-07-17 11:08:29 AM  
When's the Hannity interview?
 
2014-07-17 11:09:43 AM  
My take on thjis, limited as the info presented to me, is you don't threaten, you just do.This guy seems to be living in his own world, sure he's right, even when incarcerated. Like my Mom, with her mental illness, slowly deviates off the "normal" path, until later you realizr she's off the road, and into the weeds. Once she had a rather heavy psych session, and called me to come see her. I told her I'd see her soon. Turns out she stayed there for almost 4 hours before someone took her home, when they realized I lived in another state.
That's the caliber of crazy, maybe just a bit more, you're dealing with here.
 
2014-07-17 11:14:46 AM  

Yakk: Couple things:

1: He is waring an "Agenda 21" t-shirt.


I always wonder about people who worry about the U.N.

The U.N. couldn't handle Rwanda, and those folks mostly just had machetes.

The guns'n'ammo in a single U.S. state would be sufficient to riddle every U.N. peacekeeper on the planet...
 
2014-07-17 11:15:03 AM  
Something tells me his walls have a lot of sharpie writing on them.
 
2014-07-17 11:19:04 AM  

PunGent: Yakk: Couple things:

1: He is waring an "Agenda 21" t-shirt.

I always wonder about people who worry about the U.N.

The U.N. couldn't handle Rwanda, and those folks mostly just had machetes.

The guns'n'ammo in a single U.S. state would be sufficient to riddle every U.N. peacekeeper on the planet...


The UN has been a boogeyman in the John Birch/Evangelical circles for so long that you don't need to have rational issues with it.

Is it too inept to deal with Rwanda? Of course it is.

Is it simultaneously ready to forcibly take every American's firearms and melt them down to make the guardrails on the coming Agenda 21 trails? Of course it is.
 
2014-07-17 11:22:34 AM  
He does have a right to defend his property.  The constitution bans government from stealing peoples lands
 
Displayed 50 of 63 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report