Mistrial in Assassination Threat Trial

**Red_Lizard2** · 11-05-10, 12:07 AM

Thought it was interesting, it doesn't go into enough detail to make a fact-based opinion imo. Curious to see what will happen, and hopefully learn a bit more about the case.

A federal judge has declared a mistrial in the case of a Del Norte County man who was indicted on charges that he threatened in an e-mail to kill President Obama and members of his family.

Jury deadlocks in trial over threat to Obama

**deathgodusmc** · 11-05-10, 09:05 AM

Just another example of the illusion of freedom of speach.

**Thorsen** · 11-05-10, 09:35 AM

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Just another example of the illusion of freedom of speach.

Freedom of speech doesn't and shouldn't cover direct threats of violence.

**~~hawgballs~~** · 11-05-10, 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by Thorsen

Freedom of speech doesn't and shouldn't cover direct threats of violence.

Unless you don't agree with whom the person was threatening........... [rolls eyes]

**Consultant** · 11-05-10, 12:47 PM

Or unless it's "artistic" fantasy land.

Death of a President (2006 film) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

**deathgodusmc** · 11-05-10, 06:34 PM

Originally Posted by Thorsen

Freedom of speech doesn't and shouldn't cover direct threats of violence.

Before i would even think about putting it into that catagory i would want to at least read the email. If a jury couldn't come up with a decision on it i have to take a stab in the dark and say it may have been full of profanity but lite on the threats. If it were direct threats i dont see a jury getting hung trying to decide it. So for now i will stand by my comment.

**Red_Lizard2** · 11-06-10, 12:14 AM

threats of violences with an intent to act are what are illegal, or at least what I learned in Politics classes. Which of course makes it more confusing, as what qualifies as intent?

Direct threats may be as well, not sure.