190
Florida man pleads guilty to threatening to kill a Supreme Court justice
(www.nbcnews.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Dec 2023
190 points (99.5% liked)
News
22903 readers
3831 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Is it??? Anyone calling public servants with death threats I'm gonna go ahead and disagree with
When the SC publishes ethical rules legalizing bribery, they’re inviting anyone with a sense of justice to take matters into their own hands.
We need a Batman but unfortunately its because of billionaires that cause this. Could we crowd source one?
Shit take. Anyone calling in death threats is ethically bankrupt at the very least. What justice is there in murder?
For legal purposes, this is only a joke.
It's really the only way for a normal person to effect the SC. They are given lifetime appointments, it doesn't say how long those lifetimes have to be.
Checks and balances, yo.
Many of you here need to grow up.
**
The Supreme Courts decision to gut abortion rights has threatened the lives of millions of women. I can see where someone would find justice there.
At some point it becomes self defense.
Maybe guys wife died because she was refused health care.
What? Do you really think that? Where does this end? Can he kill a doctor if his wife died in childbirth due to the doctor's negligence? Can he kill his local mayor who slashed fire & rescue budgets if his wife dies in a fire? You're describing revenge, retribution. It's toxic. It's insane. Imagine a Trumper making this argument about immigrants or something stupid like that.
Negligence is different than wilfully using the law to deny a woman life saving medical care. Or willfully taking bribes from oil and gas barons while the world burns.
At some point standing up against oppression may require violence. This is a lesson learned from history. Calling self defense revenge, murder, toxic, etc. is exactly what keeps sociopaths feeling safe in their ivory towers while the world burns.
No, it's really not. People are harmed or even die either way. Who draws the line and where? Should we publicly execute all tobacco execs right now? Is that something you would agree with? What about automotive execs who purposefully lied about emissions standards for profit? They are killing real people. Do you extend your quest for blood to the peons who lied on the tests? The engineers that implemented them? Say a conservative starts bombing clinics that do abortions - are they justified? They see abortion as murder -- are they not nobly preventing further murders for the greater good? Tell me who decides and where the line is drawn and you may have your pound of flesh.
Only a sociopath sees violence as necessary for progress in a democracy. If violence becomes necessary it should be mourned, lamented. We are absolutely not there yet. This is extreme and irresponsible rhetoric.
That you can't understand the difference between intent and negligence told me enough. So, I didn't bother reading the rest.
Take care and enjoy your moral high ground.
I'm sure it is challenging for you to read more than a few sentences. I provided you with examples of malicious intent and you closed your eyes and plugged your ears. You can do better.
Cool, so now you're resorting to personal attacks.
Again, enjoy your moral high ground.
I replied specifically and directly to your points with new examples. You in turn replied by saying you wouldn't read them. Either way, thank you for ceding the high ground -- the view is nice from up here :)
Im the last person to approve of SCOTUS. Does that mean I think it's ever right to call in death threats to like, anyone? Absolutely fucking not. I think it's truly insane that anyone here is entertaining this. Imagine (well, you don't really have to) the "other side" doing this shit. It would be reprehensible, just like this bullshit. Hell, for all we know it was a "liberal" justice getting threats and suddenly our opinion on this situation changes? Screw that.
Two wrongs and all that. Eye for an eye... surely there is some simple saying that makes this easy to understand
I guess so, but I'm not seeing a ton of liberal policies that are causing harm to individual lives. I think that's where you are seeing a "double standard" appear.
It's not just about the double standard, it's about right and wrong. If we abandon our morals at the first sign of adversity, then what do we stand for? How can I stand for democracy if I'm okay with the life being snuffed from those who disagree with me. That's not democracy. There is no room for political violence
There's justice in ~~murdering~~ removing by any means dictators like the H guy, Stalin, Putin... What about their main advisors? Then what about the influential people who prop them up? The line is somewhere.
One could argue certain judges'/politicians' responses to COVID, Ukraine funding, women's healthcare, etc. are already costing far more lives than they are helping/saving.
Cynical leaders tie themselves to the alternate track and see how many bodies they can stack on the main line while daring someone to switch the trolley.
Ah yes Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas. They will surely be remembered amongst the likes of Hitler. How many lives have you cost vs saved? Can you possibly know? Should I call in death threats to anyone I personally judge to have a negative effect on the world? Where do you draw the line? WHO gets to draw the line?
This is insanity
I don't think we're there yet either but at the same time, if we were to get to that point, most people (including myself probably) would not recognize it without some painful hindsight. Don't be like the frog that doesn't notice the water approaching boiling point.
Besides, I'm not comparing our SC to murderous dictators of the past. I'm just refuting your assertion that threats and/or force are never the right option. When you follow the "what ifs" to their extremes it seems obvious that pacifism is not a universal good.
I think it's extremely hard to justify violence other than in very clear cases of absolute self-preservation. I think the system needs to change and that the SC is anti-democratic. However, we are excusing/advocating for terrorism here. The aim is a policy change through violence or the threat thereof.
Fair enough - I figured you were drawing comparisons. Regardless in this case, I say, no matter which Justice this maniac was threatening, his actions are wrong. Period.
It's disheartening to read so many rabid comments from people who I otherwise probably agree with on most things. I usually see that kind of bloodthirstiness from a different kind of person.
On one hand, you're absolutely correct. On the other, our founding fathers were very clearly A-OK with murder of "tyrants"...
If the Supreme Court is willing to let women die in hospital parking lots because they don't like a modern interpretation of the due process clause, and if they're willing to inexorably beholden us to cultural norms from multiple centuries ago and also allow politicians to systematically eliminate our ability to influence the political process in any meaningful way, then they've made very clear themselves that a certain amount of death is inevitable and acceptable. Frankly, it was only a matter of time before desperate citizens followed that train of thought through to its logical conclusion.
You'd be right to think that, what with the whole "Revolutionary War" thing, but it's interesting in that the whole reason we have impeachment is because of Benjamin Franklin's opposition to assassination:
https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/173296
“What was the practice before in cases where the chief magistrate rendered himself obnoxious? Why, recourse was had to assassination in which he was not only deprived of his life but of the opportunity of vindicating his character. It would be the best way therefore to provide in the Constitution for the regular punishment of the Executive where his misconduct should deserve it, and for his honorable acquittal when he should be unjustly accused."
Madison followed:
"It is indispensable that some provision be made for defending the community against incapacity, negligence, or perfidy of the chief magistrate. The limitation of the period of his service is not a sufficient security. He might lose his capacity after his appointment. He might pervert his administration into a scheme of peculation or oppression. He might betray his trust to foreign powers."
Thomas Jefferson: "What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
The system is constantly changing. We have the power and tools to effect change, despite the recent backsliding. SCOTUS is corrupt, yes, but we should be trying to change it, not making fucking deranged phone calls threatening people's lives
I don't disagree. I also think there are many women across the country whose lives are literally at risk this very moment who might not take much solace in the incremental pace of change. I'm not excusing violence, I'm simply explaining it. It's wrong, but so is a lot of the bullshit SCOTUS is currently doing, so to many people the idea of "right" and "wrong" simply doesn't compute the same way as it does with you and me.
That's quite literally what no one in this thread is arguing.
Amazing how people can make sober assessments without whacking at inane, strawmen caricatures. You should try it sometime.
This comment was removed out of an abundance of caution, while I brought it to the other moderators for their thoughts. After a discussion, I agree that I acted in haste, and I truly am sorry.
I’m against the death penalty for two reasons. One, it’s surprising (and disturbing) how often “solved” cases turn out to be wrong, and convictions are overturned. Finding someone innocent does no good if they’ve already been executed.
Two (and I’m not proud of this one) if someone has done something worthy of the death penalty, I want them to suffer. Dying by quick, painless lethal injection is relatively easy. I want that asshole to spend decades in a cage, and not get an audience for their parting words.
Death row inmates are usually there for quite some time but, yeah, I agree with everything else you said. Capital punishment is just fucked up. Our whole prison system should be more about rehabilitation and protection of society from harmful criminals (that includes violent as well as white collar). Less about retribution. And deterrence pretty much doesn't work on the worst crimes.
This guy would be advocating against killing Hitler in 1943 because he's a "public servant".
Insane that you could even draw a slight comparison. Among other things I am a fucking anti-racist, anti-fascist, leftist. What an idiotic thing to say to me.
The second we live in a fascist dictatorship feel free to go all operation Valkyrie on our glorious leader Brett Kavanaugh but until then you're nothing but a keyboard warrior defending some psycho making death threat phone calls.
I'm merely repeating your logic and showing you how insane it is. You're welcome.
Insane that I'm not calling for the death of public officials and defending calling in death threats? Are you serious?
Back to my original comment showing the fault in your logic - you would have defended Hitler because he was a public official? Are you serious?
Just because someone is a public official, that doesn't make them some sort of angel who would never cause massive damage to everyone else because of their own fucked up and greedy desires.
You are comparing apples to oranges. You did the typical internet fallacy of comparing everything to Hitler. Brett Kavanaugh and his associates have yet to suggest we round up our Jewish friends and execute them en masse, so please tell me of the parallels.
You are making a false equivalence to bolster your trite nazi analogy. You pretend like I treat Hitler the same way I'd treat a senator or supreme court justice. It's false on its face.
That's Godwin's law. It's not a fallacy, but good try.
Your logic was that it's never acceptable for a public servant to be threatened. I provided you with an example that showed your logic was faulty. You're unable to admit to your fault. You might want to re-examine your logic and look inward to see why you can't see when you're wrong.
Anyway, that's all the time I'm going to spend today to educate you. You'll probably just end up with the same mindset, "Hurr durr I'm always right!"
I said nothing about specific fallacies, only that your argument is fallacious and you are appealing to the classic Hitler boogeyman. If you want specifics, you're currently using a straw man. The situation in Nazi Germany is incomparable to the present day United States. You are completely ignoring all of the context surrounding Hitler, particularly the fact that he wasn't just a "public servant" so much as he was a fascist dictator. The fact that he advocated for the eradication of an entire people. If a justice was a fascist dictator then I would absolutely support their timely death.
I engaged here specifically to keep an open mind and to challenge what I think. On this particular issue, I have yet to hear a convincing argument that the unwell individual making death threats to SCOTUS was justified. My point was and is that the actions this person took were wrong and unethical. I mean, this is further bolstered by the fact that the man clearly had a psychotic break. Am I correct in my understanding of your position?:
Lol. You're not even intelligent enough to remember what you've written.
You also have 0 ability to admit to your mistakes. It's no wonder you're butthurt when someone shows you that your argument lacks any logic.
You know that "fallacy" doesn't have to refer to a specific, logical fallacy, right? Now you're insulting my intelligence when I'm replying in earnest? You neglected to read past the first sentence of my comment, invoked Hitler, and are still defending the actions of a crazed individual who is calling in death threats to SCOTUS. Not only that, but you have laser focused on specific words in my comments, insulted me, and never even addressed the actual point. Ironic considering you're touting yourself to be the fallacy expert. Have a nice day and try not to call in any perfectly justified death threats!