Blogger TJIC continued harassment by Massachusetts police

[spqrzilla]

Blogger TJIC wrote a blog post that Massachusetts police did not like. Their harassment of him and his wife continued yesterday:

http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/2013/07/cradle-and-grave-of-liberty-part-deux.html

[trlcavscout]

This is what started it. Shouldn't have been said. But do they have the right to keep illegally searching and taking guns?

http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/01/21/massachusetts.blogger.guns.seizure/index.html

[spqrzilla]

i was wondering what the OP and the thread were about. He stuck his pp out and got it wacked. Saying stupid shit like that online is well...stupid. you want to think that way..fine. you want to say that to your family or close trusted friends...fine. post it on the internet and its stupid.

So now there is a "stupid shit" exception to the First Amendment, the Second Amendment and the Fourth Amendment?

That's interesting. Would you be so kind as to point it out for me for future reference?

[ChadAmberg]

maybe Im wrong. But, I would think anyone with half a brain wouldnt advocate murdering people. If he would have said he wishes there was a trial and then upon a guilty verdict the 545 people in DC would be executed, I would understand. Saying online that murdering someone was a good start and more needed murdered was stupid. But, if you think its ok. Good for you.



oh and you can read my post. I never said he CANT do it. I just think its stupid to do it. There are lots of thing in life you CAN do. Doing them can cause you considerable grief.

Of course I'm not convinced that politicians fall under the realm of people. And if I were on a jury, I'd say he made a political statement (protected absolutely by the 1st) since he references only politicians rather than a general violence statement.

[spqrzilla]

His original statement is protected speech - outside the boundaries of Constitutional definitions of unprotected speech that incites imminent violence - albeit offensive speech.

And Massachusetts police have no authority to "punish" offensive speech and indeed are acting lawlessly and unconstitutionally in any effort to do so.

[lowbeyond]

you are wrong. There was no imminent lawless action, see Brandenburg v. Ohio. Therefore this falls 100% under the first amendment free speech umbrella. Just because some people in the State don't like it means nothing.

Just because you shouldn't do something has zero bearing on if it is protected speech - or not. But then again the cops had the guns so fuck the constitution, especially if what was said is stupid or the guy was a douche. pee-pee slap and all that.

one down and 545 to go. zomg im a terrorist now that looses his rights because fuck free speech. uh-huh

Good thing cops would never confiscate guns over free speech, oh wait, they just did........

Congrats!

[T-Giv]

So now there is a "stupid shit" exception to the First Amendment, the Second Amendment and the Fourth Amendment?

That's interesting. Would you be so kind as to point it out for me for future reference?

The first amendment does not grant illegal uttering, there are certain things not protected under the first amendment. He made a CREDIBLE threat against public officials. He clearly has the means to carry it out. Any normal citizen could and should be charged with criminal activity (Harassment at the least or conspiracy). This idiot is no different and seizing his firearms is more than reasonable. People who say stupid things and then want to say "First Amendment protection" make me sick. That does not give you a right to say whatever dumbass idea you have in your dome. Case and point right here.

On the flip side of that coin, say the Cops just leave him alone and carry on with their lives. Then this idiot actually does go out and kill some public officials. The entire world would flame the shit out of the Cops and use the same statements as evidence that the Cops should have known to take his guns away.

[cstone]

I predict that if a settlement is not reached, several lawyers will be billing some big time hours while filing a civil rights suit against the state of MA. The case will drag on for several years and many appeals until either all of the money that can be made, has been made, or the Sup Ct lets stand a lower court ruling providing a remedy.

I know, quite a limb I've climbed out on huh?

[cstone]

He made a CREDIBLE threat against public officials. He clearly has the means to carry it out. Any normal citizen could and should be charged with criminal activity (Harassment at the least or conspiracy). This idiot is no different and seizing his firearms is more than reasonable. People who say stupid things and then want to say "First Amendment protection" make me sick. That does not give you a right to say whatever dumbass idea you have in your dome. Case and point right here.

Out of curiosity, what part of his statement did you take to be CREDIBLE?

I ask because I used to have to make those judgments and based on just the blog quote and his ownership of firearms, I would not think that alone would get me an arrest warrant. More investigation, sure, but so many things go into what makes something credible or not credible. I certainly would like a chance to interview him. I've met some very interesting people over the years.

Be safe.

[jerrymrc]

His original statement is protected speech - outside the boundaries of Constitutional definitions of unprotected speech that incites imminent violence - albeit offensive speech.

And Massachusetts police have no authority to "punish" offensive speech and indeed are acting lawlessly and unconstitutionally in any effort to do so.



So now there is a "stupid shit" exception to the First Amendment, the Second Amendment and the Fourth Amendment?

That's interesting. Would you be so kind as to point it out for me for future reference?

One is always welcome to say most whatever they want just like there are many things that are perfectly legal but may draw undue attention to oneself. I know that many here are not fond of the elected officials and those that are supposed to "Protect and serve" but it is what it is.

Of course here as are most private forums free speech is not a given. I can see that this subject seems to be very important to you but going on about something like this never seems to end well. I hope to see this as a discussion and nothing more. Just saying. [pick-me]

[T-Giv]

Out of curiosity, what part of his statement did you take to be CREDIBLE?

I ask because I used to have to make those judgments and based on just the blog quote and his ownership of firearms, I would not think that alone would get me an arrest warrant. More investigation, sure, but so many things go into what makes something credible or not credible. I certainly would like a chance to interview him. I've met some very interesting people over the years.

Be safe.

That's what I meant. Credible as in they looked into it more and it gave them legitimate reason to investigate. Somehow they got a warrant to search his residence and take his guns. At least some Judge agrees with what they discovered. Those statements alone would not warrant probable cause to seize anything, but whatever else they did determined it was appropriate. And if they didn't, then this guy will have a sweet civil suit on his hands and never work another day in his life.