Tue Dec 23, 8:45 AM ET
U.S. National - AP - Yahoo!

ST. LOUIS - An appeals court has upheld the three-year prison sentence of a man who suggested that President Bush (news - web sites) might be set ablaze during the president's March 2001 trip to Sioux Falls, S.D.

Richard Humphreys, 51, was convicted in 2002 of threatening to kill or harm the president. He appealed, arguing his comment was a prophecy protected under his right of free speech.

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (news - web sites) on Monday upheld the sentence and ordered Humphreys, who the court found suffers from a bipolar disorder, serve his confinement in a federal medical center.

"Hopefully, medication over a significant period of years will result in his being able to live outside the prison confines, free of delusions and the type of behavior he exhibited here," the court ruled.

Humphreys said he got into a barroom discussion with a truck driver a day before Bush's visit. A bartender who overheard the conversation told police that Humphreys talked about a "burning Bush" and the possibility of someone setting Bush ablaze.

McCarthyism and a lack of distinction between a plan, and a comment.

we live in dangerous times when our security makes us lose our liberties.

Very scary indeed. Do you follow any of Noam Chomsky's work? I recently saw a Japanese film of a talk he gave not too long ago. It was priceless.
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/public/imc-milwaukee/2002-November/000867.html
Cheers! Ian

I'd have to know more about the man convicted before thinking one way or another on this. If an insane man in Florida had been sent to medical prison for the threats he made to burn people, then there would be a lot of people alive today. He was ignored, despite pleas from his mother, by all the authorities in every segment of government and he eventually set fire to people in a winn dixie, throwing gasoline on the customers and workers, maiming and killing a lot of people. He was insane and no one payed attention. So I see here where the govt did pay attn and did send this guy to a medical facility. Is he as crazy as the other - well, I don't know - the other man was schizophrenic - and I believe he got the death sentence anyways.

Jon

Originally posted by healthwiz
I'd have to know more about the man convicted before thinking one way or another on this. If an insane man in Florida had been sent to medical prison for the threats he made to burn people, then there would be a lot of people alive today. He was ignored, despite pleas from his mother, by all the authorities in every segment of government and he eventually set fire to people in a winn dixie, throwing gasoline on the customers and workers, maiming and killing a lot of people. He was insane and no one payed attention. So I see here where the govt did pay attn and did send this guy to a medical facility. Is he as crazy as the other - well, I don't know - the other man was schizophrenic - and I believe he got the death sentence anyways.

Jon

I think you are confusing two different facts about our legal system.

Though we talk about "law enforcement" such a thing has no place in our republic.

Our societal assumption is: innocent until proven guilty, non-criminal until AFTER an act.

Every strategy has an exploitable down side, but the vast majority of people "saying" unwise things neglect to do them. Our "price" is the small number who do.

Just like being "closed" emotionally to pain also closes one to pleasure, our open society is open, not because it is the most "safe" arrangement, but because it allows for the greatest "health of the society" at the cost a fewer than the alternative, a very repressive, prejudiced, proactive society.

We could cut our traffic deaths to near zero by a number of changes, including zero blood alcohol, and reaction time testing before the car will start along with removal of TV's, radio, cd players, tapes, etc., cell phones, food and makeup from cars. get rid of everyone on the road under 40, and don't allow males to drive at all (they are in proportionally MORE accidents than females) or anyone who is unmarried, or even married but childless. The result would be "safe" but some "rights" might be trampled.

Every system has a vulnerability. It is BEING vulnerable that affords value, not being "perfectly safe."

You've made some very important points, and I agree with you. How hard is it going to be for me to stay apolitical (in times like these) and not to step on anybody's toes?

Very hard.

First, I did not agree or disagree with the arrest conviction. I don't know enough about the case. If the guy is a legitimate non-risk to the public, then your argument applies. If he is unstable and has some history to show he is a risk, then action is appropriate. It is inappropriate when it is highly probable that someone will committ a violent offense, not to stop him/her. It is actually quite common to read about or see on the news about women who's lovers/husbands/boyfriends told them they were going to kill them....and the police didn't provide protection or arrest because of the laws you speak of, and yet the men then went and kill the wife and the kids and the family dog, and anyone else who happens to be in the house. This is inappropriate. The government is also suppose to be there to protect people when they need protection so that everyone does not have learn the arts of violence themselves. There is a balance in all things. It can't be just one way. Judgement needs to be involved in these cases. I know if someone threatened my life, I would want that person arrested. I would not want to hear a constitutional theory about freedom of speech - its my life your talking about now and there are freedoms I have too - like freedom from being threatened with my life - or freedom from someone inciting others to burn me because they don't like my political decisions or my race or my religion or my sexual preference.

Its not a simple theory. There are violent people and people who make violent threats, and it should not fall under "freedom of speech" rights. Who has the right to scare the hell out of other people with death threats?

Jon

Originally posted by healthwiz
First, I did not agree or disagree with the arrest conviction. I don't know enough about the case. If the guy is a legitimate non-risk to the public, then your argument applies. If he is unstable and has some history to show he is a risk, then action is appropriate.

It is the definition of "risk" that gets us in potential trouble. Everybody has some history, that taken one way or anoher could support a "fear" of some potential illegality. Waiting until something happens is the only way to know for sure that you have only "arrested" those actually "doing" socially unacceptable things.

It is inappropriate when it is highly probable that someone will committ a violent offense, not to stop him/her.

It is the real world difficulty with "knowing the future" that makes this "god like stance" impossible to avoid abuse for any human system.

It is actually quite common to read about or see on the news about women who's lovers/husbands/boyfriends told them they were going to kill them....and the police didn't provide protection or arrest because of the laws you speak of, and yet the men then went and kill the wife and the kids and the family dog, and anyone else who happens to be in the house. This is inappropriate.

It is regretable. I think there is a difference. "Kill the ump" doesn't result in deaths, usually, except at little league games. Things have changed some, but we slautter 50,000 people EVERY year in cars on our roads, and maime another 100,000... the kinds of crimes you speak of are simply attended to more attentively than the numbers support! They are so rare as to be safer to ignore, as a society, than to respond to. Every death, just about, is regretable. That doesn't mean preventing them is the right thing to do! Even if it is "safer."

The government is also suppose to be there to protect people when they need protection so that everyone does not have learn the arts of violence themselves.

Not in our republic. Rather than have prisons full of political disidents we chose to have our streets full of them. It is not like there is rsik to one way and not to the other. Both ideas bring risks. Perhaps you feel beeter about jailing a few innocent people than letting a few guilty go free... but our system was designed by people who made the opposite choice.

There is a balance in all things. It can't be just one way.

In this it has to be one way or the other... the idea of equal protection under the law requires it.

Judgement needs to be involved in these cases.

In our system, judgement comes later, after an act, and after an arrest during or after an act, not before.

I know if someone threatened my life, I would want that person arrested. I would not want to hear a constitutional theory about freedom of speech - its my life your talking about now and there are freedoms I have too - like freedom from being threatened with my life - or freedom from someone inciting others to burn me because they don't like my political decisions or my race or my religion or my sexual preference.

I understand how you feel. But your solution leads to totalitarian abuses.

Its not a simple theory. There are violent people and people who make violent threats, and it should not fall under "freedom of speech" rights. Who has the right to scare the hell out of other people with death threats?

Actually, that is exactly what "assualt" covers... a credible specific threat that creates credible fear of injury... but that there are rules to limit the interpretation is because the world is not simple, when the rule has to be applied by average people in average situations.

Jon

I believe there is a point when freedom of speech rights cannot exceed the right to live a life without the threat of violence hanging over your head. As long as credible threats are illegal then I'm fine with that.

"Every death, just about, is regretable. That doesn't mean preventing them is the right thing to do! Even if it is "safer."

What is wrong with detaining a credible threat? Would you let all credible threats go free and see what happens and call the results "regrettable". I think others would call it negligence.

There is an acceptable way to do things in this country - its called voting, protesting, lobbying and in some cicumstances civil disobedience, such as when environmentalists sit in trees they are stopping from being cut down or when Rosa Parks sat in the white only section of a bus. In neither case did they threaten someone's life. This jailing of this man does not shut down civil disobedience, protest or lobbying. It just tells people not to threaten a life.

Also, the judge apparently recognized the guy was a little off-whack, but chose to not be permissive about allowing such inappropriate behavior. Wasn't Hinkley the guy that shot President Reagon? So a guy is off-balance, not on his meds, and making threats against the president, and you think the courts are going to ignore this? He is fortunate they sent him to a hospital rather than to a prison. His sentence will probably be shortened as soon as he gets the treatment he needs.

Jon

Clarification. I haven't mastered the way messages appear one under another. I should have used a salutation. It was Wheel1975 that I was agreeing with.

I searched for more details related to the issue, but never got closer to the facts than the hint that the alleged perpetrator might have made some reference to a "burning Bush" instead of expressing an intent to assault the President of the United States. He might even have been referencing the Old Testament in a way he thought was cute or clever. I sure don't know, but I myself have heard similar remarks from both sides and never once believed they rose to the level of a plot.

As they say, If wishes were horses, beggars would ride."

Like I said, it is hard for me to avoid getting political. It's a big part of who I am. I'll leave it at that.

True, not much info to go on. We really don't know what happened here in this case. Would be good reporting if the news agencies actually did some digging and told us what are the facts around the conviction, wouldn't it?

Jon

Yeah, we don't have much to go on, but from what I'm reading-

this guy has essentually been sentenced to prison for Thought Crime. Welcome to 1984.


Was he sentenced to a tiny room for three years for innuendo? Was he indeed innocent until proven guilty? And in times such as these how unlikely is it that someone will speculate wether or not something like that will happen? All of the people who openly worried about a repeat attack on 9/11's first anniversary were not charged as criminals posing a threat to national security- thank goodness but I suppose this is now a concern; a limitation as to what we can say in puplic now. Am I going out on a limb here? Maybe, but this case sends shivers up and down my spine.

It sounds to me that the bartender heard merely a phrase out of context, which I often do myself, and jumped to a conclusion; and the judicial system has gone out of it's way to make a point using this man as their whipping boy.

But that's just my opinion- and by being does not mean that I disrespect or disregard any other opinion on the subject. This case makes me really worried.

I also respect yours and others opinions on this, and thank you for mentioning it. I just don't think there is enough here to assume anything at this point. I'm surprised the media is not digging for more information if there is some controversial aspect to the case. Maybe we will learn more soon. However, I am not feeling like the government is taking over yet. Although the Bush election does scare the hell out of me, and the way some other administration antics have changed US international and domestic policy has scared me. And the way that that attorney general has trampled on gay rights has scared me, chasing them out of a governement building, disallowing them from having their annual gay celebtraton when he allows all other groups to use the premises for their celebrations.... and Haliburtons winning contracts without a bid, and Bush's investments in these oil conglomerates - that scares me, and our upcoming trade war which is about to start - that scares me - the Bush Administration is dangerous and totally unconcerned with following precedent in affairs that have already been settled. He even plans on making a constitutional change in order to prevent gay marriage. His brother Jeb made a constitutional change in order to interphere in one case in Florida, regarding a woman on life support. Legal scholars are baffled how he could justify changing the constitution to the state in order to override a judges rulings. This is BUSHISM!!!!! Thats what scares me. And if anything funny went on in this case about this man, well, I would not be surprised if we found a trail years later back to BUSHISM. Its Bushism that scares me.

Jon

I'm scared with you- more than scared, I'm terrified and furious. If I say any more, I'll end up ranting (as someone who has a pathetic memory for specifics I'm a terrible ranter)! Thanks for sharing.

I think everythings connected; the trail wouldn't surprise me in the least. I hope we can find out more; the fact that we don't is also another red flag to me.

go to your senators and congressman's offices... go, don't "just" write, and bug them until they talk to you.

good luck.

http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/index.html
Click on case number to find documents


01-2982 In re: Humphreys v. ; Humphreys, Richard Allen

02-1406 USA v. Richard Humphreys; Humphreys, Richard Allen

02-1608 Richard Humphreys v. John Ashcroft; Humphreys, Richard Allen

03-1014 USA v. Richard A. Humphreys; Humphreys, Richard Allen

03-3664 United States v. Richard Humphreys; Humphreys, Richard Allen

http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/tmp/031014.html

The tmp may mean that this is a generated page, temporary, and that you have to look up this every-time you want to find it....


IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1014
___________________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
v.
RICHARD ALLEN HUMPHREYS,
Appellant.
___________________________________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
HONORABLE LAWRENCE L. PIERSOL,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
___________________________________________
APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF
___________________________________________
Robert Van Norman, Federal Public Defender
William A. Delaney III, Assistant Federal Public Defender
221 South Phillips Avenue, Suite 202
Sioux Falls, SD 57104-6317
Telephone: (605) 330-4489
Facsimile: (605) 330-4499
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT
i
REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
Humphreys renews his request for ten (10) minutes for oral argument
because of the potential impact of the issue raised on the sentencing
guidelines.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Humphreys incorporates by this reference the entire contents of his
brief-in-chief as though fully set forth herein. References to the brief of the
United States will be “USB,” followed by the page number. References to
Humphreys’s brief will be “AB,” followed by the page number. The
Appellee will be referred to as “the government.”
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page(s)
Request for Oral Argument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
Preliminary Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
Table of Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
Argument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Whether the District Court Improperly Denied Humphreys
a Four-Level Reduction in his Sentencing Level Pursuant
to U.S.S.G. § 2A6.1(b)(5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Certificate of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Certificate of Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Certificate of Filing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
United States Courts of Appeal Cases
Page(s)
United States v. Fann, 41 F.3d 1218 (8th Cir. 1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
United States v. Xavier, 210 F.3d 1025 (7th Cir. 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Statutes
Page(
s)
18 U.S.C. § 871(a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Other Authority
Page(
s)
U.S.S.G. § 2A6.1(b)(5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 3
U.S.S.G. § 2A6.1(5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 3
1
ARGUMENT
THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED
HUMPHREYS A FOUR-LEVEL REDUCTION IN HIS
SENTENCING LEVEL PURSUANT TO U.S.S.G. §
2A6.1(b)(5)
During sentencing, the district court denied Humphreys’s request for a
four-level reduction in his sentencing level pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2A6.1(5).
The denial was based on a photocopy of an internet “chat room”
conversation that occurred sometime before the events for which Humphreys
was convicted. Based on that determination, the district court held that there
was more than one instance of a threat and that Humphreys showed
deliberation in what he did. The district court refused to decrease his
sentence by four levels, and Humphreys contends that it erred in doing so.
(ST, 27-28).
The facts and circumstances surrounding the chat room conversation
1 The facts have been stated in detail in the Appellant’s main brief.
(AB, 6-8).
2
indicate that Humphreys meant that conversation to be a joke. Moreover, the
conversation occurred at least one month prior to the conversation in the
Watertown, South Dakota bar that lead to his conviction for a violation of 18
U.S.C. § 871(a).1
A photocopy of the chat room conversation was recovered from
Humphrey’s automobile at the time of his arrest and was admitted into
evidence at trial. (See AB, 7; ADD 2). The document showed a
conversation between Humphreys and someone named “Cessor5."
Humphreys stated, in effect, that if he didn’t get justice from President Bush,
he was going to pray for a burning bush. Humphreys also said that Cessor5
shouldn’t be surprised if someone threw gasoline on the President and then
lit a match. The end of the conversation contained the letters “LOL.” The
phrase is chat room shorthand for “laughing out loud.”
While the chat room conversation did refer to a “burning Bush” and
that theme was repeated to some degree in the Watertown bar, the two
conversations were not connected in either time or place. Moreover, the
tone of the chat room conversation was made in jest. In fact, the jocular
3
tone of that conversation was never refuted.
Both the District court and the government relied upon United States
v. Xavier, 210 F.3d 1025 (7th Cir. 2002), to justify the denial of the four-level
reduction under U.S.S.G. § 2A6.1(5). (ST, 27-28; USB, 10-11). As
previously urged by Humphreys, that reliance is misplaced. (AB, 11-12).
The facts in Xavier differ substantially from those in this case. Xavier
uttered threats to a law enforcement office during the course of a scuffle.
After a time when Xavier had cooled down, he restated those threats, but in a
“cool and deliberate” manner. The second series of threats occurred a short
time after the initial statements. Because of this, Xavier was denied the fourlevel
reduction. Id., at 1027.
In this case, the chat room conversation occurred a month before the
conversation in the Watertown bar. No real connection was ever established
between the two. The conversation in the Watertown bar was an event that
occurred separately from the chat room conversation. Moreover, the tone of
the chat room conversation was different in nature from the conversation in
the bar. The district court was in error when it held otherwise. Humphreys
urges that he is entitled to a four-level reduction in his sentencing level
pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2A6.1(5). See United States v. Fann, 41 F.3d 1218,
4
1219 (8th Cir. 1994).
CONCLUSION
Humphreys respectfully renews his request that this Court find that the
district court erred in denying a four-level reduction in his sentencing level
pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2A6.1(b)(5), and further, that this Court remand
5
this case to the district court for resentencing with instructions to grant the
four-level reduction.
Dated this 5th day of March, 2003.
Respectfully submitted,
ROBERT VAN NORMAN
Federal Public Defender
By:
___________________________________
William A. Delaney III
Assistant Federal Public Defender
Attorney for Richard Allen Humphreys
Office of the Federal Public Defender
District of South Dakota
221 S. Phillips Ave., Suite 202
Sioux Falls, SD 57104
Telephone: (605) 330-4489
Facsimile: (605) 330-4499
6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on the 5th day of March, 2003, I mailed two copies of
this Appellant’s Reply Brief and a 3½-inch computer diskette containing the
full document to Assistant United States Attorney Michael Ridgway,
Attorney for Appellee, 230 South Phillips Avenue, Suite 600, P. O. Box
5073, Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57117-5073. The diskette has been
scanned for viruses using Norton Anti Virus Version 5.0, and that scan
showed the diskette is virus-free.
In addition, I certify that I mailed a copy of this Appellant’s Reply
Brief to Appellant, Richard Allan Humphreys, # 10929-073, FMC Rochester,
P.O. Box 4600, Rochester, MN 55903-4600, on the 5th day of March, 2003.
___________________________________
William A. Delaney III
Assistant Federal Public Defender
7
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
The undersigned hereby certifies that Word Perfect Version 9.0 was
used in the preparation of the foregoing Appellant’s Reply Brief and that the
word count done pursuant to that word processing system shows that there
are 1212 words in the foregoing Appellant’s Reply Brief.
___________________________________
William A. Delaney III
Assistant Federal Public Defender
8
CERTIFICATE OF FILING
I certify that I filed the original and ten copies of this Appellant’s
Reply Brief and a 3½-inch computer diskette containing the full document to
the Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals, Thomas F. Eagleton Court
House, Room 24.329, 111 South 10th Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63102, by
sending it via Federal Express on the 5th day of March, 2003. The diskette
has been scanned for viruses using Norton Anti Virus Version 5.0, and that
scan showed the diskette is virus-free.
___________________________________
William A. Delaney III
Assistant Federal Public Defender

United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 03-1014
___________
United States of America, *
*
Appellee, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the District
* of South Dakota.
Richard Allen Humphreys, also *
known as Israel Humphreys, also * [PUBLISHED]
known as Prophet Israel Humphreys, *
*
Appellant. *
___________
Submitted: December 16, 2003
Filed: December 22, 2003
___________
Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, HEANEY, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
On March 8, 2001, Richard Allen Humphreys told others that either he or one
of his followers would douse President Bush with a flammable material and throw a
match on him. The Government charged Humphreys with making threats against the
President of the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 871(a). A jury found him
guilty. In projecting Humphreys’ sentence, the presentence report (PSR) did not
recommend a four-level decrease in Humphreys’ offense level under U.S.S.G. §
2A6.1(b)(5) (2002), which authorizes a district court to decrease the offense level for
*The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the District of South Dakota.
-2-
threatening communications offenses by four levels if no other adjustments under §
2A6.1 apply and “the offense involved a single instance evidencing little or no
deliberation.” Over Humphreys’ objection, the district court* found Humphreys did
not qualify for the decrease because he made statements threatening the President in
an Internet chat room on February 2, 2001. The district court sentenced Humphreys
to thirty-seven months in prison.
Humphreys appeals asserting the § 2A6.1(b)(5) decrease applies. The district
court did not commit clear error in finding Humphreys’ offense did not involve “a
single instance evidencing little or no deliberation” within the meaning of §
2A6.1(b)(5). Although “single instance” does not necessarily mean “single threat,”
“single instance” suggests both a temporal relationship and a single purpose or
scheme. United States v. Sanders, 41 F.3d 480, 484 (9th Cir. 1994); United States v.
Freeman, 176 F.3d 575, 579 (1st Cir. 1999). The term suggests the reduction applies
only to “defendants whose threats are the product of a single impulse, or are a single
thoughtless response to a particular event.” Sanders, 41 F.3d at 484. Humphreys
communicated his threat about burning Bush to different people on different
occasions, specifically, in the chat room, by fax to the White House, and in person to
three individuals at different times. See United States v. Fann, 41 F.3d 1218, 1219
(8th Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (“single-instance” reduction did not apply because
defendant communicated threat more than once to different people using different
modes of communication).
Humphreys contends the chat room statements were not threatening and were
not meant to be taken seriously. In the online chat, Humphreys stated:
-3-
HE IS NOW, HE FEARS ME SOMETHING TERRIBLE, GORE DOES
TOO BECAUSE I PRAYED FOR A TIE IN THE ELECTION AND
GOT IT WHEN THE GORE PEOPLE TOLD ME THAT IF I WANTED
JUSTICE I NEEDED A DIFFERENT CANDIDATE, SAID TO THEM,
“SO BE IT” GOT THE TIE AND DIFFERENT CANDIDATE, NOW
GOING TO ASK BUSH FOR JUSTICE, AND IF I DON’T GET IT I
AM GOING TO PRAY FOR A BURNING BUSH. GET IT? SO IF
YOU HEAR THAT A MAN RUNS UP AND THROWS GASOLINE
AND A MATCH TO BUSH YOU WILL KNOW THAT GOD DID
SPEAK THROUGH THE BURNING BUSH. LOL
Even if “LOL” indicates Humphreys was “laughing out loud,” as he contends, the
district court did not commit clear error in finding Humphreys’ chat room statement
threatened the President. Humphreys knowingly and willfully made the statement
and a reasonable person could view it as a serious expression of intent to inflict
bodily harm. See Freeman, 176 F.3d at 578 (defining threat under § 875(c)).
Because the district court did not commit clear error in denying the §
2A6.1(b)(5) decrease, we affirm Humphreys’ sentence. We recommend to the
Bureau of Prisons that Humphreys serve his term in the Federal Medical Center,
however. The record shows Humphreys suffers from a bipolar disorder and has had
several periods of hospitalization because of his delusions. His symptoms are
treatable with medication. Hopefully, medication over a significant period of years
will result in his being able to live outside the prison confines, free of delusions and
the type of behavior he exhibited here.
______________________________

So.

The problem with recommending non-violence in this case is:

During the election there was vote fraud: the question is, how much on which side, and did it make a difference to the results?

There is corruption, in the aborted SEC investigation, Haliburton's contract award, and many others... the question is degree.

As men throughout history have demonstrated, when the levers of law have been corrupted, non-violence still has a chance...

but be careful what you take it to mean!

Was Gandi nonn-violent?
Was Martin Luther King?

They too used violence... but they used the violence of their opponent to defeat their opponent. Does that make them "non-violent" or just smart?

One may say that violence solves nothing, but history is the history of violence, and what it has accomplished, and how.

Still, i think we are all safer when we can TALK about ANYTHING, and our actions are SELF MONITORED, and our transgressions caught AFTER the fact.

Stifling of talk creates the breading ground in which the following is born:

"Riot is the voice of the unheard."

http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/

Do you realize military people are not allowed to publicaly voice thier dislike for who ever the president is? Not in thier own civilian clothes, having lunch with friends. It is a punishable "crime" and is tried in miliary courts if it gets to that level. All I have to say is that that law is crap. Perhaps this is a little off topic, but I'm SO FRUSTRATED. Not like those of us who voted elected... oh wait, never mind. I have nothing to say.

It is because having a political military is the way coops d'estates occur.

You can always talk like crazy when you get out, or be involved in political action groups, right, or am I off on this too?

I have to say I wrote the president, complete with return adresses at work and at home, and invited him to resign based on the irregularities of the election... that would not have resulted in Gore winning, but in the Constitutional process being called into service, which would be a crap shoot.

so far, that invitation to "do the right thing" has not been see as a crime, to my knowledge.

Your info is appreciated Wheel, and I can see from it that I fully agree with the courts that the threat was not a one-time jocular or impulsive event. It was repeated by fax, in chat room, and in a bar. My reading of his conversation is that this man said he or his followers would light the president on fire with gasoline, which is not an idle threat when it is taken in connection to all his other statements. I think he is delusional just as the court thinks, and that he is getting the proper sentence, a medical facility.

It was talk like that years ago, that was ignored, and resulted in many deaths in Tampa, as I stated before. When people make threats like that, it is a crime that can be prevented. I believe in preventing violent crimes. I also believe in getting treatment for the mentally ill before they commit a crime that is the result of delusions that could have been prevented. If the credible clues are there that we have a problem, follow the clues and save a lot of people the suffering that would result by closing our eyes.

It's just my opinion.

Jonathan

Everyone, including me, was forming opinion and trying to make sense of the "news" without the available information.

Finding it wasn't so impossibly hard, and certainly put a different light on things, at least, certainly, for me.

The implication is that there are no laws to protect the president as a private citizen from the same attack threat, thus the example of the other incident involved. Perhaps this is because Washington D.C. is not in any State, has not "State laws" and the crime (threats) occur in multiple jurisdictions, making it hard to get standing in any one jurisdiction to pursue the case.

When I was trying to get into the Naval Academy it become obvious that there was a restriction on political involvement while in the service... Since the executive is the direct "boss" of the military, military unity and command and control would be tempted by free political action of its members. I think it is great that the framers of the constitution saw fit to leave intact the right to vote, but not campaign.

All the campaigning, i suppose, is to be the "military sort" while in the military. I'm sorry that this is hard for you, but I understand the needs of the system, I believe, and no simple all pervasive rule could meet the requirements of the complex realities imposed by having an armed forces that is not weak, and is not always benign. Great power requires controls and restrictions, in my view.

I don't believe a violation of good sense occurred here, but it still makes my skin crawl to think of using "mental illness" as pretext enough for confinement. The USSR confined many political dissidents for being "mentally ill" and wishing to over throw the government.

Humprey's actually has the right, under our constitution, to vocally advocate for impeachment of the president, and call for a constitutional convention to "destroy" our current form of government.

Burning officers of the State, or citizens for that matter, is not permitted for non-political, but social reasons.

It just isn't good manners. < smile >

Wow, thanks Wheel! I am much relieved! I didn't know the courts had websites with this information- good to know.

Just in, a related article, about threatened but not restrained violent threats....

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=519&e=7&u=/ap/20040108/ap_on_re_us/children_missing