From: Brian Davis <bdavis@thepoint.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 13:33:28 +0800
To: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Subject: Re: Husband/Wife jailed for saying Clinton Sucks
In-Reply-To: <199608212138.OAA07368@mail.pacifier.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.960821225141.22767A-100000@mercury.thepoint.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Wed, 21 Aug 1996, jim bell wrote:

> At 02:47 PM 8/21/96 -0400, Brian Davis wrote:
> >On Tue, 20 Aug 1996 Scottauge@aol.com wrote:
> >
> >> Rush Limbaugh reports:
> >> 
> >> That a husband and wife are being jailed for yelling to Clinton "You Suck".
> >> 
> >> The Secret Service states additional words (yet un-uttered to the rest of 
> us)
> >> were mentioned that they deemed threatening.
> >
> >
> >"I hope you die." 
> 
> Doesn't sound much like a "threat" to me.
> 
> > And the couple was arrestd for disorderly conduct by 
> >Chicago police. 
> 
> It sounds to me like the Chicops were just showing their "loyalty" by 
> sitting on somebody, not that they believed any real crime had been committed.

Nope.  When police started to ask the couple questions, they began 
screaming obscenities and generally causing a scene.  Chicago cops, being 
what they are, are likely to arrest someone in that circumstance without 
any prodding.  I'm not saying they should, but they will.
> 
> > Any possible federal charges for threatening a president 
> >in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 871 await a determination of the 
> >seriousness of the statement, in context with the wife's conduct, by 
> >prosecutors.  I predict no action.
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> But it isn't even a "threat", regardless of how "serious" it was.   The "I 
> hope you die"  part is, presumably, a statement of fact:  She did, indeed, 
> hope he dies.  But I don't see how hoping this can be considered a threat, 
> or even SAYING she's hoping this is, likewise.
 
The statement must be considered in context with their conduct, but as I 
said before, I predict no action.


> 
> Makes me wonder whether visiting one of these appearances with a "Clinton 
> Doll" and a bunch of pins, and visibly inserting those pins into the doll 
> (while uttering various strange incantations), would constitute a "threat."
> 
> Frankly, I'd rather have a president who didn't feel the need to be 
> protected by thugs.

That's because you like dead Presidents. 



> Jim Bell
> jimbell@pacifier.com
> 

BTW I read an account of the incident in the liberal Louisville Courier 
Journal.  I guess they messed up and reported the news despite their 
political leanings....

EBD