Log In

Home
    - Create Journal
    - Update
    - Download

LiveJournal
    - News
    - Paid Accounts
    - Contributors

Customize
    - Customize Journal
    - Create Style
    - Edit Style

Find Users
    - Random!
    - By Region
    - By Interest
    - Search

Edit ...
    - Personal Info &
      Settings
    - Your Friends
    - Old Entries
    - Your Pictures
    - Your Password

Developer Area

Need Help?
    - Lost Password?
    - Freq. Asked
      Questions
    - Support Area



finchbird ([info]finchbird) wrote in [info]unfunny_fandom,
@ 2011-01-18 20:51:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Blog post prompts police to seize weapons from Arlington businessman.
Remember Travis Corcoran, the owner of HeavyInk.com who lamented that the man who shot Representative Gabrielle Giffords didn't kill her? Well, he's under investigation by the Arlington police department for his comments.

Police have seized a “large amount” of weapons and ammunition from an Arlington businessman while investigating if comments he allegedly made online were intended as a threat to U.S. Congressmen and members of the U.S. Senate.

Arlington Police Chief Frederick Ryan has also suspended the firearms license of Travis Corcoran, 39, who runs the online comic book business HeavyInk.com in Arlington.

Police Captain Robert Bongiorno said Monday that police suspended Corcoran’s firearms license on the grounds of “suitability” pending the results of an investigation into whether a comment Corcoran allegedly made online was intended as a threat in reference to the Jan. 8 shooting in Arizona that left six people dead and 13 wounded.

After U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head in the rampage, Arlington Police Captain Robert Bongiorno said police received information that Corcoran posted a comment online saying “one down 534 to go” in reference to Giffords and the other 534 members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate.

Bongiorno said police found the comment reposted on ComicsAlliance.com in a story that said Corcoran first made the comment in a blog. Bongiorno said Corcoran has since redacted the comments, but police consider the threat to be credible until they can prove otherwise. Police have also contacted federal law enforcement agencies about the comment.

Corcoran, who did not immediately return a phone call requesting comment Tuesday, has not been charged with a crime, Bongiorno said.

Corcoran surrendered his weapons and ammunition to police at his home on Evergreen Lane in Arlington last week after his firearms license was suspended, police said.

Bongiorno said the length of the suspension or whether Corcoran’s license will be revoked will be determined by the outcome of the investigation.

Source.

(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]queencallipygos
2011-01-19 01:47 pm UTC (link)
This is going to sound crazy pants, but:

Unless the Wasila police do the same to Sarah Palin, or other police do that to people who have made similar statements, then I'm going to cry "foul."

Because yes, his comments were dicky -- but it is possible to tell him they were dicky without breaking the First Amendment. And if police action is going to be a thing now, then we need to do it against everyone, not just one guy.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]emily_goddess
2011-01-19 03:12 pm UTC (link)
Yeah, my first thought was "why him and not Palin?"

OTOH, if I'm not comfortable with the idea that unless you prosecute everybody, you can't prosecute anybody. Especially since we're talking about different states and different local police forces. Why should Arlington, MA base its law enforcement decisions on what Wasila, AK is doing?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]queencallipygos
2011-01-19 03:57 pm UTC (link)
Why should Arlington, MA base its law enforcement decisions on what Wasila, AK is doing?

My apologies for not being clear; I was speaking more rhetorically.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]emily_goddess
2011-01-19 05:42 pm UTC (link)
Sure, and I agree. In principle, it would be nice if law enforcement was consistent nationwide. And really, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that some unfamous Alaskan might have gotten the same treatment, that part of what protected Palin was her fame.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]snarkhunter
2011-01-20 03:53 am UTC (link)
Um, because Sarah Palin, while she has said a fuckton of stupid, offensive shit and was incredibly inappropriate in the map-with-crosshairs imagery, never actually said something like "one down 534 to go" immediately following the shooting of a Congressperson?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]staroverthebay
2011-01-20 05:46 am UTC (link)
This. She never outright said to KILL any human being. She used violent imagery and violent rhetoric, but she didn't come out and outright say "Kill this person!"

There's a difference between implying violence and outright calling for it.

I don't like Sarah Palin one bit, and I think she needs to get off her martyr-bus and fucking APOLOGIZE for her over-the-top "Take Back the 20" campaign, but let's not demonize her any further than she's already done herself.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]duraniedrama
2011-01-19 03:18 pm UTC (link)
Did you see what the guy said?

It is absolutely, absolutely unacceptable to shoot “indiscriminately”.

Target only politicians and their staff, and leave regular citizens alone.

Please!

Even the First Amendment has its limits, and I'm pretty sure giving specific instructions on who to shoot and who not to shoot lies well outside those limits.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]queencallipygos
2011-01-19 03:56 pm UTC (link)
Even the First Amendment has its limits, and I'm pretty sure giving specific instructions on who to shoot and who not to shoot lies well outside those limits.

About the only instance I would say that would be true, would be -- if he was speaking solely to a guy who had a gun and came up to him and said "I'm gonna go on a shooting spree in the Capital, wanna come with me?" And he said "nah, I can't -- but lemme tell you who to aim for."

This isn't that case. And I'm afraid to tell you that, that means this IS within the limits of the First Amendment. I don't like that it is, but the tradeoff is that someone in the Tea Party really doesn't like that it is within the limits of the First Amendment that I could run an ad in the New York Times calling for a boycott of Sarah Palin's book. And since the First Amendment protects my right to do that, and the Tea Party guy has to suck it up and deal with it, I have to suck it up and deal with it that an asshole can crack these "aim for the congressmen, amirite?" jokes.

But the silver lining is that I can also turn to the asshole and say "dude, you're an asshole." Because the First Amendment protects that too.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]duraniedrama
2011-01-19 05:12 pm UTC (link)
Boycotting Sarah Palin's book =/= instructions on who to kill.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action

How imminent said lawless actions are is really up to the courts to decide.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]queencallipygos
2011-01-19 05:21 pm UTC (link)
Boycotting Sarah Palin's book =/= instructions on who to kill.

I know that and you know that. Someone else may feel differently, though -- and the First Amendment is designed to protect us from that person's opinion on "protected speech" being the rule of thumb.

How imminent said lawless actions are is really up to the courts to decide.

And I agree this is as it should be. I'm just concerned with how they decided in this instance, is all.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]queencallipygos
2011-01-19 05:26 pm UTC (link)
Wait, let me clarify -- I am completely down with the police siezing the huge horkin' stash of guns and ammo. What concerns me is: I'm not sure, based on the article, whether there was any other grounds to search his house other than the stuff he said online. If there was, then cool.

But if all they had to go on was what he said online -- well, what's to stop police from pointing to any obnoxious shit any of us may have said sarcastically, and using that as an excuse to search our houses?

I'll grant you that I'm very much in the err-on-the-side-of-permissiveness camp when it comes to the First Amendment, though.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]phosfate, 2011-01-19 06:30 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]queencallipygos, 2011-01-19 07:37 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]phosfate, 2011-01-19 08:53 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]cmdr_zoom, 2011-01-20 01:36 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]moljn, 2011-01-19 09:14 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]agent_hyatt, 2011-01-19 09:23 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]bubosquared, 2011-01-21 12:11 pm UTC

[info]airawyn
2011-01-19 06:32 pm UTC (link)
Actually, the police do go after anyone making threats to elected officials. I don't have a link handy, but there was a thing a few years ago where someone on LJ wished Bush would die in a specific manner and she got raided by the Secret Service. Sarah Palin gets away with it because she's not explicitly calling for anyone's deaths. There's a fine line and I'm pretty sure Palin knows exactly where it is and just barely stays clear of it.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]queencallipygos
2011-01-19 07:44 pm UTC (link)
See, now, I thought that things been clarified after Groucho Marx won against the FBI when they went after him for saying "I think the only hope this country has is Nixon's assassination." A Federal attorney ruled that there was a difference between "the leader of an organization which advocates killing people and overthrowing the government" making such a threat, and any other random person. Ultimately they ruled that Groucho's quip was not a "true threat".

Not challenging you, I'm just curious about the paper trail on this specific issue now, because I thought the line between "person who can potentially actually do something about a threat" and "random harmless yutz on the internet" was clearer.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]airawyn
2011-01-19 07:53 pm UTC (link)
I don't know. Possibly these things wouldn't hold up in court if you got a good lawyer on it.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]eleutheria
2011-01-20 02:42 am UTC (link)
Nope, if it's reported to them, they do tend to follow up on it. A couple of anecdotes worth noting here.

Long, long time ago I gamed with a guy who worked in membership for the NRA. He was on the VRE (commuter train) and the guy next to him struck up a conversation including what DC-folk usually ask, "what do you do for a living?" NRA guy answers with where he works and the other guy starts ranting about how much he hates President Clinton, and how he "wished someone would just shoot him". NRA guy said basically, look I don't like him either, but that's not cool, man, and the conversation ended. The next day, the Secret Service showed up at the NRA to talk to the guy I gamed with. Apparently someone had overheard and called in a report. It wasn't a huge thing, they interviewed him for an hour or two about what he remembered about the guy on the train, and said that even if it's probably just someone spouting off, they still have to follow up on it if it's reported to them.

I also knew someone who volunteered sorting mail at the White House. The sorters get instructions on how to deal with negative mail that basically amounts to if they say they hate the President and think he's a jerk or is going to burn in Hell or should be impeached, that gets put in one pile, but if it mentions violence in any way (even if it's "I hope you die in a fire, asshole"), it gets put in a bin to be sent to the Secret Service for further evaluation.

They do follow up on "random yutz spouting off" reports and letters, even if it's to do a cursory investigation and decide the person's harmless.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]abharding, 2011-01-20 08:47 pm UTC

[info]greenling
2011-01-20 11:23 pm UTC (link)
Wasn't shooty dude yutz on the internet? I mean, he had a Youtube channel, and ranted about this pretty often if I'm informed properly.

Maybe they're just in a hightened level of yutz-awareness right now.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

kinda...
[info]monkeyarcher
2011-01-21 02:49 am UTC (link)
While it is odd that it went all the way to an attorney, basically everythign is standard. Anytime a person makes a comment such as this, which may or may not be construed as a threat to a government official, it must be investigated. Many times it is dismissed as not a true threat, perhaps even something off the cuff or intended for humor, but not always.
This was something that was convered in training regarding client confidentiality when I worked in mental health. I never realized that this went back to when Nixon was in office...I wonder when this became the standard practice.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]esorlehcar
2011-01-19 07:50 pm UTC (link)
I'm not sure any of it is still up, but the quote was "Dear God, please choke George Bush with a pretzel." There was no threat involved, there were no instructions to anyone to go kill someone. Investigating this asshole was legit; the Secret Service showing up at the other blogger's house was not, nor was them telling her that she was no longer allowed to voice her support for Kerry in her own blog.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]kita0610
2011-01-19 10:36 pm UTC (link)
It isn't up anymore but the whole thing is easy to trace.

The issue is that the Secret Service is OBLIGATED to respond to any complaint. Someone complained about this blog post (because of an online grudge if I recall correctly, what an asshole) and it's the job of the Service to check it out. Even THEY said it was ridiculous- they still didn't have a choice but to investigate.

OH GOOD TIMES.

(I don't remember the Kerry support part- are you sure about that bit?)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]esorlehcar, 2011-01-20 03:24 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]kita0610, 2011-01-20 03:28 am UTC

[info]els_chan
2011-01-19 11:01 pm UTC (link)
nor was them telling her that she was no longer allowed to voice her support for Kerry in her own blog.

Unless that came from an official source, I have to call bs on that as it's a clear violation of First Amendment rights. More likely the blogger in question was peeved she got a visit and was told not to tell the president to choke on pretzels on her blog anymore and blew it up into something very, very different.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]els_chan, 2011-01-19 11:01 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]eleutheria, 2011-01-20 02:48 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]esorlehcar, 2011-01-20 03:31 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]eleutheria, 2011-01-20 03:54 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]kita0610, 2011-01-20 06:11 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]esorlehcar, 2011-01-20 03:20 am UTC

[info]snarkhunter
2011-01-20 03:50 am UTC (link)
It was [info]anniesj, and it was the FBI that investigated her. They were well aware that it was bullshit. All she had said was something along the lines of, "I hope he OD's in a hotel room with an underaged male hooker." The pretzel incident below might have been a similar incident, but the LJ one was annie. The agents apparently took pictures posing with her Kerry cardboard standup figure.

I was on her flist at the time--I remember the posts about it.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]eleutheria
2011-01-20 03:56 am UTC (link)
Yes, [info]anniesj is the one I'm remembering too. I got the investigating agency wrong, though.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]sandglass
2011-01-20 05:54 am UTC (link)
Personally, I like living in a world where "freedom of speech" excludes threats against people's lives, and if you have firearms it's totally fair to hold you to an even higher standard regarding those threats. Maybe that's just me, I dunno, seems like freedom to make threats against people's lives and freedom to own firearms lead to this discussion in the first place.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]chikane
2011-01-20 09:28 am UTC (link)
And here I thought the freedom you have ends when you trespass the freedom of others.

Which a death threat is doing by definition.

Sometimes, I'm glad to live in a country where death threats aren't considered an issue of free speech, but of someone potentially threatening to harm another person. As they SHOULD BE. How fucked up is a discourse if "talking about people needing to be killed" is considered to be normal speech that should be protected?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]ladyvorkosigan
2011-01-20 01:26 pm UTC (link)
I think the issue is that a law which prohibits death threats can be used to harass people who say things like the pretzel comment quoted above. You can say it would be better if the government only prosecuted serious death threats which, sure, but if men were angels no government would be necessary etc. etc.

I'm not saying there should or shouldn't be such a law; but it's not an easy "death threats should be excluded!" calculation either.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]queencallipygos, 2011-01-20 06:04 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]chikane, 2011-01-20 06:31 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]cmdr_zoom, 2011-01-20 06:41 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]chikane, 2011-01-21 11:47 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]ladyvorkosigan, 2011-01-21 05:13 pm UTC

(Read comments) -

 
   
Privacy Policy - COPPA
Legal Disclaimer - Site Map