Two things:
1️⃣ Does not seem like a true threat to me
2️⃣ But also "true threat" is often so ill-defined by the appellate courts (no real test from SCOTUS) that they convict who they want to convict regardless
Not sure how 9th Circuit has it. I'd assume a good defense attorney could beat this though
@gregdoucette.bsky.social have you seen the arrest of the citizen addressing the Bakersfield City Council (now in jail on $2M bond)?
youtu.be/Z_ZXZTaKbQI?...
Speeches at 30:07 and 46:45. True threat or rhetorical hyperbole? I think it’s rhetoric.
I'd 100% trust Ken's analysis over my own
I guess my take is that I'm too online, because in the context of the broader rants I didn't take that line as being adequately detailed to be a true threat
In isolation or different context, agree that's enough
Greg, your analysis is at least as reliable as mine. I’d say pretty confidently that it’s enough for probable cause for a threats case, and enough to go to jury. Does a jury agree? Maybe not. To me the context is significant —
—-they’re putting in metal detectors and she’s saying eh we’ll just go kill you at home. And during an era of public officials being attacked all the time by crazy people, it’s not at all clear to me that a reasonable person wouldn’t be afraid.
And my bias: I think there are a lot of people out there who create DELIBERATE ambiguity and uncertainly about whether or not their threats are true or rhetorical, and relish the fear (and accompanying chill on speech) that causes, and those people are scum.
I think these folks know that:
* they themselves won’t carry out the threat, so feel legally safe because that makes the threat “not true”, while also
* they are in a communication ecosystem that contains individuals who just might take a suggestion and do the deed for them.
#stochastic
There is an entire category of dude who is a bit bigger than everyone else in almost every room they enter for which "intimidate everyone just a little" is baked into their communication style. Can't stand those guys. And the style looks incredibly dumb when they continue to use it online.
Totally agree it's enough for probable cause, we've both seen PC found for less direct comments
The 4th Circ test here is "reasonable recipient, familiar with the circumstances, would interpret as serious expression of intent" – I get hung up on the "familiar with the circumstances" part
But it was in the middle of an otherwise-normal-but-passionate speech, from someone young enough to know post-Columbine security theater is ineffective. And the immediate behavior of the council members didn't indicate they felt threatened
Calmly replying "Yeah so your last sentence was a threat. Take her away Officer Bubba" doesn't strike me as a response to a threat, so much as a response to being annoyed
"Nobody flipped out" is a good thing T. Greg Doucette.
She made threats; she deals with charges. Sure a lawyer talks it down, but not all speech is free, nor should it be. She pays a lawyer, and (maybe) learns a lesson.
Sure, it’s defensible. Those are the arguments to make.
I honestly have extremely little sympathy to anyone who decides to use explicit death threats and finds out they’re gonna have to let a jury decide.
I think my argument would be that my client was inarticulate and clunky but trying to make the point that metal detectors won't do anything because a truly sick person could just go to your house anyway. I haven't seen video so maybe that would be a bad tack.
I don't know about you, but when I've been in a situation where someone was behaving erratically and making serious-sounding threats, I've gone stone cold calm. Not because I'm so brave; it's more that I'm scared out of my mind.
I'm sure it varies by personality. I once had a gun pulled on me in my office. In retrospect I guess I was calm, but I was also absolutely homicidal (and had pulled my own gun)
To me, I took that as 1A-protected hyperbole. It struck me as someone struggling to find words to convey the sincerity of her beliefs, like a verbal equivalent of taking a shoe to someone's portrait
Prosecutors will certainly use it as evidence supporting the intent to harm prong
As a non lawyer who knows nothing, I would think there is a difference between "we will come to your house and murder you" vs "I hope someone guillotines you someday". I could imagine thinking, if not saying the latter about some people.
Hyperbolic speech aside, she's got spunk. I do think it was a mix. She definitely sounds fed up with their bullshit, and sometimes people like that, if opportunity presents itself, they'll lash out. We just don't know how severe.
