Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Threatening YouTube Video Lands Man In Prison

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the will-be-dead-is-technically-true dept.

Crime 243

wiredmikey writes "Norman LeBoon of Philadelphia was sentenced to 24 months in prison for his production and transmission of a YouTube video over the Internet last March containing a threat to injure and kill a United States Congressman. Following his arrest, LeBoon told federal agents that Eric Cantor is 'pure evil'; 'will be dead'; and that 'Cantor's family is suffering because of his father's wrath.'"

cancel ×

243 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Justice (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35764366)

was served. Watch yer cornhole!

Missing tag (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35764680)

Why doesn't Slashdot catagorize this as 'censorship'?

Breaking news... (5, Insightful)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 3 years ago | (#35764370)

Threatening people is against the law. Film at eleven.

Re:Breaking news... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35764402)

Threatening politicians gets you shipped to gitmo.

Threatening normal, everyday citizens? Police care less because their ticket quotas are more important.

Re:Breaking news... (2, Insightful)

sortius_nod (1080919) | more than 3 years ago | (#35764678)

Pretty much it.

The joys of a metrics driven "business". Run the cops like a business, get substandard policing where the rich get justice and the poor get screwed.

BULLSHIT ALERT ! (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35764756)

"Threatening normal, everyday citizens? Police care less because their ticket quotas are more important."

WRONG.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

I, on the other hand, do. And that's because I have actual experience.

Communicating threats has never been taken more seriously than it is now.

I spent 30 months in prison for this crime. If someone believes your opinion
is an accurate representation of how law enforcement deals with this stuff, they
could find themselves in a world of shit.

Re:BULLSHIT ALERT ! (0)

SquirrelDeth (1972694) | more than 3 years ago | (#35764828)

Sure buddy that is why you post as ac.

Re:BULLSHIT ALERT ! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35765140)

"Sure buddy that is why you post as ac."

I post as AC because I don't want or need an account. I certainly have
no interest in identifying myself to the crowd here, many of whom I view as
proof of the need for involuntary sterilization programs on a mass scale.

You people who think the police "won't care" if you threaten someone
who isn't a politician or a government worker are mistaken. But hey,
if you think you're right, go ahead and see how well you do with threatening
someone. Let us all know how it goes. And remember to make sure your
family sends you money for commissary, because the food in the chow hall
isn't very good. Also, you will want money for shoes, because the steel toed
work boots issued to inmates are very uncomfortable. And remember, you always
want the top bunk, because it is a much better position from which to defend
yourself when they come in with locks in a sock to beat the holy living shit
out of you because you smart-mouthed them.

Re:BULLSHIT ALERT ! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35765208)

Maybe you ended up in jail because you come off as batshit insane and the slightest comment apparently sets you off...

Re:BULLSHIT ALERT ! (2)

mordenkhai (1167617) | more than 3 years ago | (#35765222)

One night at 3:30AM local time I called the police because a woman down the street was kicking a garage door and threatening to break into the house she was at. She told the man on the other side of the door that if he didn't give her what she was there for, she would break in and kill him. She claimed a common friend sent her there, she offered to trade her bra for the object in question, and claimed she would get $50 if she talked him into giving her a beer as well. She shouted this over and over. At one point she got in her car, put it into gear, drove 5 feet then parked it and got out an yelled "And another thing". She then returned to her threats. The police showed up, asked her some questions, asked her if the car was hers, and within 5 minutes let her drive off.

I called to complain and spoke to the sergeant and he said it is only a crime if you specify the manner, had she said she would stab him, choke him or shoot him then they could have arrested her. They didn't even take her in for disturbing the peace. So no, I don't think police take threats against regular people as seriously as threats against politicians. I wouldn't suggest that this incident be used as a guide that it is ok to behave that way, but I don't believe that they care that it happens.

Re:Breaking news... (1)

MahJongKong (883108) | more than 3 years ago | (#35764852)

A congressman is not by any mean an everyday citizen. They are right to care more.

Re:Breaking news... (1)

s4m7 (519684) | more than 3 years ago | (#35764954)

Please for god's sake tell me you are kidding.

If a threat was part of an intimidation campaign designed to affect public policy, that would be one thing. But a threat against a citizen is a threat against a citizen, regardless of how many popularity contests that citizen wins.

Re:Breaking news... (2)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 3 years ago | (#35765258)

    Actually, he's not.

    Private citizens are generally unknown in the scope of national or international events. Unless there are special circumstances, if something, such as murder, happens to them, it may make the local paper for a day.

    I can't seem to find the number of murders in the US in 2010. From Jan 1 2002 to Dec 31 2008, 102,210 people were murdered in the US. That averages out to 14,601 per year, or about 40 per day.

    Public figures are known by at least a subset of the population. If even the rumor of murder starts circulating around a public figure, that becomes big news.

Consider the following. Most people in America are familiar with most or all of this list. They can recite off the circumstances for each one.

Murder suspects: OJ Simpson (1994), Gary Condit (2001), Robert Blake (2001), Phil Spector (2003).

Attempted murder victims: Ronald Regan (1981) Gabrielle Giffords (2011)

Murder victims: John F. Kennedy (1963), John Lennon (1980), Ennis Cosby (1997), Michael Jackson (2009)

    Public figures account for a very small percentage of the overall population. Lets use the hugely inflated number of 0.1% (roughly 300,000 people). I listed 10 off the top of my head. Can you list a respective number of people who are not public figures, who would fall into the 3 categories (suspect, attempted victim, and victim) ? It's only 9,000. It should be easy. Remember, give the name and year of the incident. No, you won't. Most people can't name the 10 individuals on the other side of each crime listed above without looking them up.

    It's in the best interest of law enforcement to ensure public figures do get better protection. Bad press for a department means pressures from law makers, which means heads will roll if they don't protect a public figure who reported a threat.

    Try applying the same to you or I. If someone broke into your house tonight. Like, the guy who's circled the block 3 times so far, but doesn't live in the neighborhood. You did notice the car, right?

[waiting]

    Now that you've looked out the window and see an unfamiliar car parked in the driveway down the street in front of a vacant house. And now you hear a noise from the back of your house. Was that a burglar breaking in? Call 911 and report it, quick! In 3 to 5 minutes if you live in a good area, or 10 to 30 minutes if you don't, an officer will knock on your door. If you were right, you'll already be dead. If you were wrong, you'll look dumb, and may be politely warned to not call unless there is a real crime being committed. If the first happens, you'll be a blurb on an inside page of the local paper, unless Charlie Manson himself did it.

Re:Breaking news... (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 3 years ago | (#35765058)

Wait, hes going to Gitmo? Do tell.

Hyperbole at eleven.

Re:Breaking news... (2)

willoughby (1367773) | more than 3 years ago | (#35765074)

And the policeman replies...

"We don't have quotas anymore. They let me write as many tickets as I want to now."

Re:Breaking news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35765194)

"Threatening politicians gets you shipped to gitmo.

Threatening normal, everyday citizens? Police care less because their ticket quotas are more important."

How the fuck did the above get modded "+5, Insightful" ? Threatening politicians won't get you sent to
Guantanamo, it will get you sent to a prison right here in the US. Guantanamo is used for other types
of inmates, which if you weren't a clueless idiot you would already know.

And threatening "normal, everyday citizens" will get you sent to prison too, guaranteed. So BOTH the statements
made by the original poster are 100% wrong, and provably wrong as well. Yet this bullshit gets modded up ?

Re:Breaking news... (1)

humphrm (18130) | more than 3 years ago | (#35764416)

But but but it's youtubes and it's on the internets so there must be some exception... otherwise they're obviously censoring the internet, I tell ya!

Re:Breaking news... (4, Insightful)

fishbowl (7759) | more than 3 years ago | (#35764436)

Well, this is generally only true if the threat is against a government official and if a reasonable person believes that the target has a reasonable apprehension of the threat being carried out. There are state and local laws covering stuff like "terroristic threats" and all kinds of civil statutes, but in order to rise to the level of a federal criminal rap, the threat has to be credible, specific, and targeted at a government official. This is why Pat Robertson got away with making a hit request against Hugo Chavez, for instance.

Re:Breaking news... (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 3 years ago | (#35764534)

I'm not sure what to make of this loon..... the quote [talkingpointsmemo.com] that is taken from the video never says he'll have anything to do with bullets. He may be in some mind-altered state where he thinks he's warning people of something, some sick joke, or using hyperbole -- in any of those cases it wouldn't be a crime. I think he needs to get booked into a nice mental hospital, not a jail cell...

"receive my bullets in your office, remember they will be placed in your heads. You and your children are Lucifer's abominations." ... "Leaders you will perish" and " I control your jets your missiles, I control everything."

In yet another video, Leboon seems to threaten Obama. .... "Your punishment is coming, the swine, it will be severe, and you will beg for mercy to your god. It will be severe, you will know god's swine, god has warned you."

Noted he never said anything about the bullets being shot from a gun. Someone actually threatening harm will actually make a statement that they would cause harm to happen.... otherwise, what they're doing is something different than sending a 'threat'

Re:Breaking news... (3, Insightful)

Americano (920576) | more than 3 years ago | (#35764898)

Oh come the fuck on. Pray tell, what's the mechanism by which someone's bullets would get inside someone else's head, if not through the action of someone pulling a trigger? Is he going to surgically implant them in a willing patient, and has Mr. Cantor already signalled his & his family's willingness to have bullets surgically implanted in their heads in a painless & harmless medical procedure performed by (or financed by) Mr. LeBoon?

Sarah Palin's campaign puts together a poster with a fairly standard "target" symbol that happens to be a gun sight, and she's a bloodthirsty villain who advocates violence, but a guy records himself saying that "my bullets [...] will be placed in your heads," is not threatening, or encouraging, violence against an elected official?

I'm not sure why you're trying so hard to excuse this behavior - it's inappropriate on every level, regardless of the man's political affiliation. He deserves the full attention of law enforcement, and he's receiving exactly that now. Take his article and s/Cantor/Pelosi/g and tell me you wouldn't be howling for Rush Limbaugh's blood right now, in addition to advocating that the man making the threat, and at least 5-10% of the rest of conservatives (who "obviously" think the same way as this guy, on account of knowing how to use a gun), should be locked up?

Re:Breaking news... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35764992)

Holy crap are you kidding? YOU COME THE FUCK ON, ASSHOLE. The people who castigated Sarah Palin's CAMPAIGN AD, ****NOT Palin****, were upset about an and ACTUAL, REALIZED assassination that claimed the life of a little girl among others. Not just some slippery YouTube jism. WTF.

Get off your fucking tea party whine and join humanity you repulsive cunt.

Re:Breaking news... (3, Insightful)

Americano (920576) | more than 3 years ago | (#35765118)

The question is whether or not it's a threat or incitement to violence, not whether or not somebody has already pulled the trigger as a result. And in all your name-calling, I notice you couldn't answer the question of how bullets get into someone's head except through violent means. Try again, pottymouth.

Since you seem to have reading comprehension issues, nowhere in there did I defend Sarah Palin's choice of ad campaign, or even her as a politician or a person. I'm simply pointing out a tremendous double standard - her campaign ad had tenuous-at-best relevance to Mr. Loughner's actions, but she was castigated for using "violent imagery" as if she were the sole - or even a proximal - cause of the incident.

And yet we have someone threatening to "put his bullets" in someone's head, and people are struggling to come up with a way to explain how it's not *really* a threat, and didn't *actually* threaten harm. The double standard is simply breathtaking, and your furiously ham-fisted and vulgar response simply underscores the point: rather than acknowledge that this man made a real threat by any reasonable standard of judgement, you'll simply call me a "repulsive cunt" and report in for your Anti-Tea Party Rant profile badge over on DKos.

Re:Breaking news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35764974)

"I control your jets your missiles, I control everything" is probably going to become an awesome meme.

---
Also I'm getting rapidly peeved over how routinely nutcases mention Satan. Why do the nutjobs invariably believe in god and fixate on teh devil!!? It's like a fucking mental magnet for the insane.

If you've ever seen movies where some insane inpatient sat in the corner and audibly whispered to himself about demons, totally ignoring the presence of others, and you doubted the portrayal's veracity - don't. I've met that woman in real life. It's creepier coming from a fellow human.

Re:Breaking news... (1)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 3 years ago | (#35765042)

Oh yes, those film scenes are sometimes terribly accurate. I co-habitated with one of those -- his words -- "possessed/empowered" people once. I quite literally feel very fortunate to have gotten away safely.

Re:Breaking news... (0, Troll)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 3 years ago | (#35764606)

>Threatening people is against the law

Then why aren't Glenn Beck and half the hate speech jocks on am radio in jail?

Re:Breaking news... (1, Insightful)

bmo (77928) | more than 3 years ago | (#35764698)

Because if you make the threat vague enough, you can't be found guilty of threatening *specific* people.

That's why they pay lawyers.

Norman LeBoon's mistake was calling out Eric Cantor.

I'm not making excuses for the Fox idiots. They're despicable. It's cynical gaming of the system, but that's the way it works.

--
BMO

Re:Breaking news... (1, Flamebait)

jd (1658) | more than 3 years ago | (#35764860)

Glen Beck is usually pretty specific on the person and Sarah Palin wasn't exactly vague about identities with those photos, it's their threats that tend to be vague. That and celebrities are usually rich enough to win court cases. It's just safer to allow talk-show hosts to rant than to antagonize them. The police and secret service know much better than to kick a wasp's nest and sadly they haven't a whole list of alternatives when it comes to dealing with agent provocateurs.

Re:Breaking news... (0, Flamebait)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 3 years ago | (#35764882)

> Then why aren't Glenn Beck and half the hate speech jocks on am radio in jail?

Ok moron I call you out. Name ONE statement made by Glenn Beck that any sane person would consider 'hate speech.' It just ain't him. Or Rush. Liddy on the the other hand.... and Levin gets a bit overexcited so probably says stupid things too. However you specifically named Glenn Beck so back it up. Not conspiracy theory, not stuff you disagree with, not policy positions you don't like. And if you cite the radio show you had better provide a few paragraphs of context on either side to make it possible to separate the quotes of other people and obvious sarcasm/satire from serious commentary. As for the TV program I probably saw the episode since it and RedEye are the two FNS programs I DVR. (If you think Beck is hyperactive, try him at 1.2x playback sometimes.)

Re:Breaking news... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35764952)

Glenn Beck is a fear-mongering, violence-encouraging piece of shit. You probably are too, since you're defending him. Shame on you. It's un-american scum teabaggers like you who have sold out our birthright. I hope you're happy, traitor!

Re:Breaking news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35765142)

What threat has Glenn Beck made?

Re:Breaking news... (2, Insightful)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35764632)

Except if it's against an ordinary person. Then not much will be done. That free speech thing in the constitution, which lists no exceptions, is completely worthless, anyway.

Re:Breaking news... (4, Insightful)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 3 years ago | (#35765086)

Yes, noone has ever [boston.com] been tried [inquisitr.com] for harrassing [nytimes.com] a normal person over the internet [nj.com] , much less threatening them. [theregister.co.uk]

Re:Breaking news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35765126)

I've had death threats from fanboys over bad reviews I've posted to Gamefaqs.

Nothing was done.

In fairness, I really don't feel threatened by obese, basement-dwelling gamers. I mean, there are some pretty steep stairs up to my residence; I'm pretty sure even if someone acted, they'd have a heart attack or, failing that, I could just gently bump them and they'd go tumbling back down to the ground.

But that's not the problem - had I felt threatened; had I gone to the police - jack all would've happened. Now, were I a rich man, or a politician, or a celebrity - and had gone to the police in the same situation - well, there would've been some fanboys having some interesting conversations with LEOs.

Yes - there are exceptions. Whenever someone feels the need to be 'tough on crime' - whatever the hell that means. Whenever a politician is looking to score points before an election. But by and large, nothing is done with regard to threats of violence or death. Justice, verily.

Re:Breaking news... (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35765192)

Yes. You are correct. The point is, though, that more often than not, it is completely ignored.

Re:Breaking news... (1)

jd (1658) | more than 3 years ago | (#35764674)

Well, in this case, it looks like the guy is mentally unstable. Well, I suspect a lot in prison are. (The criminally insane are the ones that likely can't be treated but are the only ones to get treatment. Oooooohhhhhkay. That makes sense. I'd rather pay a couple extra cents a year to see someone like this in a hospital than pay a fortune for the layers of security that will accumulate from incidents like this. Prevention pays off better than revenge, even if it's less fun for the media.)

Re:Breaking news... (-1, Flamebait)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 3 years ago | (#35764990)

Back in the days before Republicans made Yuppie Scum Capitalism and No Taxes For The Rich their true, official religious doctrine, we used to treat a lot of people who would otherwise have had no other options but incarceration. The system was far from perfect, though. It was fairly easy to get someone locked up in treatment, because it was fairly easy to get treatment paid for. So Reagan's decision to release loonies everywhere to the street with no supervision was widely lauded at the time as a "victory for patients' rights". In reality, we simply went from one absurd extreme to the opposite one. Why? Beats me, but there does seem to be a pattern of extremism...

Re:Breaking news... (3, Insightful)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 3 years ago | (#35764692)

Threatening people is against the law. Film at eleven.

Not just any people, but government workers... go to your local Social Security or DMV office, and you'll see a prominent sign stating that it is illegal to threaten any of the clerks working there. Wait, no... threatening someone with a show of force is commonly "assault" in the USA as well... if you flash a gun at me like you intend to do me harm, you just committed a crime... doesn't matter who I am.

Politicians in general receive fairly blanket protections, a real threat made against one is investigated and you're likely to face jail time if you meant it seriously, and a stern talking to about how they could lock you up if it was made in jest.

From the sound of TFS, this guy was a real threat to Eric Cantor, and the guy ought be in jail...

Re:Breaking news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35764892)

Are negative thoughts threatening, especially when they aren't well thought out?

(In a few years, we very well may be able to parse people's thoughts as if they were today's youtube videos, false detection rate when be damned).

This guy doesn't appear to be threatening anyone. He just appears to be crazy (using delusion-related terms like "evil"). He is ranting very publicly, further highlighting his irrationality.

How has he done anything that we should expect warrants two years in jail?

Re:Breaking news... (1)

WorBlux (1751716) | more than 3 years ago | (#35765134)

Sometimes, but not always, especially it it's not an immediate or credible threat.

Re:Breaking news... (1)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 3 years ago | (#35765254)

Well then we have a serious problem because WORDS should be be a crime.

who doesnt want to kill every damn politican? FUCK.

YouTube == news for nerds? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35764374)

Why's this news?

Re:YouTube == news for nerds? (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 3 years ago | (#35764434)

It's not news.

Every American is wishing for the deaths of all their congressmen, especially after having to deal with the legislative poo-flinging budget circuses shown on C-span.

meanwhile.... (-1, Troll)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 3 years ago | (#35764386)

Death threats against Democrats are given the "aw, shucks" treatment.

Yeah, mod me down. That doesn't make it any less true.

Re:meanwhile.... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35764422)

Care to cite examples? If you can't, you *are* trolling.

Re:meanwhile.... (4, Informative)

d3ac0n (715594) | more than 3 years ago | (#35764546)

Care to cite examples? If you can't, you *are* trolling.

That's because he *is* trolling.

Here are two recent and telling examples of why the troll is wrong:

Exhibit A: Crazy person goes on a rampage and shoots a Democrat politician in the head, nearly killing her.

Media response: Multiple week long circus trying to blame Sarah Palin for the actions of a loon.

Police response: Local police Chief spends more time in front of the camera railing against the Tea Party than he does investigating the attack.

End result: Eventually the investigation is completed by the FBI. The crazy person was crazy and acted alone, uninfluenced by any mainstream political thought or either party. Media continues blame game against Palin unabated.

Exhibit B: After a week spent trashing the capital building in Madison, Leftist thugs send multiple death threats against Wisconsin GOP members and their families.

Media response: Nonexistent outside Fox and the con-alt-media.

Police response: 1 month later and they have ONE person in custody.

End Result: Still playing out.

These are only the most recent examples. I could come up with many more. The point is, in public life in general and in the media in particular, Dems are generally given a pass and let slide when it comes to misbehavior. But the same behavior done by a GOP member elicits WEEKS of scathing coverage with the clear and obvious intent of the absolute destruction of said GOP politician.

Not to say that ANY politician should be allowed to slide when they do wrong. They should be absolutely held accountable. But it would be nice, for a change, if we got the same anti-corruption zeal from the MSM when the bad guy or gal is a 'D' as we do when he or she is an 'R'.

Re:meanwhile.... (3, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35764592)

That's not a citation, that's your interpretation. Threatening a public official isn't automatically going to end with court proceedings, there is a legal threshold that must be met. It doesn't happen to occur to you that if Fox was the only one covering it that the threats might not have been credible?

Remember Fox and the con-alt-media are the ones that believe in this massive liberal conspiracy and that Fox went to court specifically to defend its right to make up stories. Fox itself isn't a source of news, and that's their official stance on the matter.

Re:meanwhile.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35764768)

That's all besides the point. Can you cite some examples of Democrats receiving death threats, and law enforcement responding with an "aw shucks" response, or are you just here to tell us that you hate Fox News, so you really *feel* that the original post is correct?

Re:meanwhile.... (4, Insightful)

Americano (920576) | more than 3 years ago | (#35764846)

Actually he makes a very good point. 18 Wisconsin congressmen [wausaudailyherald.com] reported death threats after the collective bargaining bill was passed there recently. Yet, you actually do have to go looking to find anything about it on most nationwide news sites. That link above is from a daily newspaper in a small town in central Wisconsin. I'm surprised I wasn't able to at easily find a wire service story about the death threats, given the hysterical nature of the rest of the coverage of the issue.

considering that CNN did report that death threats have led to at least one set of charges, [cnn.com] it's hard to imagine that Fox News was just making shit up about the threats, as you're trying to suggest.

Re:meanwhile.... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35764858)

Media response: Multiple week long circus trying to blame Sarah Palin for the actions of a loon.

Actually, what happened from the start was Sarah Palin bringing herself into the picture and complaining about how SHE was the victim already, since it was clearly so bad for her to be criticized.

Seriously, did you not notice what happened? Did you buy her BS that cheaply?

Exhibit B: After a week spent trashing the capital building in Madison, Leftist thugs send multiple death threats against Wisconsin GOP members and their families.

Actually what happened was Fox made up a story about it that had Palm trees in it(IOW, they used an event that happened in a totally different state to criticize the folks in Wisconsin!), and Walker was shown to have come up with numbers out of his ass complaining about vandalism that didn't actually happen.

Sorry, but all you've shown me is that FOX makes up BS and Sarah Palin is a whiny git.

BTW, are you forgetting the Memphis Congressman who was criticize for comparing his opponents to Nazis. By Fox, who denied doing it themselves. Of course, Jon Stewart proved them hypocrites.

Re:meanwhile.... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35764430)

Death threats against Democrats are given the "aw, shucks" treatment.

Yeah, mod me down. That doesn't make it any less true.

No, we were told over and over (and over) again after Senator Giffords was shot that it was the right that was responsible for the shocking violence in this country, but in recent weeks death threats have been made against both Scott Walker (WI-R) and now Eric Cantor (VA-R) with barely any media coverage.

Aw shucks? Your statement isn't true at all!

Re:meanwhile.... (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#35764476)

... but in recent weeks death threats have been made against both Scott Walker (WI-R) and now Eric Cantor (VA-R) with barely any media coverage.

Aw shucks? Your statement isn't true at all!

I don't know about the threats against Walker, but LeBoon posted his video threatening Cantor on YouTube in March 2010. I'm pretty sure it got some coverage then (but you'll have to Google it yourself).

Re:meanwhile.... (4, Funny)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35764544)

As others have suggested, the difference is that unlike the GOP, the Democratic party doesn't encourage, endorse or suggest violence as a means of solving the political problems int he US. Or have you forgotten about that? The various incidents were pretty well covered by the media.

Re:meanwhile.... (2, Insightful)

gujo-odori (473191) | more than 3 years ago | (#35764650)

Neither the GOP nor the Democratic party encourage, endorse, or suggest political violence as a means of solving our problems. Some of both of their supporters do so, however, and it's mostly on the left. The far left espouses violence so much because that's generally the only way it can either gain or keep power. How ofter does a country vote in communism? Even more importantly, how ofter does a country vote out communism? The first thing a communist government does is make any other political or economic system illegal. The few that are left have mostly had to back off some on the economic front (both China and Viet Nam are de facto capitalist countries today, even if their governments are still communist).

Those who favor liberty do not favor political violence; even the American Revolution was a means of last resort, when everything else had failed. The left does not favor liberty, it favors control and conformance, and that makes it much more comfortable with political violence, because violence supports that goal and walks hand in hand with putting people in jail for "political crimes." There are no political crimes in free countries, but many in non-free countries. We have not yet seen the day when a person can be put in prison in the United States merely for saying that which is not politically correct, but there are many on the left who see such a thing as desirable, and who will work to bring it about.

Re:meanwhile.... (1)

Simon80 (874052) | more than 3 years ago | (#35765012)

You refer to far, far left activity that has no bearing on the political climate in the US. Mainstream politicians on the right make plenty of incitements to violence [mediamatters.org] on what is unfortunately a mainstream news channel. I don't see people who you'd consider left-wing making such extreme comments, but since I'm sure you do, would you care to cite some examples of left-wing politicians or their supporters inciting their audience to violence on a mainstream news outlet?

Re:meanwhile.... (0)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 3 years ago | (#35764818)

> the difference is that unlike the GOP, the Democratic party doesn't encourage, endorse or suggest violence

As much as I hate the "citation needed' meme on slashdot, I gotta call you out and ask for some examples.

Meanwhile finding violent lefties is trivial. Bringing up Al Sharpton would be almost like shooting fish in a barrel. Stood on the stage in Democratic Party presidential primary debates with blood on his hands. Inciting a riot that results in dead bodies is a violent crime that would have been prosecuted against any white person, including most Dems.

How many violent 60's rejects are honored elders in the Democratic Party? Oh, those don't count? Why?

How many Tea Party guys have been violently assaulted by lefty goons and loons? The SEIU beatdown Kenneth Gladney for the offense of being a capitalist, selling Gadsden flags at a TP event. Another loon bit a guy's fricking finger off. The Wisconsin situation has been on a hair trigger for violence now for a month, all from union goons and outright socialist revolutionaries.

Now name a violent right winger. You have to go back to McVeigh to even find a good candidate to try to hang on our team's account. Or that loon that popped the abortion Dr. a while back. But note the common thread there, all lone wolves, not organized all the way up to the highest levels of the party like Sharpton or SEIU.

Despite the faked fear from the legacy media for months of leadup, the most evil bugbear in your side's universe, Glenn Beck held a rally in Washington and instead of a hatefest with burning down the city as a big finish, the actual event was a prayer rally that left the grounds cleaner than they found them.

Re:meanwhile.... (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35764902)

Democrats and republicans shooting at each other?

Guess I'll sit back and have a Coke.

Re:meanwhile.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35765006)

Let me guess, you didn't do an internet search, or you just stopped when all the results from the right-wing blogs convinced you that it was a media conspiracy??

Go look for Anti-Abortion violence. There have been several since McVeigh's bombing. Go look up anti-Mosque vandalism. Go look up Jim David Adkisson if you want. Check out Roy Warden. You've probably heard Fox News beat the drum about the Black Panthers, but do they mention that? Nope!

Complain about Sharpton all you want, but he's not actually that important. You want to ban him? Ban Limbaugh too.

And that Glenn Beck rally? They keep claiming their rallies are somehow cleaner, but I suspect that there is no independent verification of their claims. And I certainly have no reason to take Beck at his word, he so obviously lies about so many things that I don't bother listening to him. It's just self-aggrandizement.

Find me an independent source that supports the claim why don't you?

your kidding, right? (1)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 3 years ago | (#35765070)

It is quite documented that their adherents do the threatening and bullying for them. I seem to recall more than one sitting Congressmen of the Democratic sort making stupid comments and threats. Their supporters certainly do. If your telling me they have nothing to do with the SEIU or that their followers in Wisconsin don't count then I guess your definition of the Democratic party must be pretty damn narrow.

Both sides have their loons, to claim it is the domain of one party to make threats is just plain ignorance or playing to the certain elements of Slashdot. I don't have the time to google all the examples for you, but if you take your nose out of Huffington Post you might see the truth.

Karma be damned, what passes for insightful on this site is downright hilarious.

Re:meanwhile.... (1)

Wild_dog! (98536) | more than 3 years ago | (#35764642)

Usually you don't get a nice You Tube video before a wacko gets a chance at someone. This is not a political party issue, this is an issue of ratcheting up the hate in America.

Hate, hate, hate, hate hate. And what do you get. Wackos who are unpredictable.
Wackos are just wackos no matter what political party they belong to.

Re:meanwhile.... (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | more than 3 years ago | (#35764722)

I've been flying my RC scale predator drone over many local paranoid group meetings (tea party, gun shows, green party, critical mass, dead heads, peace rallies etc) for the last year or so. Being in Sacramento I've got a fairly target rich environment even without traveling to the bay area. Gotta watch the airspace over state buildings though. That will get you in big trouble even with a dinky electric 'park flyer'. If they catch you of course.

Feeding their paranoia. I know I'm bad.

Posting in the hope that others will take it up as well. RC predators are cheap and readily available. I've mostly overflown left wing nut groups as that's my available target (CA=fruits, nuts and flakes. I'm a nut BTW. Flakes piss me off.).

Re:meanwhile.... (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 3 years ago | (#35764908)

I've been flying my RC scale predator drone over many local paranoid group meetings (tea party, gun shows, green party...dead heads, peace rallies etc)

Um, are you okay? You seem to have forgotten your meds...

...critical mass...

Give me a call if you want your drones weaponized. I live in San Diego and have a few connections to the military industrial complex...

Re:meanwhile.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35765144)

Uh... wow, really? I didn't realize there was that much political activity in Sacramento. Are you downtown? Surely you can't be in north sac (the only section I've visited for long).

Re:meanwhile.... (1)

Wild_dog! (98536) | more than 3 years ago | (#35765238)

Sure your not from Folsom?..... head for the hills in times of crisis.

Re:meanwhile.... (2)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 3 years ago | (#35764442)

Considering death threats against democrats are headline news and against republicans they're embargo'd? What you said is far from true. Lexisnexis is over there, feel free to use it.

Re:meanwhile.... (1)

Grapplebeam (1892878) | more than 3 years ago | (#35764482)

Which is funny, generally they're more interested in regulating all speech rather than cutting out the middle man and regulating our morals.

Re:meanwhile.... (0, Troll)

sgage (109086) | more than 3 years ago | (#35764484)

99.999% of the time, it's death threats against Democrats. You don't find Democrats shooting Republicans. It's the wack-job Rethuglicans that like to whip up violent reactions in their constituency. Because they don't have any real ideas. Just anger, hatred, and stupidity.

You know it's true. :-)

Re:meanwhile.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35764586)

Care to name the last time a Republican shot a Democrat? Please cite your source or admit that you're a troll.

Re:meanwhile.... (2)

magarity (164372) | more than 3 years ago | (#35764786)

Care to name the last time a Republican shot a Democrat? Please cite your source or admit that you're a troll.

1838 [wikipedia.org]

Re:meanwhile.... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35764806)

You sir, are a moron.

Re:meanwhile.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35764560)

Yeah, funny. I cannot find a mention of this on CNN's front page -- the link is to a Security Week article. The mainstream media is really going nuts over this one

Re:meanwhile.... (0, Troll)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 3 years ago | (#35764594)

I think you are missing a small, but very important distinction. Death threats against specific individuals are almost always prosecuted, regardless of the party. However thinly veiled calls to violence(such as a politician uttering the phrase "second amendment solutions" are pretty much ignored when the Republicans make them, but if a democrat ever uttered anything like he would instantly be vilified as the worst person ever to walk the face of the planet.

Re:meanwhile.... (2)

steveha (103154) | more than 3 years ago | (#35765052)

Death threats against Democrats are given the "aw, shucks" treatment.

References, please. When did this happen? Who specifically said it was "aw, shucks" for a Democrat to receive death threats?

Because I remember the news media spending weeks chiding [salon.com] Republicans and Tea Party members for an "extreme tone", while the same news media was much less interested [huffingtonpost.com] in actual death threats made against Republicans.

It was big news that Sarah Palin's campaign used marks to indicate cities [talkingpointsmemo.com] on a map, and the news media endlessly discussed how serious it is that Sarah Palin used words like "target" and "reload" when talking about election plans. It wasn't news at all that Democrat ads have used bullseyes [postonpolitics.com] , or even put a crosshairs with reticle [youtube.com] over a Republican. That crosshairs looks like a rifle scope to me.

I remember that it was big news when a Republican shouted [cnn.com] "You lie!" at President Obama, but it was not big news when a Wisconsin Democrat shouted [thenorthwestern.com] "You're f***king dead!" at a Wisconsin Republican. (Nobody thinks it was a sincere threat of murder, but it still seems like a poor example of the more civil "new tone" talked about in recent months.)

Are you telling me that the same news media that was all over the Republican "extreme tone" downplayed actual death threats against Democrats?

Citation needed.

Disclaimer: I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat; I am a minarchist libertarian. I am not a fan of extremist rhetoric on either side, I am not a fan of death threats, and I am not a fan of double standards.

steveha

So? (2)

atari2600a (1892574) | more than 3 years ago | (#35764404)

"Will be dead" is assault, a felony depending on who it's directed towards. This isn't news.

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35764468)

in 100 years, president obama will be dead.

Re:So? (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35764528)

You seem unsettlingly sure of that.

That's not what got him prison. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35764854)

"Will be dead" is what he said when arrested.

The words that got him in trouble were: you receive my bullets in your office, remember they will be placed in your heads.

Now, that seems much more like a felony threat to me.

Wow (2)

donotlizard (1260586) | more than 3 years ago | (#35764450)

LeBoon is obviously a disturbed individual. And Congressman Cantor's pure evilness can't be good, either.

Re:Wow (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35764554)

That was my thought. Cantor is evil, but that's no reason to threaten him. As rewarding as it would be, you can't just string up politicians for being evil.

Re:Wow (4, Funny)

ae1294 (1547521) | more than 3 years ago | (#35764800)

That was my thought. Cantor is evil, but that's no reason to threaten him. As rewarding as it would be, you can't just string up politicians for being evil.

I don't recall reading anything in the constitution that forbids "stringing up politicians" so isn't it then left up to the states? Also I don't recall reading any law forbidding it in my state nor local governments so doesn't that mean it's left up for us to decide? :-)

Anagram. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35764486)

His name is an anagram for: Loner Man Noob

Anagram #2 (3, Funny)

handy_vandal (606174) | more than 3 years ago | (#35764750)

Mr. Non-Boolean

Heh. (0)

WarpedCore (1255156) | more than 3 years ago | (#35764498)

I'm not going to defend the guy on account there are a lot of people out there that are mentally one pebble short of a total meltdown/cataclysm. Some philosophers will argue that all people are inherently evil. If that were the case, people in power like politicians would start locking up as many people as possible because the average citizen be a threat to him or her.

A lot of people are dissatisfied with their government and outside of voting, the elected official (whether they voted for them or not) sits cozy in their seats until the next term.

I don't expect the common man or woman to really know or respect common discourse if they feel that their representing politician is a crook or if someone is not getting represented.

A public YouTube video should be considered to some degree a forum of symbolic speech as the media, direction, and audience is so broad... it's not like pasting a threatening letter together with magazine clippings covered on dog shit saying you're going to kill him/her.

I think without a doubt, a YouTube video will make you stand out as a threat above instead of a grandma next store shaking her fist at CNN on television and wishing anarchy.

I guess you really got to watch what you say.

Re:Heh. (1)

Americano (920576) | more than 3 years ago | (#35764538)

A public YouTube video should be considered to some degree a forum of symbolic speech as the media,

And if Dan Rather got on the news and said, "My Congressman Eric Cantor [...] you receive my bullets in your office, remember they will be placed in your heads," it wouldn't be a free speech issue either. It's a pretty direct threat: "my bullets will be placed in your heads." How do bullets usually get inside of someone's body again?

Re:Heh. (1)

CrazyDuke (529195) | more than 3 years ago | (#35764574)

I'm kind of curious whether or not he is crazy because that guy actually did something personally to his family, if someone else drove him crazy and the congressman is just a picture of "the man" to take shots at, or if he's just crazy. I cannot seem to find any information to indicate either way. Prior similar sort of deals would seem to favor #2 as a default, though.

wait a minute (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35764510)

how is it possible that the man that gave us the beautiful diagonal argument be evil?

just makeing a bomb threat will do the same thing (2)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 3 years ago | (#35764532)

just makeing a bomb threat will do the same thing and it may be a pound me in ass one.

Re:just makeing a bomb threat will do the same thi (1)

deathguppie (768263) | more than 3 years ago | (#35765018)

Now I've never made a bomb, and don't know how small you can get one.. but I'm thinking if you have to pound on it to get it in there, it's probably too big

Swarovski outlet (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35764566)

Swarovski outlet store offer a lot of commodities with low price,including Swarovski Crystal [swarovski-outlet.com] , Swarovski Beads [swarovski-outlet.com] .It is a so good chance that you can not miss it.So you should go to our online store buy any Swarovski Crystals [swarovski-outlet.com] you like.

Parsing problem (1)

DriedClexler (814907) | more than 3 years ago | (#35764580)

Did anyone else initially understand the headline to mean "Threatening to make a YouTube Video (presumably about someone) Lands Man In Prison"?

No? Just checking!

Louis Vuitton Online Store (0)

nancy110 (2011906) | more than 3 years ago | (#35764596)

Louis Vuitton Online Store can supply the best Louis Vuitton products, best price and best service. Look forward to you have a look at Louis Vuitton Online.Louis Vuitton Outlet Online does all we can to provide you with the best quality products and with the lowest price.Enjoy your time at our website. http://www.louisvuittonoutletstoreonline.com/ [louisvuitt...online.com] http://www.lvlouisvuitton.org/ [lvlouisvuitton.org] http://www.buylouisvuittonoutlet.org/ [buylouisvu...outlet.org]

Die Obama, ein Gedicht von mir (0)

Sam36 (1065410) | more than 3 years ago | (#35764664)

Die Obama, so schön, so stark
Die Obama, der Retter und Savoir
Die Obama, wird er mache alles wieder frei
Die Obama, niemals Flip Flop, immer standhaft in seinem Wort
Die Obama, er wird uns von der Unterdrückung und weiße Menschen liefern

A Fine Expression (5, Insightful)

macraig (621737) | more than 3 years ago | (#35764710)

This guy might have benefitted from a quip emblazoned on a plaque my grandpappy had on his wall:

It's often a fine expression of the language to simply say nothing.

Perhaps I'll send Norman the plaque to decorate his jail cell.

Re:A Fine Expression (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35764946)

And that's how Hitler got into power. Literally.
Not because of the few following him, but because of the many saying nothing.

I'm sorry, but your “grandpappy” was, what we nowadays call “obeying cattle" and "spineless yes-men".

Re:A Fine Expression (1)

Xacid (560407) | more than 3 years ago | (#35764984)

I find some people spend too much time yapping instead of listening. You don't always have to be saying something.

Re:A Fine Expression (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 3 years ago | (#35765190)

That isn't the exact wisdom of the aphorism, but it would be a close corollary. The aphorism is a warning against putting your foot in your mouth, as the other Anonymous Coward person did.

Re:A Fine Expression (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 3 years ago | (#35765180)

You've misconstrued the specific wisdom and suggestion of the aphorism. It's apparent from your general overreaction that you enjoyed leveling the accusation in the final sentence, so it's disingenuous to apologize for making it. You weren't sorry at all.

Your remarks are a perfect example of what the plaque was advising against doing, precisely because you mentally shot from the hip and the example you used was not relevant. What you should be sorry - or at least embarrassed - about is being wrong altogether.

The Eric. The. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35764900)

He was speaking German.

TFS doesn't really excerpt the really bad stuff (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35764956)

Let's look at the claims from the summary:

Eric Cantor is 'pure evil';

For an ordinary person, sure. For a Republican congressman I'd say he's about average, maybe even on the less evil side. (Which says a lot about politics these days because he's pretty damn evil.)

'will be dead';

Unless Eric Cantor has discovered the secret to immortality, this I can't argue with.

'Cantor's family is suffering because of his father's wrath.'

Hm. Well I don't know about his personal life, but I can't say it would surprise me. I mean, lots of congressmen have messed up family lives that they try to hide from the public.

To be clear: I am not advocating violence against anyone.

However.... TFA has much crazier claims:

In the video, LeBoon states, "My Congressman Eric Cantor, and you and your cupcake evil wife...” “Remember Eric...our judgment time, the final Yom Kippur has been given. You are a liar, you're a Lucifer, you're a pig, a greedy f------ pig, you're an abomination, you receive my bullets in your office, remember they will be placed in your heads. You and your children are Lucifer's abominations.”

Eep, so there are the threats and the craziness... Yeah, I'm not on board with the whole bullet thing. I had to read the article to know he even threated the guy for real. Slashdot, why not excerpt the juicy parts?

at least (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35765090)

we won't be receiving any important lectures about 'civility'; victim's party is incorrect.

Twitter sees no problem with death threats. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35765200)

Twitter will suspend user accounts for spam. They refuse to do so for death threats and rape threats saying that it doesn't violate their policy when their own acceptable use policy says such actions are grounds for suspension or deletion.

I sent them ten instances of death threats and two of rape threats made over a three week period by a user named @goferet and three different support reps said it violated no policy when I even provided the link to their rules.

He kept on making rape threats and still was last time I checked.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?