testtest

Circle the Wagons

Status
Not open for further replies.
Classified

Classified

Professional
Founding Member
I just saw this and thought more attention should be brought to it.

www.gunpowdermagazine.com

Student Spends 83 Days in Jail, Faces Terrorism Charges, 20 Years in Prison for Posting Photo of AR-15 to Snapchat

Lucas was almost immediately arrested and charged with making a terrorist threat, which is a felony and could bring a sentence of 20 years in prison.
www.gunpowdermagazine.com www.gunpowdermagazine.com

I have had a similar experience, needless to say it is life altering (an unqualified person making an assessment and jumping to conclusions). Were it not for good people standing with me there is a good chance I would not be here.

'We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.'

Benjamin Franklin
 
Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the prosecutor have to prove intent? There is no intent in this, the kid clarified what he meant in the message.

This is the typical crap that proves the justice system is corrupt beyond belief. Stuff like this makes me wonder if we have passed the point of no return.
 
This appears to be over the top from the school/legal communities and should have ended after an interview. Having said that I guess the young man doesn't realize that when he applies for a LE job they will background his social media (depending on where he applies) and use his history as part judgement for hire. Personally I don't see anything wrong with the post and I d*** sure wouldn't have had comments attached. Hope all turns out well for the young man.
 
In Illinois a police detective was arrested for the disappearance of both his wives.
Could not find the bodies or any other evidence, but the DA was determined to get him so they passed a hearsay law.
Who among us has never been guilty of something that may be taken as threatening.
 
I'm guessing the statute they are prosecuting him under is this one:

750.543m Making terrorist threat or false report of terrorism; intent or capability as defense prohibited; violation as felony; penalty.

Sec. 543m.

(1) A person is guilty of making a terrorist threat or of making a false report of terrorism if the person does either of the following:
(a) Threatens to commit an act of terrorism and communicates the threat to any other person.
(b) Knowingly makes a false report of an act of terrorism and communicates the false report to any other person, knowing the report is false.
(2) It is not a defense to a prosecution under this section that the defendant did not have the intent or capability of committing the act of terrorism.
(3) A person who violates this section is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 20 years or a fine of not more than $20,000.00, or both.

Section 2 says not having the intent to commit THE ACT OF TERRORISM is not a defense, but it does not speak to the intent to MAKE A THREAT. I'd certainly argue that making a threat DOES require intent, and I can't find any intent here. I've been both a prosecutor and a criminal defense attorney; I'd definitely call this overreach by whoever filed the case.
 
Wirenut said:
In Illinois a police detective was arrested for the disappearance of both his wives.
Could not find the bodies or any other evidence, but the DA was determined to get him so they passed a hearsay law.
Who among us has never been guilty of something that may be taken as threatening.
Click to expand...
Can you elaborate on the hearsay law? I'm confused by what you mean.
 
benstt said:
I'm guessing the statute they are prosecuting him under is this one:

750.543m Making terrorist threat or false report of terrorism; intent or capability as defense prohibited; violation as felony; penalty.

Sec. 543m.

(1) A person is guilty of making a terrorist threat or of making a false report of terrorism if the person does either of the following:
(a) Threatens to commit an act of terrorism and communicates the threat to any other person.
(b) Knowingly makes a false report of an act of terrorism and communicates the false report to any other person, knowing the report is false.
(2) It is not a defense to a prosecution under this section that the defendant did not have the intent or capability of committing the act of terrorism.
(3) A person who violates this section is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 20 years or a fine of not more than $20,000.00, or both.

Section 2 says not having the intent to commit THE ACT OF TERRORISM is not a defense, but it does not speak to the intent to MAKE A THREAT. I'd certainly argue that making a threat DOES require intent, and I can't find any intent here. I've been both a prosecutor and a criminal defense attorney; I'd definitely call this overreach by whoever filed the case.
Click to expand...
I curious if the 3rd party and unintended recipient that complained could be charged for false reporting or making a threat.
 
Classified said:
I just saw this and thought more attention should be brought to it.

www.gunpowdermagazine.com

Student Spends 83 Days in Jail, Faces Terrorism Charges, 20 Years in Prison for Posting Photo of AR-15 to Snapchat

Lucas was almost immediately arrested and charged with making a terrorist threat, which is a felony and could bring a sentence of 20 years in prison.
www.gunpowdermagazine.com www.gunpowdermagazine.com

I have had a similar experience, needless to say it is life altering (an unqualified person making an assessment and jumping to conclusions). Were it not for good people standing with me there is a good chance I would not be here.

'We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.'

Benjamin Franklin
Click to expand...
2018-2019-2020 - Are very tenacious times for all Law abiding citizens -I Would not post anything Firearm related = these young Left people will do anything to bring the Right people down -
 
Wirenut said:
www.nytimes.com

Hearsay Rule Vexed Jurors in Illinois Murder Case (Published 2012)

A 2008 law tailored to Drew Peterson’s case, concerning the death of his ex-wife, allowed statements not based on a witness’s direct knowledge.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
Click to expand...
www.chicagotribune.com

Illinois Supreme Court upholds Drew Peterson's murder conviction; appeal 'likely'

The Illinois Supreme Court has upheld the murder conviction of former police officer Drew Peterson in the death of his third wife.
www.chicagotribune.com www.chicagotribune.com
 
Wirenut said:
In Illinois a police detective was arrested for the disappearance of both his wives.
Could not find the bodies or any other evidence, but the DA was determined to get him so they passed a hearsay law.
Who among us has never been guilty of something that may be taken as threatening.
Click to expand...
Well if you're referring to Drew Peterson, he was convicted for the murder of his third wife whose deceased body was found in a dry bath tub a few months after their divorce. Initially they didn't rule murder, but after 4th wife Stacey (who reportedly was also about to leave him), disappeared, authorities decided to take another look at wife number 3's death and he was eventually convicted of her murder. Before this occurred, he was engaged to wife number 5, but that went sour after he reportedly abused her. She reportedly went on record that he was an extremely controlling person and would become violent if things didn't go his way. Perhaps this Hearsay law came into play during his trail, but he was found guilt of murder and is appealing the conviction, but other charges are pending concerning murder for hire of the county DA. Peterson is a retired Illinois Police Sargent, so perhaps this refers to someone other than who you mentioned Wirenut. I'm an ID (Investigation Discovery) addict and can't stop watching cases like this.
 
BET7 said:
Well if you're referring to Drew Peterson, he was convicted for the murder of his third wife whose deceased body was found in a dry bath tub a few months after their divorce. Initially they didn't rule murder, but after 4th wife Stacey (who reportedly was also about to leave him), disappeared, authorities decided to take another look at wife number 3's death and he was eventually convicted of her murder. Before this occurred, he was engaged to wife number 5, but that went sour after he reportedly abused her. She reportedly went on record that he was an extremely controlling person and would become violent if things didn't go his way. Perhaps this Hearsay law came into play during his trail, but he was found guilt of murder and is appealing the conviction, but other charges are pending concerning murder for hire of the county DA. Peterson is a retired Illinois Police Sargent, so perhaps this refers to someone other than who you mentioned Wirenut. I'm an ID (Investigation Discovery) addict and can't stop watching cases like this.
Click to expand...
Illinois adopted a hearsay law in 2008 tailored to Drew Peterson's case, dubbed "Drew's Law," which assisted in making some of the evidence admissible.
 
It's one reason I shy away from social media myself, but nonetheless Free Speech applies on these platforms as well. I don't see any implicate threats occurring here, unless the two girls last names are "Snowflake" ❄. These liberal institutions and majority of their students, are not only anti 2A, but have been attacking the First as well. It appears that not only did they resort to attack him verbally, but also his psychical property, with little to no investigation (unlike the charges against him that were investigated). But it's currently been the norm that Justice turns a more lenient eye towards a suspect accused of a violent crime, but a more harsh response to a potential crime that on the surface would be difficult to prove. This will probably be dismissed eventually, and I'm sorry to say that the tax payers may be on the hook for any lawsuit damages that may be brought forth and won.
 
BET7 said:
It's one reason I shy away from social media myself, but nonetheless Free Speech applies on these platforms as well. I don't see any implicate threats occurring here, unless the two girls last names are "Snowflake" ❄. These liberal institutions and majority of their students, are not only anti 2A, but have been attacking the First as well. It appears that not only did they resort to attack him verbally, but also his psychical property, with little to no investigation (unlike the charges against him that were investigated). But it's currently been the norm that Justice turns a more lenient eye towards a suspect accused of a violent crime, but a more harsh response to a potential crime that on the surface would be difficult to prove. This will probably be dismissed eventually, and I'm sorry to say that the tax payers may be on the hook for any lawsuit damages that may be brought forth and won.
Click to expand...
I agree that this murder conviction will be overturned, but he still may remain in prison being convicted of conspiring to have James Glasgow murdered while in prison.
Welcome to Illinois politics.
 
Wirenut said:
Illinois adopted a hearsay law in 2008 tailored to Drew Peterson's case, dubbed "Drew's Law," which assisted in making some of the evidence admissible.
Click to expand...
Yes, I seem to remember that they used that in the third wife's murder case on something she said to an acquaintance, that help convict him (he has yet to be charged with any crime to the disappearance of fourth wife Stacey). I seem to remember that this law went back and forth and made it's way up to Illinois State Supreme Court which made the current final decision to uphold it (not sure if his defense team has or will try to pursue this with the US Supreme Court on its legalities). It's an interesting case, to say the least.
 
Wirenut said:
I agree that this murder conviction will be overturned, but he still may remain in prison being convicted of conspiring to have James Glasgow murdered while in prison.
Welcome to Illinois politics.
Click to expand...
Well, it is the home to Chicago and its history of politics, so I for one isn't that surprised. ;)
 
Sounds like this poor kid fell victim to a social media version of a red flag law...

I agree with the post above about "don't put anything online about your guns". Forums like this hedge my bets - yes, I own. Yes, I'm licensed to carry. No, I don't post photos of my guns. No, I don't post inventories.

And yes...my friends own boats, and we do go out on the bay quite a lot... ;)

I also deleted my farcebook account when I was released from the hospital back in 2008. It was a way to keep in touch with The World when I was recovering from a bad accident (3 mos. learning to walk again after having both legs rebuilt)...but once I got out, I decided I wanted to live IN the world, not read about it on a screen. I also don't like being the product. You wouldn't believe how many steps you have to go through to actually DELETE an account...wow.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top