http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/12/06/burning.bush.ap/index.html
This seems a little excessive to me. But, the referenced article (and the others I found with Google news search) don’t say a lot. There’s likely more to this story - obviously, there was enough to convince a jury he’s guilty of threatening to kill or harm the president. Anybody know any more? Perhaps some South Dakota dopers got some more info from their local papers?
I really don’t think this happened… If the idiot’s laywer had any clue, he would’ve argued this whole trial was unconstitutional. Hell, the guy could appeal all the way to the Supreme Court, and win! If this guy does the jail time, i’d be surprised, because the connotations for our first amendment rights are serious.
First Amendment, therefore, not guilty. I don’t see how anyone could even think of putting him in jail for any period of time.
It’s a fairly reputable source…
It’s quite improbable that he will do any sentence. The ruling will most undoubtedly be overturned by the Appeals courts, if not, the Supreme Court.
Well, from this link the guy sounds like he may be somewhat unstable. He calls himself prophet Israel Humphreys and says he was on a “discipleship journey”, whatever that is, to promote Christianity through controversial acts. He also said that he had been arrested 25 times. From this it appears that the guy also represented himself in court which is a quick way to end up in jail.
So it sounds to me like the guy may be nuts and not just a guy making a joke in a bar. More info would be great. I googled and found that almost all of the stories were straight from the AP.
Slee
Yeah, I saw those other stories, and the guy’s clearly a couple beers short of a six pack. I still think that shouldn’t be enough to convict him though, and I wonder what else the jury heard about.
That’s the extent of the Associated Press report on the national wire today, unless someone in South Dakota has seen a more complete story.
I’d like to know more as well but my guess is that the guy hung himself in court. Representing yourself is a quick way to lose in court. It also seems that only nutballs want to represent themselves in court. Usually because they believe there is some government plot-agency out to get them. This guy claimed that his arrest was due to government profiling. Apparently the government now employs every bartender in the country since a bartender turned him in. 
I’d also bet that the message he left in a Christian chat room came back to haunt the guy.
At the same time threats against government officals, especially the President, are taken very seriously.
Also, Alien2022, do you have any more information on this case that you are not providing? If not it is impossible to speculate on what the Appeals Court or the Supreme Court is going to do in this case. There is simply not enough information to make a reasonable arguement either way.
My thoughts on this case are pure speculation based on the little information I have read. But the info I have read tends to paint this guy as a total nutball. If I am right he probably needs doctors more than prison. If I am wrong then the courts will deal with it.
Slee
The Argus Leader is Sioux Fall’s main newspaper, and as of today there is only a small blurb, with a note saying that more info will be in tomorrow’s paper.
You might want to check back then.
Alien2022:
What argument would the man make on appeal?
According to what you said, he didn’t raise the First Amendment as a defense at trial, so that issue would be procedurally waived - in other words, an appellate court will not consider an issue for the first time on appeal.
So on what would he base his appeal?
sleestak, I think the man was arguing that government profiling was used after he was arrested. Think about it…they arrest a man just to be safe, and then find out that he has a previous record of a little craziness, 25 arrests, and a quasi-radical religious quest. If it were a normal law abiding citizen with a clean record and a clear head, the trial would have been dropped, due to the unconstitutionality of the charge. Instead, charges were pressed and now he’s in jail.
Superspy, that’s not profiling, that’s prosecutorial discretion. Profiling is when you investigate someone without probable cause because they have the same or similar characteristics of people who are considered likely to be criminals. Here there was probable cause (the bartender) and no investigation occurred until after probable cause was established.
Prosecutorial discretion, OTOH, means that it is ultimately the decision of the prosecutor as to whether he/she will proceed against a particular individual.
I’m not saying whether it was right or wrong to prosecute - based on the very limited information, IMO it was wrong, but that may change if we learn more - but it certainly won’t be grounds for a successful appeal.
Sua
thanks for the clarification…i was thinking the two were the same
This link has more information. This guy is a nutball.
The federal agents found a note in his truck that read:
One of his more interesting arrests was for impersonating a police officer. He then claimed that President Clinton and the First Lady would commit suicide becasue the world was coming to an end.
This guy needs help.
Slee
That note makes his prosecution seem a lot more appropriate. Thanks, sleestak.
My first thought was that the guy was just expressing himself, as the First Amendment allows him to do. But now it looks as if he was suggesting that “somebody” pour flammable liquid on the Prez and light it. That does sound like a threat. The man is probably mentally ill, and needs help more than jail. But he should be removed to someplace where he can’t hurt anyone nevertheless.
I was basing my thoughts on the information posted on that link. If that note is true, then he should be appointed to a mental institution.