Gov. Lepage goes even farther off the rails

[Little_Nemo]

@ElvisL1ves

Grrr!, would you feel better about calling it a threat of *assault *instead? Since he didn’t actually say he’d pull the trigger, I guess. But do please consider where you’re choosing to draw the line.

I believe the crime you’re describing is called menacing.

[boffking]

@Simplicio

I’m kinda weirded out that the Governor of Maine feels he needs to introduce himself with his title and first middle and last name before leaving unhinged voicemails on a state reps phone. Does the state rep have other Governors, or other people named Richard LePage, leaving him voicemails calling him a cocksucker, and LePage wanted to make extra sure he wouldn’t get confused which one he was?

Anyhoo, suggesting its criminal is silly. And kind of distracts from how crazy it is, which is the real story.

Clearly, you are confused about which Lepage we are talking about here. The governor’s first name is Paul, not Richard.

[ElvisL1ves]

@D_Anconia

This board is supposed to be about fighting ignorance. If posters like boffking make unsupported claims about the law, it’s perfectly fine if Bricker, or other knowledgeable posters, make a correction.

Do you not agree?

Do you not agree that the real topic is LePage’s character and trustworthiness as a public official? :dubious: If you do, then you have to admit you’ve let yourself be hijacked.

[Great_Antibob]

@Bricker

Not much for fighting ignorance, are you?

Actually, I am. The whole legal angle is a fucking hijack, disguised as a BIG IMPORTANT distinction that absolutely doesn’t matter, either way it shakes out. It’s the same borderline OCD drive that has some SDMB posters engage endlessly with trolls on minor points while missing the forest for the trees.

That is, I actually agree it doesn’t rise to the level of a crime, but I don’t think it makes any fucking difference.

But ElvisL1ves puts it better:

@ElvisL1ves

Do you not agree that the real topic is LePage’s character and trustworthiness as a public official? :dubious: If you do, then you have to admit you’ve let yourself be hijacked.

[D_Anconia]

@Great_Antibob

Actually, I am. The whole legal angle is a fucking hijack, disguised as a BIG IMPORTANT distinction that absolutely doesn’t matter, either way it shakes out.

How is it a hijack?

Here’s a direct quote from the OP:

He has also, yet again, threatened the life of a state legislator. I would like to see him face charges for this. Making death threats is a serious crime.

How are “facing charges” and “serious crime” NOT a legal angle?

[Little_Nemo]

@D_Anconia

How are “facing charges” and “serious crime” NOT a legal angle?

Because the OP just said he’d like to see LePage facing criminal charges. He didn’t say he would actually bring criminal charges against LePage.

Just like LePage didn’t actually threaten to kill Gattine. He just said he’d like to be able to kill Gattine.

[Bricker]

@Great_Antibob

That is, I actually agree it doesn’t rise to the level of a crime, but I don’t think it makes any fucking difference.

I don’t think there is any serious dispute to what you’re calling the gravamen of the issue: Lepage made at best racially insensitive comments and at worst unfounded, unhinged racist comments and has been caught on tape in a rant filled with homophobic slurs and what is at best unprofessional behavior and at worst signs of serious psychiatric disorder.

I certainly agree. I can’t see anyone in this thread that’s taken a contrary position.

Is it your view that discussion here should consist of simple repetition and expansion upon those observations?

[Bricker]

@Little_Nemo

Because the OP just said he’d like to see LePage facing criminal charges. He didn’t say he would actually bring criminal charges against LePage.

Just like LePage didn’t actually threaten to kill Gattine. He just said he’d like to be able to kill Gattine.

But you said:

Lepage went on record saying that he wished it was possible for him to shoot and kill Gattine.

Now obviously that isn’t possible. It would be illegal for Lepage to shoot Gattine. But does the fact that killing somebody is illegal render a death threat invalid? Doesn’t every death threat, by its nature, contain the threat of an illegal act?

Isn’t that a rhetorical assertion about the legal aspects in play?

[ElvisL1ves]

@Bricker

Is it your view that discussion here should consist of simple repetition and expansion upon those observations?

This is the Pit, fool. You wanna talk to yourself about “the legal aspects” as is your habit, take it to MPSIMS.

[raventhief]

Personally, I would be more concerned about the statement “I’m after you.” The duel thing indicates he has violence in mind, but in and of itself I wouldn’t call that a threat. Now, “I’m after you” could mean almost anything really- I’ll say nasty things about you, I’ll block you in the legislature, I’ll dig up dirt you, I’ll just stand here and look mean.

[Simplicio]

@boffking

Clearly, you are confused about which Lepage we are talking about here. The governor’s first name is Paul, not Richard.

But his middle name is Richard, a point which he apparently feels he needs to stress before calling someone a cocksucker.

[Great_Antibob]

@Bricker

Is it your view that discussion here should consist of simple repetition and expansion upon those observations?

No, my view is that this is the pit and the point of this thread is the usual hurling of insults and expressions of outrage appropriate to that venue and not a reasoned discussion of the legal merits of a minor point of contention.

This pedantic digression arguing of the distinction between the legal and practical difference of whether or not something was a death thread simply distracts from that purpose. There are other venues more appropriate for that discussion. As you likely well know, as it really isn’t anything new to derail Dopers by nitpicking at some minor point to distract from the larger point.

Then again, you are all free to do whatever you want. The age old SDMB habit of feeding the trolls just happened to get to me this particular time.

[MacTech]

@JohnT

You forget… this guy is the governor of Maine, a state so singularly unimpressive that, other than Stephen King, I’m hard-pressed to say what historical or cultural events occurred there over the past 200 or so years, other than a ship named after the state blowing up in Havana harbor. And that wasn’t even in Maine.

Okay, no lobster for you then!

[D_Anconia]

@ElvisL1ves

This is the Pit, fool. You wanna talk to yourself about “the legal aspects” as is your habit, take it to MPSIMS.

Why should he? Why don’t you and boffking take your drooling idiocy to MPSIMS?

[Loach]

@ElvisL1ves

You’re not quite getting it, are you? Yes, he’s adept at redefining or limiting the topic to an area where he can claim victory, but you don’t have to let him do that. So how is it that you fail to recognize a tactic you’ve seen on display so often?

So it’s not enough the he agreed with the rest of the post he also has to agree with the part that’s wrong?

@Great_Antibob

No, my view is that this is the pit and the point of this thread is the usual hurling of insults and expressions of outrage appropriate to that venue and not a reasoned discussion of the legal merits of a minor point of contention.

This pedantic digression arguing of the distinction between the legal and practical difference of whether or not something was a death thread simply distracts from that purpose. There are other venues more appropriate for that discussion. As you likely well know, as it really isn’t anything new to derail Dopers by nitpicking at some minor point to distract from the larger point.

Then again, you are all free to do whatever you want. The age old SDMB habit of feeding the trolls just happened to get to me this particular time.

The point of the thread was stated in the OP, part of which is wrong. Not nuanced. Not shaded. Not opinion. Just plain wrong. And posters with zero knowledge on the subject continue to argue. The reason why his comments aren’t getting many countries moments is because absolutely no one is defending them. There is no defense.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Loach

So it’s not enough the he agreed with the rest of the post he also has to agree with the part that’s wrong?

No, he has to not hijack the thread into discussing the one area that fascinates him and lets him feel like he’s winning a game no one else is contesting. I had thought you grasped that concept.

The point of the thread was stated in the OP, part of which is wrong.

And ancillary, not central or even necessary.

*You *don’t have to play his game either, yanno.

[Rick_Kitchen]

At least he was polite, saying “thank you” at the end of the tirade.

[Leaper]

Well, when LePage is implying that he thinks cops should be shooting more people with non-white skin, I’m not as inclined to believe that he’s not making death threats towards individuals.

Not that that means anything legally, of course, but just from an outsider’s perspective.

[Mighty_Girl]

Every time I read his name my brain interprets it a “LePew”

My sincere apologies to skunks.

[magellan01]

@Spice_Weasel

The fact that he encouraged Gattine to share that message with everyone is further reflection of his poor judgment.

Not only that, he ended his tirade with “Thank you.” Love that.

Just saw that Rick Kitchen made the same observation…