Lake Superior State University student Lucas Gerhard is facing terrorism charges after he posting picture with his new AR-15 on Snapchat with a taunting message for “snowflakes.” Another student objected that she felt threatened by the posting and ultimately the police arrested Gerhard for what was clearly a simple taunting message.
In August 2019, Gerhard posted the picture with the caption: “Takin this bad boy up, this outta make the snowflakes melt, aye? And I mean snowflakes as in snow.” It was a private chat room but someone showed the picture to another student who reportedly had had conflicts with Gerhard in the past. The family says that she was the only complaint. Moreover, guns are allowed on campus.
A former eagle scout, Gerhard found himself under arrest with a $250,000 bond and a 20-year potential sentence. He also has Type 1 Diabetes, requiring glucose levels monitored as well as prescription insulin.
I fail to see the basis for the criminal charge or how any prosecutor could have signed off on the charges. The current provision states
“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.”
Michigan lawmakers are discussing changing the law in light of the case with a new bill. The proposal would change the existing bar on a defense challenging the intent of the statement. The proposal states ““The statement would cause a reasonable person to conclude that it was meant to threaten the person who heard the statement, or another person close in physical proximity to the person who hear the statement, with violence or damage to substantial property.”
The greatest problem however is a complete breakdown of discretionary authority by police and prosecutors. Everyone seems to have failed at every stage in recognizing that this was not a criminal case. Notably, it does not appear that the school itself concluded that Gerhard was a threat. More importantly, nothing in the posting clearly states a threat.
What do you think?
The prosecutor must be fired and disbarred. That’s the only solution to protect the population from these crazies.
There ought to be consideration of whether or not, under Michigan’s criminal code, the prosecutor or any law enforcement officer suggested that the complainant bring false charges of a breach of Sec. 543m. (1) of the Michgan Criminal Code. Sec. 543m. (1) (b) should make anyone responsible for recommending the boy be charged when plainly, the law was not broken.
Prosecutors are deemed experts in law; law enforcement officer testimony is deemed expert testimony in court.
That boy was clearly maliciously charged and arrested under a false report that Sec. 543m. (1) had been violated. That act is, itself, a crime under Sec. 543m. (1) (b) of the same law.
If no one with the local prosecutor’s office drops the charges against the boy, and doesn’t bring charges under Sec. 543m. (1) (b) against the complainant, the prosecuting attorney’s employee allowing inapplicable charges to be brought, and the officers who arrested the boy, then it falls to the state attorney general to correct the wrong.
If that fails, NRA ought to put those fat contributions they receive to work in an amicus curiae representation, or even representing the wrongly accused boy directly.
Leftists have never liked the idea or ordinary people (particularly rural whites) owning firearms and here is further confirmation, along with “red flag” laws.
If it were some black kid attacking an elderly Asian man, they would be advocating “restorative justice” (oh, wait, they actually happened in SF).
Don’t worry sweet, tolerant, morally superior leftists, you’ll disarm Americans in another 20 years, changing demographics will make it possible.
Leftists dislike free speech also, that is why universities pass speech codes along with some state bar associations. Only “nazis” support free speech, right?
antonio
Parkland seems to have completely altered the brains of some people. One should look a bit deeper at the individual when something is said that is so non-specific what a complaint is made. In the Parkland case the police and I think the FBI were notified countless of times and he had been in a lot of trouble. There is no mention of a similar history in this case.
The anxieties over Parkland won’t induce the social work interest into reconsidering their preferred narrative, so there will still be efforts to disrupt the ‘school to prison pipeline’. Having impersonal standards driven by community norms means sanctions on the clientele of gentry whites driven by the moral sentiments of deplorables. Can’t have that, so we won’t. Instead, you’ll have feints supposedly driven by Parkland-derived anxieties, but everyone sanctioned will be someone of scant interest to a sane person, but of interest to the dependents and hangers-on of our tastemaker class because Deplorable.
DSS, I understand the fired sheriff of Parkland Scott Israel (fired by governor DeSantis) will be running for Sheriff again in Broward County. I am told there is a good chance he will win. “everyone sanctioned will be someone of scant interest” and that is mostly what happened. I hear the politics in Broward are terrible.
Never assume, in this day and age of mass shootings, that a right-wing terrorist is anything but serious when he makes threatening posts online. The police were right to arrest him and he should be prosecuted for terrorism.
2nd Amendment extremists who deliberately fail to draw distinctions between arming for the common defense and arming to kill scores of fellow humans need to grow up and think of the public safety. The 2nd Amendment was written so that states and local communities could form well regulated militias for the common defense, not to allow just anyone to wield weapons with no restrictions.
Michael, I don’t think politics was involved in the young man’s statement. Leftists own guns and are known to riot, start fires and beat people. They are even involved in terrorism. Perhaps you should focus on the violent people like Antifa and those like the Parkland shooter that had a history but weren’t dealt with because of the Promise program.
I understand your fears, but they should be directed in a way that helps not hinders. I don’t think this arrest was helpful but we do need to deal with this type of problem in a less vague manner.
Never assume, in this day and age of mass shootings, that a right-wing terrorist is anything but serious when he makes threatening posts online.
Never assume? LOL! That’s exactly what your first sentence was all about…assuming.
2nd Amendment extremists who deliberately fail to draw distinctions between arming for the common defense and arming to kill scores of fellow humans need to grow up and think of the public safety.
How do you define a 2nd amendment extremist? How do you know they’ve failed to draw those distinctions? How do you know they’ve done so deliberately?
Have you drawn any distinction between what is the natural right of common defense and what is the natural right of individual defense? Try this:
The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all. The Law; Frederic Bastiat
Michael, wrong, wrong. there is no criminal activity and no hint of anticipated criminal activity
you can’t arrest people for taking pcitures with guns, this is a threat to free speech for everyone
to say nothing of a lack of due process to the young man
The kid who was arrested didn’t break the law in question. It’s at least arguable that the complainant (who’d had a history of not liking the person arrested) knowingly broke “Sec. 543m. (1) (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.”. The person charged didn’t direct that blog to her, yet she seized on the chance to use local law enforcement to settle a personal score by having him attested.
I sincerely hope that the boy and his parents counter-charge the girl with breaking Sec. 543m. (1) (b) and have her imprisoned. It’s the only way to end what in this case was clearly malicious SWATing – abuse of anti-terror and anti-gun laws to settle personal grudges. And my very best wishes for the boy and his family when they sue the girl and her family for defamation and filing a false crime report..
Paragraph 1 ought to have ended: “The person charged didn’t direct that blog to her, yet she seized on the chance to use local law enforcement to settle a personal score by having him arrested.” Not “attested.”
I also hope that anyone else who advocates misusing this law in the absence of an actual terrorist threat is arrested as an accessory to violation of Sec. 543m. (1) (b). If free speech becomes a crime, then let’s hit the people abusing it regardless of their politics. Here’s hoping that the Michigan state legislature makes knowing misuse of law enforcement to settle personal grudges a felony.
What’s the bid deal. Only AR-14s are the problem.
Sniffing for truffles. I’m going to wager that between the supervisory layer of the police department and the prosecutor in this case you have one of three things: (1) someone who is a friend of the family of the complainer; (2) someone who has a grudge against the family of the youth arrested; or (3) a witless social ideologue.
You forgot “running for district attorney”.
It’s a county with 35,000 people in it. Odds are, the DA’s office employs two or three lawyers. The incumbent DA, one Robert L. Stratton III, owns this travesty.
While Turley reminds brings up he was an Eagle Scout (In full disclosure I only made it to life, the mile-swim requirement for the Swimming merit badge was beyond me). He sounds a little disturbed and has the means to do harm. I don’t know that translates to a criminal charge but given his history with the complainant, a restraining order seems appropriate. His explanation of the term “snowflake” seems to indicate a desire to stay out of trouble as opposed to a warning to actual snow. Turley explains that guns are allowed on campus, for what reason exactly would he bring an AR-15 to campus, show and tell? If the complainant was Turley’s daughter, what advice would he give her? Suck it up!
@enigmainblackcom
I often read your posts and think YOU are a snowflake. I am also a legal firearms owner with no previous record. Does that make me disturbed with the means to do harm?
You just don’t like private individuals, particularly rural whites, owning guns. Just admit that. You don’t have to wrap it up in moral language.
antonio
A Democrat…..moral language?
bwahahahaha
How did that work for that Black dude who played the race card for the Florida Gov election, lost the election by a thin margin, and got caught naked with a gay white muscle escort and 3 bags of meth?
Democrats…moral language….LOL
If you post pictures online with your new AR-15 bragging about making snowflakes melt. I probably would consider you disturbed, with the means to do harm. If you had previous issues with someone who saw your post and they were concerned, complaining to the authorities might be warranted.
I don’t especially care about private individuals owning guns, though I think they should go through background checks and there should be provisions to remove guns from people who are a threat to themselves or others. I don’t mind white people in general owning guns though there have been several attempts throughout history to keep them out of the hands of black people.
You might consider the possibility I use “moral language” because I’m basically a moral person?
“I don’t mind white people in general owning guns though there have been several attempts throughout history to keep them out of the hands of black people.”
******************
Gun control was invented precisely to stop blacks from having guns after the Civil War. Guess who invented it?
If you mean Democrats, I’m well aware. I could tell you the sordid history of the Democratic Party from day one. I can also tell you how moral and idealistic the Republicans once were. My how times have changed.
The truth is, Democrats are better than they once were but by no means perfect. It helps a lot that most of the nastiest ones became Republicans in the 1960s. Still, the bar is pretty low that the Republicans would have to meet to be appealing to black people but they aggressively fail at every attempt. Their means of dealing with the black vote is to suppress it.
When it comes to guns in the hands of black people, Democrats and Republicans are anxious and it wasn’t long ago they got together to do just that.
https://medium.com/@williamspivey/the-mulford-act-when-ronald-reagan-republicans-and-democrats-got-together-to-take-black-17299835a756?source=friends_link&sk=7a42e9dd2f81866f32672fd853029086
Seems like you would be the first to oppose disarming blacks then.
The whole Second Amendment and those “militias” was all about slave patrols and the ability of a small white population to control their slaves. It was ratified not long after the beginning of the Hatian Revolution. The same revolution that convinced Napoleon to get rid of what was then called Loiisiana.
Multiple things can be true at the same time. I can not care that people own guns, require background checks, and not want assault weapons to be legal. I can also disapprove of “stand your ground laws” which inevitably work against black people far more than protecting them.
Black people, who face more violent crime than any other demographic group, need the Second Amendment more than any other demographic group..
So far the abundance of guns in black neighborhoods has not yielded benefits.
btb:
“So far the abundance of guns in black neighborhoods has not yielded benefits.”
****************
Unless you count live blacks that is. As usual, you have no data to back that fanciful surmise. We know defensive uses of firearms meet or exceed unlawful ones across the board according to the CDC and the NCVS.
And you used what controls for your study?
Actually, rates of gun ownership among blacks are lower than they are among the general population. In the black population, the problem is that feral young men have guns.
Mr Book says no benefits.
But if you are ONE PERSON who saved your own life with a gun, or a family member, then for that person, it yielded pretty awesome benefits. actually. i daresay we could find some black folks who used private arms to defend themselves.
Mespo, did I miss your data?
Cheap and abundant hand guns means every teenager can have one. How is that working out?
btb:
Yeah my data is right there with yours although I gave you a way to get mine, oh lazy one. It is a smart move to take guns from the law abiding black residents to make them easy prey for the armed criminals in their midst.
Uh, no mespo, You did not offer a “way to get to mine”.
Cheap and abundant guns means teenagers can get them if they want.
according to the CDC and the NCVS.
One has to laugh at the above remark. What he wants to do is remove all the legal guns that can save lives and leave all the illegal ones.
He thinks a murderer is going to give up his gun because there is a fine for having one.
Mespo, I don’t remember the exact beginnings of gun control but I think part of the push for gun control was white racists that didn’t want blacks to own guns and therefore be able to protect themselves.
Philando Castile might question how that works out in reality if he was able. A black man with a gun is considered a threat, particularly by police officers who seem to generally be “in fear for their lives.” When you say it, “you’ll have to pry my gun from my cold dead hands” is just trash talk. When Castile told an officer he had a gun which he was licensed to own, he got killed without having touched it.
https://enigmainblack.wordpress.com/2017/06/24/i-see-dead-people/
oh hey good observation Enigma
yes, thank you, most white folks are ignorant of this and need education.
they massacred every white person on the island, man woman and child, except a handful of priests!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1804_Haiti_massacre
from wiki
“The 1804 Haiti massacre was a genocide carried out against the remaining white population of French people in Haiti by Haitian soldiers under orders from Jean-Jacques Dessalines. He had decreed that all suspected of conspiring in the acts of the expelled army should be put to death.[1]
The massacre, which took place throughout Haiti, occurred from early January 1804 until 22 April 1804, and resulted in the death of 3,000 to 5,000 people.[2] Squads of soldiers moved from house to house, torturing and killing entire families.[3] Even whites who had been friendly and sympathetic to the black population were imprisoned and later killed.[4] A second wave of massacres targeted white women and children.[4]
Throughout the early-to-mid nineteenth century, these events were well known in the United States, where they were called “the horrors of Santo Domingo”. In addition, many refugees had come to the U.S. from Saint-Domingue, settling in New Orleans, Charleston, New York, Baltimore and other coastal cities. These events polarized Southern U.S. public opinion on the question of the abolition of slavery.”
THOSE CRAZY WHITE FOLKS– WHY WOULD THEY THINK THEY’D GET MASSACRED TOO?
MAYBE THEY STILL DO? HUH. SMARTER THAN WE SEEM SOMETIMES I GUESS!
I was talking about the 1791 revolution which was heavy on the mind of the Founders when the Constitution was being ratified. I guess Haitians truly didn’t like being made slaves.
I am sure you were right, that the Founders and other Americans including slaveholders were fully aware of the goings on in Haiti. I have no problem believing that. But i can’t agree that the “militia” was just some sort of anti-slave force. It was clearly a notion going back to the Saxon fyrd. More on that later.
Back to Dessalines, a real killer,
you might find it interesting, most folks never heard of this incident.
“The French Revolution In San Domingo” by Lothrop Stoddard
https://www.amazon.com/French-Revolution-San-Domingo-ebook/dp/B00QKXY1QU/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=
Yes– THAT lothrop stoddard, the naughty racist author parenthetically referred to in :the Great Gatsby– also the author of “The Rising Tide of Color”
or try biography dot com:
“In 1791, a slave rebellion broke out in Sant-Domingue and Dessalines was able to escape the plantation and join rising rebel leader Toussaint L’Ouverture. Though illiterate, Dessalines was a quick study, positioning himself as L’Ouverture’s lieutenant and earning the nickname “the Tiger” for his ferocity in battle. Initially, their fight was to free all slaves on the island, but over time the goal would become independence.
In 1793, the French Republic declared an end to slavery in France and all colonies and soon after L’Ouverture and Dessalines switched their allegiance to the French against the Spanish and British. Over the next ten years Dessalines’ skill and leadership proved vital to L’Ouverture’s success in capturing the Spanish-controlled eastern half of the island. By 1799, Dessalines had risen to the rank of brigadier general.
With Europe temporarily distracted due to the rise of Napoleon, the slave rebellion turned into a civil war and L’Ouverture and Dessalines fought for control of the island, crushing rivals and slave owners alike. By 1801, L’Ouverture was serving as governor-general of Haiti and Dessalines was second in command. Many whites and mulattos in Santa Dominque had lobbied France to reestablish slavery and the Napoleon sent a force to restore French rule on the island. L’Ouverture and Dessalines repelled the invading forces in the battle of Crête-à-Pierrot.
After the battle, Dessalines became disenchanted with L’Ouverture’ leadership and briefly sided with the French, possibly causing L’Overture’s capture and arrest in 1802. When it became clear that the French intended to reinstate slavery, Dessalines switched sides again and commanded rebel forces against the French. In a series of victories, Dessalines’ coalition of blacks and mulattos were successful in forcing the French to surrender and leave the island. In 1804, Dessalines proclaimed independence and in 1805 declared himself emperor. Haiti became the first black independent republic in the world.
Emperor of Haiti
As emperor, Dessalines took drastic measures he felt necessary for Haiti to stay independent. He enforced a system of forced labor to prevent Haiti from reverting back to a subsistence economy. To eliminate rule by whites, he confiscated their land and made it illegal for them to own property. Probably his most extreme measure was a campaign to eliminate the white population of Haiti. Between February and April, 1804, Dessalines ordered deaths of approximately 3,000 to 5,000 white people of all ages and genders.”
It is often said that history is written by the victors. In this case, history was written by the losers. Those poor, innocent, white people were turned on by the people they recently, owned, brutalized, raped, and killed with and without malice. Karma?
enigma – would this be any different than the poor innocent black people or the poor innocent Arabs who were turned on by the people they so recently owned, brutalized, raped, and killed with and without malice. Karma?
In most instances of worldwide slavery, slaves didn’t experience the same degree of harsh treatment unique to America. In most cases, children of slaves were born free and the slaves themselves were often freed after a time. Then America had forced breeding so families could be separated and the children sold down South (We apparently are still practicing family separation of brown people today, Who says history doesn’t repeat itself). So while any harsh oppressors kinda deserve what they get. Most didn’t deserve as much. I didn’t even mention the middle passage which was quite unique.
enigma – it was the Democrats who ran the slave South. It was the Democrats who ran the racist South after Reconstruction and prevented Negros from voting. It was Democrats who put together the Great Society which requires no males in the household for welfare benefits to be given out.
Why the hell are you still on the plantation???
You should ask tougher questions I haven’t already considered.
https://medium.com/@williamspivey/letter-from-the-democrat-plantation-3466d6106d71?source=friends_link&sk=a51b7651bd2f591652b29d1483f89e35
enigma – please don’t blame your staying in the Democratic Party on Stockholm syndrome. If nothing else, join us Independents.
back to Thrasymachus again. Justice is the advantage of the strong.
Or consider when God is said to have told the Hebrews to slaughter every last person including the children of Jerhico. From Joshua Chapter 6:
20 So the people shouted, and [the priests] blew with the horns. And it came to pass, when the people heard the sound of the horn, that the people shouted with a great shout, and the wall fell down flat, so that the people went up into the city, every man straight before him, and they took the city.
21 And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, both young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.
enigma, I hadn’t realized how deadly the Ocoee massacre was. Tulsa-like,but a smaller town. I’m sure you know that Florida ranks 1st in lynchings on a per capita basis .
If you haven’t read it, I recommend this book:
https://www.amazon.com/Family-Tree-Lynching-Georgia-Secrets-ebook/dp/B00LD1RX5U
The writer is a now retired accomplished journalist who went to UGA with Charlayne Hunter Gault during Civil Rights days. The book opened my eyes to the effective continuation of slavery into the 20th century. Men were arrested for whatever and given long sentences to be worked off on someone’s farm or factory. Women were “kept” by powerful whites as concubines. In this case the writer learned of her female relatives shame in knowing this was going on.
I’m sure you’re familiar with Devil In the Grove about Lake County.
A friend recommended the Pullitzer Prize winning, Devil in the Grove, I live twenty miles from Groveland and have cause to pass through now and then. I watched a documentary recently on PBS which told a good bit of the story but left out the part where the FBI had ballistic evidence to prove a Deputy shot one of the two men being transported in complete contradiction of the Sheriff’s version. He stayed in office another 21 years, killing a few more innocent black men along the way. I hadn’t read the other book, I’ll check it out! Thanks.
An obscure peek into truth and history of the need and right to keep and bear arms, controverting the rabid rantings of a biased parasitic and dependent hyphenate. Absent from the following account is a focus on any need for arms to “control slaves” through deployment of “slave patrols.”
_________________________________________________________
“Tench Coxe and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, 1787-1823”
C. Defending the Proposed Constitution Coxe immediately set out to refute the objections of the convention minority. Under a pen-name, “Philanthropos,” Coxe pointed out that the Pennsylvania minority’s demand for a bill of rights had not (yet) been raised by prominent antifederalists in other states:
The right of the people to fish, fowl and hunt, the freedom of speech, provision against disarming the people, a declaration of the subordination of the military to the civil power, annual elections of representatives, and the organization and call of the militia, are considered by the minority of our convention, as on an exceptionable footing; but none of these are even mentioned by [G]overnor Randolph, [M]r. Mason or [M]r. Gerry. [81]
Coxe further contended, in another article, that the minority’s fear of the federal standing army was ridiculous, as was the minority’s fear that the Congress might disarm the people:
The power of the sword, say the minority of Pennsylvania, is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for THE POWERS OF THE SWORD ARE IN THE HANDS OF THE YEOMANRY OF AMERICA FROM SIXTEEN TO SIXTY. [82] The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. What clause in the state or federal constitution hath given away that important right…. T he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the foederal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. [83]
http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/hk-coxe.htm#FN;F36
The whole Second Amendment and those “militias” was all about slave patrols and the ability of a small white population to control their slaves.
It wasn’t. The whole world does not revolve around your a**. All the New England states had militias, and very few slaves.
The white population in toto may have been small, but the slave population was smaller and disorganized. The ratio of free persons to slaves increased continuously from 1790 to 1860, reaching 7 to 1 by the latter date.
You obviously aren’t talking about South Carolina and Virginia who between them were working out most of the compromises in the Constitution.
who between them were working out most of the compromises in the Constitution
South Carolina and Virginia had two votes out of twelve at the convention.
“I can not care that people own guns, require background checks, and not want assault weapons to be legal.”
Is this a coherent sentence? This is certainly not a coherent discussion.
The right shall not be infringed. Period. Americans may own any “arms” they choose because the right shall not be infringed. Arms must be equal or superior to the arms possessed by governmental forces in order for Americans to “throw off” tyrants. Calibers, firing rates, magazines, etc., are a subset of “arms” and the right to keep any and all arms shall not be infringed as the right is not qualified by fundamental law.
One ignores or disobeys law at his peril.
For once I agree with you George, from the moment of your involvement, coherence went completely about the window.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fyrd
the Anglo Saxon fyrd, the general armed population which was raised against the Viking raiders, is the historical origin of the militia
moreover — from wiki —
Sir William Blackstone wrote in the 18th century that the right to have arms was auxiliary to the “natural right of resistance and self-preservation” subject to suitability and allowance by law.
This is the origin of the American militia, formed to oppose King George the tyrant who confiscated American arms.
Enigma, you statement is overbroad. the issue of black slaves plays a role in various parts of second amendment history but it was parenthetical and not central to the social institution of the right to bear arms and the related idea of a general militia.
(Dred Scot v Sandford mentions the RTKBA in dicta)
That they didn’t spell it out doesn’t surprise me. They didn’t get around to mentioning slavery specifically until the 13th Amendment yet it influenced a great deal of it. (I don’t want to be “over broad.”
I have referred you to the fyrd and Blackstone’s commentaries but if it pleases you to think that all or even just most of what the Founders were thinking about in respect of the second amendment, was securing the slaves, go ahead.
I am not in the business of apologizing for them, or getting you to give any respect or credit to English institutions from centuries gone by. The British of today don’t credit their own history so why should you.
In the end rights are only secured by organized force. Rights exist only in law and law is the rules of organized force per the sovereign power in a given territory.
If Americans are going to just be pleading cases about rights to the article III lifetime tenure judges then they will eventually lose them.
Elections, as a mediating institution which enables us to avoid revolutions and civil wars, are where the fight is at most of all. If elections are won then the rights are secured. If they are not then eventually the rights will go away. Whatever socalled rights we’re talking about at the time.
You seem to be advocating violation of Sec. 543m. (1) (b) of Michigan’s criminal code. Suck it up!
I only advocated a restraining order.
On whose behalf?
The complainant wasn’t an intended recipient of that communication. No one else complained, which makes this a case in which Sec. 543m. (1) (b) was broken by the complainant, in a successful attempt to have the person posting that picture arrested for uttering an indelicate phrase which was not construable as a terroristic threat or any other violation of Sec. 543m. (1).
The only people who ought to be restrained under a court order are the complainant and anyone who mentioned to her that she should falsely charge the person posting a non-threatening image of breaking Sec. 543m. (1). They are individually and collectively guilty of bringing false charges (under Sec. 543m. (1) (b)) of breaking that law.
I’d also advocate that the sworn law-enforcement officers who arrested that boy be not just restrained from any further contact with him, but placed on administrative duty and relieved of their warrant cards and duty weapons.
Suspension from employment might be indicated to make sure the boy and his family are not subject to retribution by the people who knowingly brought false charges against him under a clearly inapplicable law.
What law enforcement does with the complaint is up to them. You could charge her with a false complaint except what she reported was apparently true, that she wasn’t intended to see it, just her friends is irrelevant. The prosecutors may or may not be overzealous, he can feel free to sue them for false arrest.
“Make the snowflakes melt” isn’t the same thing as “harm someone”. It’s not a bright thing to say about people who’ll run to your Dean of Students and allege various harms. The statement in question commits no harm worse than defiance of someone else’s will to infringe your Constitutional rights.
The law this guy’s accused of breaking also makes bringing false charges of terrorism under the law a felony. It criminalizes the complainant’s acts, not the accused’s acts as described here.
The arrest wouldn’t even have been made without active cooperation in breaking Sec. 543m. (1) (b)) of Michigan’s criminal code by the arresting officers. That law itself cited itself makes the filing of false charges of breaking it a felony.
It was indeed up to local law enforcement to make an arrest under the complainant’s false charges or not. They chose to cooperate in crime under the color of law. Sucks to be them.
“Make the snowflakes melt” isn’t the same thing as “harm someone”.
It is the same thing as a threat though.
enigma – if you apply enough heat snowflakes always melt. Physics 101. It is a Law of Nature not a threat.
Mr. Gerhard said”
The only intent stated was to literally melt snow with the rifle. He even reinforced on that point:
No threat to commit a terroristic act was made either directly or by implication.
What apparently happened is that someone decided the accused was capable of carrying out terroristic acts based on no support for that belief at all, filed a false charge against Mr. Gerhard, and convinced local law enforcement to act based on that false charge.
For the sake of everyone who don’t want to be falsely charged with commission of a felony by someone who doesn’t like them, I sincerely hope that the complainant is charged under Sec. 543m. (1) (b) –
Lucas Gerhard did not voice a threat, implicit or explicit, against the person who charged him with the act described under (a).knowing that he hadn’t threatened her in any plausible manner.
Gerhardt didn’t say intend to make her melt, since she isn’t either literally made of snow or liable to be sexually excitable by the sight of assault rifles.
Individuals don’t make charges, they’re not even required to know what the charges might be. They make complaints, some of which go nowhere. I made a comment on my phone the other day, folled it up by, “I didn’t mean it for whoever is listening.” See how that works. You can say law enforcement went too far. The individual didn’t make a false claim. He said what he said.
One of the big problems with the Left is they get so hung up on language and twisting it and distorting it and making it up that they end up with a mouthful of indigestible word salad that winds up not meaning anything at all.
The day before this happened, everybody knew what someone meant by the words “snowflakes” and “melt” in a political context – an individual indoctrinated into unstable, unhealthy hypersensitivity who absolutely freaks out at the least provocation.
24 hours later, suddenly they’re deforming “melt” to mean an act of mass murder.
This was not a threat. It’s only a threat for people who find it profitable to see it as one. But it was an ill-advised post for that setting – especially that setting. As many have stated, I’m glad the authorities looked into it. But they seriously overstepped and wound up trampling all over this kid’s rights – and at the rabid, frothing promptings of a pack of grape-flavored minions which makes only makes it worse.
em, a teenage boy – otherwise known as a testosterone vessel – using a gun as both a prop and the subject of a challenge to those he disagrees with should be reported and investigated.
That is a judgement call. After the facts were in, the case should have been closed. If you think otherwise then state exactly what the crime was.
…and then imprisoned for 83 days?
Hence the overstepping.
But hey, those jackboots were made for stepping!
Also – referring to a boy as a testosterone vessel is not only rude, but also biologically accurate. You may not want to repeat that in your circles.
em, I agree the days in jail were not warranted and that is cause for investigation. So were the kid’s actions at the time.
bythebook – and I wholeheartedly agree they should have investigated the report. If there’s anything we’ve learned in this age, I hope it’s that causes for concern need to be looked into.
Glad we agree on that em.
I didn’t take it as a threat of mass murder. I did take it as an attempt to instill fear.
Fear of?
The fear that there’s one more stupid ass walking around with a powerful weapon that wants you to be afraid of him.
“The fear that there’s one more stupid ass walking around with a powerful weapon that wants you to be afraid of him.”
I’m just about positive that’s not what, “melt” meant the day before this all went down.
I’m pretty sure in what context “snowflake” was used.
I’m pretty sure in what context “snowflake” was used.
If you’re going to go all 3rd world justice to lock this kid up for 20 years, at least have the balls to be sure, not just the weaselly, pretty sure.
You aren’t paying attention Olly, I haven’t called for anything more than a restraining order. I think he’s a stupid idiot but wouldn’t lock him up for twenty years.
You aren’t paying attention enigma. Isn’t using the force of law to infringe someone’s liberty, because you are pretty sure they aren’t safe to be around other people, how we got Jim Crow laws?
So now restraining orders are an infringment on someone’s liberty. Perhaps the right to harrass someone is just free speech? Throw all related laws off the books because the right to do any damn thing to anyone must be protected at all costs.
So now restraining orders are an infringment on someone’s liberty.
What part of restraining order is not an infringement on someone’s liberty? And given your Ouija Board determination that you’re pretty sure of someone’s intent, how is that not unjust?
By the way, your dodge on the Jim Crow reference didn’t go unnoticed.
Your Jim Crow reference was so off base that it didn’t deserve a response. Jim Crow was the next best thing to The Black Codes which was the next best thing to slavery. It was a (highly successful) attempt to duplicate as best they could slavery itself. I’d give you the long history but you likely couldn’t or wouldn’t follow along. But it wasn’t a way to keep people you didn’t like from being around you, it was a way to persecute a people in a multitude of ways. Whenever you think to use Jim Crow to make a point, you should probably just stop yourself.
But it wasn’t a way to keep people you didn’t like from being around you, it was a way to persecute a people in a multitude of ways.
Well that’s a $hit sandwich you just made there. Why in the hell do you think people wanted segregation laws, if it wasn’t because they didn’t want to be around you? Plessy v Ferguson ring a bell? Separate but Equal ring a bell? Using the force of law to restrain black people from using the same public accommodations as white people is unjust and unconstitutional.
Jim Crow laws and Jim Crow state constitutional provisions mandated the segregation of public schools, public places, and public transportation, and the segregation of restrooms, restaurants, and drinking fountains for whites and blacks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws
Using the force of law to restrain anyone better be based on more than someone’s feelings of being pretty sure about someone’s intent.
Slavery/segregation/Plessey v Ferguson was all about economics as was Jim Crow.
“Using the force of law to restrain anyone better be based on more than someone’s feelings of being pretty sure about someone’s intent.”
I’m sure the history between the two would play a role in any decision.
I’m sure the history between the two would play a role in any decision.
Yawn
You should talk to George instead of me.
Had George made the comments you did, then I would.
No, em, you’re not positive. If you had kids at this school and heard about this you’d freak out and well should.
PS The rule is simple and understood by most, especially those trained in possessing powerful weapons. You don’t play around with it, wave it in public, or use it in a joke. If you do you might get your ass shot off. This kid learned the hard way.
Let’s talk law.
Africans in America are all illegal aliens.
On the date of issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation, the Naturalization Act of 1802 was in full force and effect requiring citizens to be “…free white person(s).” Freed slaves were in violation of the Act and their status changed from that of “property” to “illegal alien” requiring immediate deportation.
Since Abraham Lincoln persisted in office in violation of the Constitution, including his denial of Southern secession and suspension of Habeas Corpus in a condition of secession not rebellion, none of his acts or the acts of his successors were legal or constitutional, including the improperly ratified and unconstitutional “Reconstruction Amendments.”
Africans in America were and are illegal aliens requiring deportation and compassionate repatriation.
em, you don’t know from that information whether it was a threat or not. You don;t f.. around when kids with deadly weapons use them for taunting. Report it.
I do not know it was not a threat, but I don’t believe it was – particularly after the police spoke to the individual in question. But regardless, you look into anyway because as you said, you don’t mess around with this stuff. I agree.
But what also bothers me is the way it was reported. If one kid’s intent in this situation can be debated, so can the other’s.
We probably agree on most of this and apparently the police and DA took it way too far. Just imagine if there was a report similar to this on the Parkland shooter and no one at least checked it out. Well apparently that did happen and it eventually got more than real.
The prosecutors may or may not be overzealous, he can feel free to sue them for false arrest.
It is the same thing as a threat though.
Damn enigma,
A reasonable person might perceive your first comment there as a threat. You would support having an overzealous prosecutor infringe the rights of innocent people, with the disclaimer that the innocent person has the option to sue for false arrest.
That’s a terroristic threat. Using your criteria, you warrant being arrested and prosecuted for advocating the violation my civil rights.
The werewolf named “Lou” says what I said, so I ditto, Lou, the werewolf.
(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.
If I’m reading this correctly, once charged under this law, a defendant cannot mount a defense based on having no intent or capability of committing the act of terrorism. Is that what this is saying?
Not exactly no, what it’s saying is that a verbal threat itself is a crime. Though obviously there must be documented evidence.
Thanks Betu, but not exactly is precisely how innocent people get railroaded by over-zealous prosecutors. This law literally reads that there is no relevant defense of the charge based on what one can prove as no intent and/or no capability. This law seems to be about the accusers truth, facts be damned.
unconstitutional law. they’re out there. if this kid gets convicted over it, probably a solid appeal
Of course I agree K. Unfortunately those that designed these unjust laws rarely h have to endure the business end of them.
that’s right Olly. because they are usually employed against poor white guys who are too young to know that the rules are different for them.
i have been involved in 2 different cases, a decade apart, in which young white guys were charged with “terroristic threat’ that were dropped or dismissed by judges as lacking evidence.
Why were they arrested and charged? because the defendants were supposedly “Racists” and cops thing if someone is “racist’ then it’s open season. they think this way why?
BECAUSE THEIR BOSSES TEACH THEM TO PLAY IT THAT WAY, THAT’S WHY
this is reality. and defendant Lucas Gerhard is now in “the woodpile” where he will learn about the methods of seasoned criminals and racists, in person. after this, one wonders if he will bother to return to college.
if you are white and in general prison population (not protective custody) then you are by definition, essentially, in the gang, they call it the woodpile. I hope Lucas can do burpees. Stinks to be in jail, stinks worse if you have diabetes, but, it will definitely toughen him up.
enrollment among white boys is plummeting. its obvious why: UNIVERSITIES HATE WHITE MEN
this can be hard to understand because so often they are RUN BY white men
the key to that irony is to be found in our strange system of American plutocracy. its complicated, but the trends will eventually take over no matter what the cause, and the plutocracy in the end will get a bloody nose one way or another
https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=98
after this, one wonders if he will bother to return to college.
Well, if he had no intentions of committing terrorist acts, that will likely change after falsely imprisoning him.
see how this works? it’s the logic of “low intensity conflict” \
its actually why some people go online and troll and say inflammatory things and try to elicit extreme responses–
people on both sides do that actually, in every emergent conflict. plus ca change…..
That’s what it reads like to me. That law was drafted to favor bringing of false charges against people who lacked mens rea to break it. Ir’s a defective law which makes speech in general “terrorism”, and could conceivably be used to falsely charge a bedridden, paralyzed person guilty of “terrorism”.
The NRA, Gun Owners of America and other 2nd amendment groups really, really need to file amicus curiae briefs against the state of Michigan with the object of bringing this law before the US Supreme court for review as soon as possible. Theoretically, the ACLU should be in this, too, but they’re so in love with stare decisis when it comes to laws that violate the Constitution being used to punish the innocent that God Himself knows whose side they’d argue for.
The Michigan legislature needs to simply repeal this law and start over agan. It’s crime under the color of law waiting to happen.
The Michigan legislature needs to simply repeal this law and start over again.
Thanks Lou,
Oh and according to JT, they are looking to modify the law, not start over. Here is their proposed change. It still leaves the defendant without a means to challenge the intent or capability part of the law. Is there some legal definition of what is considered a reasonable person?
The statement would cause a reasonable person to conclude that it was meant to threaten the person who heard the statement, or another person close in physical proximity to the person who hear the statement, with violence or damage to substantial property.
Two things: 1. He has the right to bear arms 2. He clearly explained his use of the word ‘snowflake’. The only thing I see here is a harassment suit against yhe accuser
The accuser actually violated another clause in that same law – by making what a reasonable person would not construe as a plausible threat against her. She broke that law and is liable for the same penalties she wished Gerhardt to suffer.
She can’t even plead to the court that she didn’t intend to make a false charge, since the law is worded to disallow that as a defense against the charges.
Everyone who aided her in making those false charges gets splashed with criminal liability once the question of intent is removed. That includes the arresting officers and the prosecutor or magistrate who approved of the charges.
So the only person NOT touched by criminal liability is Mr. Gerhard.
First sentence hopelessly garbled. One more time…
The accuser actually violated another clause in that same law – by making false charges that Mr. Gerhardt made what a reasonable person would not construe as a plausible threat against her or another person. She broke that law and is liable for the same penalties she wished Gerhardt to suffer.
She can’t even plead to the court that she didn’t intend to make a false charge, since the law is worded to disallow that as a defense against the charges.
Everyone who aided her in making those false charges gets splashed with criminal liability once the question of intent is removed. That includes the arresting officers and the prosecutor or magistrate who approved of the charges.
So the only person NOT touched by criminal liability is Mr. Gerhard.
Could she use the word “knowingly, ” and claim it was not knowingly, there by getting “off the hook, ” so to speak.
Nvm, “did not have the intent” as not a defense, goes to “knowingly.”
Scratch that.
His relatives sould take their guns to the prosecutors home and…..
Oh. Wait. I can’t suggest anything. I might get charged even though I am being funny.
Every person who supports this kid in that town should wear a tee shirt which says:. Second Amendment Right To Arm Bears. Not the Chicago Bears.
What do I think? I think I am never voting for a democrat ever again. Apart from that, I think the media needs to be held accountable in some fashion for doing nothing but stoking panic and willfully spreading new heights of misinformation for years. Parents that created hyper-liberal snowflakes and those parents’ generation? I don’t know what we do but try to steer the ship around. That causality is often lost on such a tremendously intelligent person as JT regarding some of these matters is baffling. Many of us have been sounding alarms over these past years. Nobody cared to listen, and now they are by and large all acting surprised.
Well, I guess he was right. The snowflakes had a meltdown.
Should authorities have taken the complaint seriously? Yes.
Should they have met with the student to evaluate the situation? Yes.
Should they have locked him up in jail for nearly three months – on the basis of assertions made by students with obviously malicious motives? No.
83 days…He spent 83 days in jail over this. I hope he sues.
In the end, they incarcerated him for exercising a constitutional right because a group of students, “Knowingly makes a false report of an act of terrorism and communicates the false report to any other
person, knowing the report is false.
Anon threated the moderator of this blog a while ago and was subsequently banned, only to return under half dozen sockpuppets, e.g. Paulie J, Bythebook, too many to count
Peter Shill / John Burgoyne / Seth Warner/ Enoch Poor / Paintchips / Anonymous (brown/green avatar) threatened Professor Turley’s career and position at GWU and insults commenters on the blog when he is not copying / pasting debunked, discredited media conglomerates
Yet, here they are terrorizing, threatening, making hateful comments to the host, moderator and commenters of the blog for their hourly jobs. Such is the DNC
Anon1 “threatened” to kick Olly’s ass, and in context that clearly meant debating, not physically. The latter was impossible given no one know’s who Olly is or where he lives. I think even Olly will admit this.
Some here on the other hand relish trying to identify and personalize perceived enemies, offer to meet up for fisticuffs, threaten armed revolution as proper response to posts, pretend they know other poster’s sexual activities which they then mock – kind of like on the middle school bus – and release the name of whistle blowers on JT’s blog. They all keep posting.
I think even Olly will admit this.
I actually commented at the time that I didn’t perceive Anon1’s so called threat as anything worth acting on. I viewed his comment as nothing more than a debate loss for him.
Of course, it was a threat.
JH:
Yeah to the First Amendment.
mespo – this is less a threat than Schumer’s. Maybe he can pretend he is from Brooklyn.
True. 🙂
How? Reading the law listed above, it does not even met the minimum requirement. Ad I read it, provision 1 is more problematic for her.
There’s a possible attempt at a double entendre, with the term “snowflakes”, so that’s the apparent path they’re taking to breathe life into a ‘threat’. But word-play like that is evidence of an attempt at humor, not a true threat.
Given what we’ve seen ‘prosecutors’ do nationwide, is it really surprising to see one act so egregiously, likely ‘with an abundance of caution’? (That phrase has been mutated by misuse, to the point where it inoculates insidiousness.)
Sadly, this young man is being buried by the avalanche of a single melting snowflake.
The very same law he’s accused of breaking made his unjust arrest a felony – the complainant knew well, she was not the intended recipient of the post. The accused never spoke directly to her. His joking question of whether the firearm he showed off would cause “snowflakes to melt” was not a credible threat to harm anyone.
The accused was the victim of crimes committed under the color of law. Even when the law was drafted in such a way as to invite unjust charges being brought under its ambit, the arrest and detention of the accused clearly emanated from malice toward him on the part of the complainant.
If anyone had mens rea to violate Sec. 543m.of Michigan’s criminal code, it was the complainant, who is said to have harbored malice against the accused before he made that statement. she also had accessories before the fact to bring false charges under Sec. 543m..
The Michigan legislature needs to simply repeal this law. It’s bureaucratic mischief and crime under the color of law waiting to happen. It’s easy to see that this law was drafted to make it easy to punish people who aren’t guilty of a crime at all.
As threatening, taunting or just plain talking trash and hinting at the possibility of mass shooting with an AR 15 are now, rightfully, being treated as threats tinged with the possibility of terrorism, this kid deserves to be branded with an ;S; on his forehead for stupidity.at the very least. I’m not opposed to the criminal code taking account the shortsightedness involved even if it hasn’t caught up yet.
I mean, you’re pretty quick on the censorship trigger with certain manners of communication in the comments section of this blog, Jon. Wondering when you might catch up in regard to your viewpoint with cases such as these?
Pauline:
I think your comment is threatening with all that branding stuff. Give me your address so I can send the cops to arrest you and hold you until the law catches up! This is fun in a Dim sorta way.
Thanks for checking in, Mess.
You’re going to find it difficult to send the cops here given you and I are from such different planets and all.
Paulie:
True enough but at least you understand the irony of making threats about one not making threats.
Ha. True! And you as well.
Professor Turley is fully free to delete any comment in this blog he wishes to delete. Nothing bad happens when he does that, apart from the author of the deleted words needing to find another soapbox.
I guess no one taught this kid the old “school” ways…
Lay low and keep your freakin’ mouth shut 😎
Snowflakes cannot take a joke. 😉
::grabs chest, reaches out, gasps for air, falls over onto hallway ground::
Paul, I’m melting, help, ayudare!
If only I wouldn’t get in trouble for such antics, I have stories, Paul, from my high school days…
WW33 – I would think the statute of limitations was up on your high school stories. 😉 Dish 😉
“Everyone seems to have failed at every stage in recognizing that this was not a criminal case. Notably, it does not appear that the school itself concluded that Gerhard was a threat. More importantly, nothing in the posting clearly states a threat.”
**********
It’s a great civil case though. Bring on the snow plow.
Those words and/or In the provision negate any threat.