Jeremy Bentham once said that “lawyers are the only persons in whom ignorance of the law is not punished.” We will see, apparently, in a case in Mississippi. At age 70, Lisa White is looking at a possible stint in prison after allegedly threatening to shoot Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents.
According to news reports, Lisa White drew attention at a Mississippi store when she went to buy a gun and asked about body armor in September. According to an employee, she allegedly identified herself as a protester and an activist opposed to ICE who were “becoming crazy and wild and that she needed a gun because she was a protester and activist.”
She allegedly told the employee that she was interested in knowing about body armor because if the agents were wearing body armor, she would have to shoot them in the head, shoulder, or leg. When the employee suggested that she was likely to get herself shot, she allegedly replied, “If I have to die, I have to die.”
According to ICE, White is currently being held on federal criminal charges for influencing, impeding, or retaliating against a federal official by threat.
This can be a tough case to prosecute. White can claim that this is protected speech in spouting off against ICE and was not intended as a true threat.
The Supreme Court handed down an opinion in Counterman v. Colorado that addressed an analogous claim under state law where a defendant claimed that postings were not intended as a true threat. The Court held that, in such a case, the State has to prove that the defendant had some subjective understanding of his statements’ threatening nature. However, it allowed for a conviction based on a showing of recklessness.
The majority held that a recklessness standard (showing that a person “consciously disregard[ed] a substantial [and unjustifiable] risk that [his] conduct will cause harm to another), was sufficient for a showing of state of mind, or mens rea.
On the specific federal crime, courts require a showing of specific intent that the defendant acted knowingly and with a specific intent to retaliate against the official for actions connected to federal duties. It is not enough to speak out of anger or passion.
In this case, the threat was not conveyed to the alleged targets but to a third person. As such, White could argue it was a political or sensational statement that was not intended as a true threat. She is due in court in mid-November.
It will interesting if Ms. White turns out to be a criminal defense attorney.
The comment about the salesman at the gunstore being the smartest one in the room was well taken. That’s a story of shutting the door on exposure to criminal accomplice liability.
Bill Clinton, a Democrat, was president when America had the best economy ever.
https://invidious.nerdvpn.de/watch?v=FejC6Knd-yo
“At age 70, Lisa White is looking at a possible stint in prison …” -JT
Mandatory Retirement at 65 yrs. old across ‘every’ profession, including the ‘oldest one in history’ [.]
Doctors, Lawyers, Accountants, Jurist, Architects, Orthodontist, Dentist, Psychiatrist, etc. … say Hello Miami!
Don’t think so…
S@@tlibs, I am going to try to engage in wokespeak, so help me out.
“This brave lady warrior should be commended for fighting the evil fascists who work for ICE! All is fair and necessary when fighting for justice.”
Well, how did I do s@@tlibs?
antonio
Happy to reply as a proud member of the Scotlibs! (I assume you are referring to we, liberals of Scottish ancestry?). I hate to speak for my fellow Scotswomen and men, but I would actually NOT commend this woman for making such veiled threats. In owing to the good Professor’s crusade against ‘rage’ and all of its manifestations, violence is never the answer. At the same time, I am perplexed how the mere mention of what she MAY do with a gun has landed this woman in legal trouble while the murderers of both Renee Good and Alex Pretti have faced no legal recourse. Scot’s Wha Hae!
Apples and oranges. The shootings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti by federal agents in the performance of their respective duties were/are under investigation.
Yeah, right. “Under investigation”. By federal agencies that are refusing to share anything with local authorities, and have already contaminated evidence by moving it out of state on a low-loader. If you think there is any meaningful investigation with any integrity, I have a bridge to sell to you.
Stupid Questions of the Day (from another lawyer): have 8 U.S.C. Sections 1325 and 1326 been repealed? Not to mention various federal and state criminal laws which numerous (not all) illegal aliens are suspected to have violated?
And not to mention 18 U.S.C. Section 115? A discussion of the latter would be interesting in relation to Attorney White’s case, as would Mississippi’s Rules of Professional Conduct regarding attorney behavior, particularly Rule 8.4(b) and (d).
Hippies that still think they are fighting Nixon. I’ve said it before and will repeat: they must be preternaturally privileged to even have time for their nonsense. Is it any wonder their kids are a dumpster fire? ‘Equality’, my a$$.
So Congress wrote a law protecting federal officer from threats related to carrying out their duties, but not for the rest of us while carrying out ours? Equal protection under the law? 14th Amendment?
What “duty” is the “Mississippi lawyer” carrying out?
So you don’t see a difference between attacking law enforcement officers and others? Can you threaten a President? A Supreme Court Justice?
Second, if you are attacked while doing whatever the heck it is you do…it is a crime and the perp will be charged. Feel better?
What a delightful and cheerful Granny! Making her kids (if she had any) or cats proud!! Bah haha.
Lisa White is living proof that the Big Lie works.
I think a psych-evaluation would be the first order of business. Make sure she is of sound mind before moving forward. Did she actually understand what it was she was saying?
Good on the gun store employee.
@Upstate
Yup, too much wacky tobaccy, perhaps. A great many are no longer functioning within the parameters of sanity, especially the head honchos of the modern dems.
When I started to read this, I was thinking this is going to be a hard case to prosecute. She definitely has defenses if she rolls the dice. I think true threats cases are often filed when the speech is protected. And there can be a VERY fine line between threat speech and free speech. But threat charges are often, in my opinion, abused by prosecutors and complaint judges.
Compliant judges ⬆️
Seems like the smartest person in the room was the gun store employee.
Democrats are fascists who hate America!
welcome to 1930’s German Fascism!
Seems to me she has already established intent with buying a weapon, asking about body armor and talking about shooting someone in the leg or head if they are in body armor and she gets “wild” and hates and protests ICE.
Most sane people would not take a weapon to a protest because in the fervor of the moment
This new system cut me off in mid sentence. What I was saying is that in the fervor of the moment a person might be overly tempted to use a weapon they bought, to a protest. I would specifically leave all weapons at home. I’m already 3/4 of the way to a conviction of this “attorney”.
I’m already 3/4 of the way to a conviction of this “attorney”. Um… but you’re not an attorney GEB.
Perhaps speaking as a hypothetical juror?
In a gun store, buying a gun for a specifically stated purpose, and researching body armor and the vulnerabilities therein, seems like a pretty specific ‘state of mind,’ and ‘intent.’
In a gun store, buying a gun for a specifically stated purpose, and researching body armor and the vulnerabilities therein, seems like a pretty specific ‘state of mind,’ and ‘intent.’
I am the writer of the comment about an analogy to conspiracy. The exception in the federal criminal code is conspiracy to violate the Controlled Substances Act.
In general, to prove a conspiracy under the federal criminal code, the government must show that at least one charged co-conspirator committed an “overt act.” That means taking.a concrete step towards committing the intended offense. For bank robbery, it might be as simple as buying a mask. This, of course, is not a conspiracy case; one person cannot conspire with himself. Yet here, the lawyer, Lisa White, did commit an overt act: one could reasonably that she took a step to effectuate her words, namely, buying a gun and body armor. That’s different from a mere. stated velleity spoken at the weekly meeting of her book club. Though I’m a lawyer and do criminal defense, I’m not familiar with the nuances and intricacies of the law on threats. But this was the first thing that came to mind when I read Prof. Turley’s post.
And, describing what she was prepared to do with the weapon she purchased.
Oh come off it turley! Not everyone speech is protected. You cannot claim that it’s free speech to say in going to have to shoot them in the head. Get real.
A specific threat to shoot someone in the head, based on their criminal actions, is 100% protected free speech. It’s a conditional threat based on their criminal actions (that can/could possibly harm you).
And what “criminal actions” are you referring to?
People go to jail for criminal intent even though the crime did not happen.