Clarification: The Reverand was in jail for a voter fraud charge and had been released on probation. The "threat" was seen as a violation of that probation sending him back to jail to serve his original penalty. I make no attempt to determine whether the original criminal charge and sentencing were correct or not, but this clip makes it sound like someone got 10 years for quoting a bible verse which isn't exactly correct. Although threatening judges is taken extremely seriously by law enforcement this case does not seem to merit the charges after a review of many articles. The following is actual text from the Reverend's letter that was deemed as the "threat": Judge Butzbaugh, it shall come to pass; if thou continue not to hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God to observe to do all that is right; which I command thee this day, that all these Curses shall come upon you and your family, curses shalt be in the City of St. Joseph and Cursed shalt thou be in the field, cursed shall come upon you and your family and over take thee; cursed shall be the fruit of thy body. The Lord shall smite thee with c... Sounds like witchcraft to me, with all them curses and such. It doesn't sound as though his 'threat' is an actual Biblical quotation. He does have free speech but the 'threat' is not physical or of a voo-doo variety. He just sounds like another nutty "minister" exploited for his stupidity. There are tons of verses to quote that encourage and warn against unjust/unrighteous/favoritism-type justice. Society reaps the consequences when true justice is neglected. Yup. That's a threat alright. Doesn't matter if he was quoting the bible, or Confucius or Don Rickles, *that* is a threat. That's calling for curses to be cast on the Judge. I hope he suffers his full, rightful sentence, and learns to take responsibility for what he says. I can see how it _might _ be considered a threat. That's a tough call. Hard not to err on the side of caution. @BobbyRutan Thanks for the better perspective. As Paul Harvey would say, "And now for the rest of the story..." I was not aware of the actual context of the letter. The guy turned out to be real obnoxious and his comments were inappropriate. Inappropriate does not equal illegal. But it does say something about the multiple religious posts you make. Do you just find alarmist headlines without researching what has actually happened? Calling for ill to befall someone is a threat. At the very least, it's incitement. It falls in the category of yelling that you have a gun in an airport or yelling Fire! in a crowded theatre; really stupid, and requires a response from law enforcement. And most definitely not constitutionally-protected free speech. Here is an interesting website that discusses what may or may not constitutes a legal threat http://cse.stanford.edu/class/cs201/Projects/nuremberg-files/legal.html But I am still curious why Efrain minimizes his point when he supposedly finds out the priest is obnoxius and his words were at a minimum inappropriate. I suspect Efrain finds any quasi-anti-religious headline to clip without even understanding the entire issue. What do we call this? Agenda driven? Chicken Little? But I am still curious why Efrain minimizes his point when he supposedly finds out the priest is obnoxius and his words were at a minimum inappropriate.Well, it is true that the preacher (not a priest) is obnoxious, concerning my findings. His comments are inappropriate on various levels, even though I did not expound on my comment on why and how. He directed his comments on his presupposition that God would address the Judge's "wrongdoing" which in my view, is of greater severity than his sentence. Also, his comments were inappropriate enough to gain him some time in jail to think about that very fact. P.S. my "agenda" is clearly stated on my profile, if need to know. |
View the Top Clips from March 21, 2009
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
New from the makers of Clipmarks: Amplify.com - Don't just share the news...Amplify it!
|
|||||||||||||
