Mass shootings are almost a daily occurrence in the US. Why wouldn’t you take the threat seriously?
If this person had actually shot up a call center and the FBI was found to have said, “Eh, they probably didn’t mean it that way,” people would be equally as outraged.
You’re talking about being found guilty of the crime. You can definitely be arrested for making a statement that in the context was a terroristic threat, and be found not guilty of the crime.
Her arrest was absolutely warranted. Her statement could easily mean that she planned on opening fire on the employees. Not taking that seriously in a country where mass shootings happen almost daily is very stupid.
We also don’t have all of the facts on the case. The police don’t release all of the details of their cases before trial.
I think their practices are abhorrent, but their non-profit status is irrelevant.
Non-profit basically just means that any profits don’t get kept by the owners. The hospital still needs to get paid for its services to operate.
Because 99.9% of people are not going to maintain a hosts file, and don’t even know it exists. Not to mention you’d have to already know the IP of the sites you wanted to visit.
You’re basically arguing that phone books are a bad thing because people can just keep an address book.
Yes, that’s proven in the courts, not by the cops.
She said something that could easily be taken for a terroristic threat, given the context. It would be a bad thing to not take terroristic threats seriously. Whether she was being serious or not is irrelevant regarding her arrest.
No, that’s up to the courts and investigators to prove. Cops did the right thing here, for once.
Yes, but it’s usually not the building residents that take them down. The vast majority of mesothelioma cases are people who worked with asbestos as part of their job.
That doesn’t get rid of the need for DNS. And ipv6 won’t get rid of the need to load balance using dns.
Were their threats recorded? The fact that people have said worse doesn’t change the fact that it was a threat.
The bond is ridiculous, but the arrest wasn’t.
Free speech doesn’t conver threats.
The depose part was the assassin’s, and she followed it with, “You people are next.” context is important, and context makes this a threat.
“you people are next,” also isn’t part of it.
It doesn’t cover threats of violence.
If someone referenced a recent assassination then said, “You people are next,” would you seriously not take that as a threat?
How do you know she didn’t have means to do it?
Her saying, “you people are next,” is what makes it a threat, thus not protected under free speech.
There’s plenty of evidence of voter suppression and election interference, plus the fact that bullet ballots were like 500% higher in only swing states than every other election in history.
I’m not sure we can definitively say that this is what the electorate wanted.
That’s really the only thing keeping me in the south.