Reminds me of a story I heard a while ago about a boy who bought a flight sim game and was arrested..... Anybody else feel the police need a hobby? "Tampa police officer Joseph Mazagwu has been arrested and charged with threatening to kill President George Bush when the President was here in July. In Federal Court today, the U.S. Atty.'s office quoted Mazagwu's conversation with a dry cleaning employee on July 15th. Mazagwu allegedly said he wanted nothing to do with protecting the President and went on to criticize the President's policies in both Iraq and Africa. The conversation ended with Mazagwu allegedly saying that both the President and his father, former President Bush, should be shot. He reportedly went on to say that if he had enough bullets, he'd shoot the President in the head himself." If you wish to read more on this, I would recomend you point your mouse Here and click.
Granted, the sheriff certainly didn't mince words about his feelings for the Bush's, but to be arrested for that is clearly farcical, simply because it's plain to see that it was a spur-of-the-moment thing, with no planning or thought put into an execution... It's another ridiculous Yank over-reaction imho...
From the above linked article... GOVERNOR JEB BUSH, Florida: “I don’t have much to say other than that this person must be mentally disturbed to say something like that. I know it’s not indicative of the Tampa Police Department because they are a great group of people.” Mentally disturbed? If that's not over-reacting then I don't know And he could face up to five years in prison!!! That's harsh isn't it?
Problem is that with american policy the way it is, in times of war all human rights go out the door. This type of crap hapened during ww1 and ww2, corean war, vietnam and most recently the gulf war in 1990's. What makes ppl think they can get away with it now? I am by no means defending the actions taken against this police officer as he oviously didnt have any planing or intention to carry it out. But I am merly stating that he should have been more inteligent about the way he expreses himself. In short they did overreact.
I guess when you're an officer of the law, you need to watch what you say in public while in uniform... I can remember when the only countries where you would be arrested for just saying something like that about a political figure were either: 1. Communist States, or 2. Banana Dictatorships. You'd be accused of being mentally insane, too. How times have changed... I guess this whole "Freedom of Speech" thing was nice while it lasted, but it appears the US Government under George Dubja has now set Constitutional course for "Police State". Welcome to the first milepost.
The thing is that the US governemnt has been pulling this type of stuff eversince it was formed in times of war. In times of war liberty is limited. The US concideres itself at war in this point in time and thus reacts acordingly. They did this same thing to Chrarly Chaplin during WW2 when he made a film called "the great dictator". He was kicked out of the US for this reason. The US takes extreme precautions at times of war.
Being a time of war really has nothing to do with it. The Secret Service considers threats of all types on the president very seriously. They get loads of letters, phone calls, emails etc of people threatening the president, they are duty bound to investigate every single one of them. Upon investigation, most are just people who shoot off their mouths and have no intent of atually doing anything and probably have no idea of the concequences of thier threats. They are never procecuted. This is different. Here you have a person that (theoretically) has a full understanding of the law and the capability to follow through on his actions and makes a public threat. I bet if he overheard two punks in the same store saying that they wanted to kill a couple of his cop friends and listed them by name he wouldn't take that two lightly either. Political figures are very unprotected as far as what can be said about them publically. If you don't believe me, ask Larry Flint (Jerry Fallwell). You can say anything about them truth or total fiction, it is part of our political process and a protection of citizens and the press. That stops abruptly at threats of physical harm.
Sorry, have to disagree here. If said cop overheard a guy in a private conversation whining: "my boss/my neighbour/the cop who busted me for speeding is such an @sshole, he ought to be shot. Why, if I had enough bullets, I'd bust a cap in his head myself..." he might have a stern word with the man, but hardly arrest and him for threatening to kill someone. Nor would the US Attourney seriously consider prosecuting that man. There is a difference between making a serious threat, and just having a whine (and who amongst us haven't on one occasion or another said to a mate in anger and frustration that someone "ought to be shot"? Doesn't mean we'd actually go and do it, right?). Political figures are indeed relatively unprotected from public criticism. We all are, really, but most of us don't put ourselves at the centre of public attention, proclaiming a stand on public issues that people may have strong feelings about, claiming to represent, or speak for people, and trying to influence issues that will affect people's lives on a large scale... If we do, we have to acknowledge and deal with the logical consequences, however good or bad, just or unjust. Prophets get stoned (or nailed to a cross, or shot --depends on local means and custom). Fame attracts stalkers. It's not right, but it's the price you may pay for your convictions or ambitions, kiddo. That doesn't mean that it's OK to publicly announce that someone should (seriously) make an attempt on a guy's life for whatever he represents, just because you disagree with it. However this particular instance was an ill-judged, but private conversation between two individuals, not a public invitation to have a pop at the Prez.
I understand American law has the ""Clear and Present Danger" test. The Constitution "Free Speech" clause protects advocacy of using force or of violating the law. However, the Supreme Court has said that the government may curtail speech if it is both: (1) intended to incite or produce dangerous activity; and (2) likely to succeed in achieving that result. So if the Secret Service did investigate, and discovered the cop had a cunning plan, they'd be justified in arresting him. If all he had was access to a gun and a bad attitude to Bush, they'd be arresting half the nation. In times of national paranoia, such as the "Red Scare" of the Cold War and McCarthyism (Senator Joseph McCarthy, searching for an issue to win re-election in 1952, latched onto the pervading anti-Communist sensibilities by initiating the era of McCarthyism. This era, from 1950 to 1955, was marked by a "ruthless search for Communists . . . conducted without evidence but publicly and in a manner that destroyed the reputations of its targets.") and now Bush's "War against Terrorism" and the Patriot Act/Homeland Security/Guantamo Bay farce, true democracy with basic legal rights & freedom to express one's opposition get swept aside. Though you're probably allowed to threaten to kill Kerry.
Yeah, Bush may even see his way to selling you some weapons to do it (and throw in some free CIA training in terrorist techniques. Worked for Osama).
Yeah, I mean JFK got killed, even Reagan got shot at, but Bush didn't even have a single attempt made on him? What are all the homicidal paranoid nutcases playing at these days?!? Oh, wait, perhaps they actually relate to him...
