Web post inflames post-shooting emotions in Washington

[308Mike]

Linkarooni

Web post inflames post-shooting emotions in Wash.

By Gene Johnson
ASSOCIATED PRESS

1:05 p.m. September 25, 2008

SEATTLE – A Washington state man who wrote on a newspaper Web site that he was going to shoot up a shopping mall says he was just making a point after a mentally disturbed man went on a shooting spree. But prosecutors say he was making a threat.

Jeffrey N. Gargaro, 28, faces possible jail time for writing that he should shoot up a mall “just for the hell of it. ... No drugs, no mental illness.” He is fighting the charge on free-speech grounds.

Gargaro is one of several people investigated in recent years for postings that tested the limits in the freewheeling arena of the Web.

“We admit he was stupid,” said Jeffrey Lustick, Gargaro's lawyer. But “people say some pretty unusual things on blogs.”

More..............

[mekender]

Gargaro, a married father of two, told The Associated Press he doesn't own guns, didn't intend his comment as a threat and was trying to take issue with people who were assigning blame for the shooting before all the facts came out.

I always assumed that for a threat to be a crime, there had to be some reasonable belief that you could actually carry it out...

[Aglifter]

The problem w. the idea that a man has to have the ability to carry it out, is how do you determine if he has the ability? (EG, Say the individual made that statement, then walked into a shopping mall -- and, an officer is in the mall, and aware of the man's threat -- how should he respond?)

Or, in a more individual focused case -- a man says "I'm going to my car to get my gun, and kill you" The police claim they can't go find the man, and arrest him, since he didn't display the gun... What should your response be if you see him coming toward you? Do you wait until he draws his gun before acting, or do you take his word that he has come back w. the intent and ability to kill you?

[308Mike]

I agree the authorities have to do something to protect the population, but running out and violating his rights and arresting him when he's done nothing wrong (at this point) is complete over-reaction.

If they were REALLY concerned about what he might do, put a tail on him and another at the mall. It's a minimal expense and violates no one's rights and fulfills the police's responsibility to protect the public. You have NO IDEA how many times cops hear people spouting off about killing them, others, shooting up stores and businesses, blowing things up, etc. They can't take them all seriously - there needs to be a measured response to such a claim. Context means EVERYTHING and you can't just run out and arrest someone on bogus charges for running his mouth or fingers. Unfortunately, the complete lack of common sense and critical thinking in society is also affecting/spreading to police departments.

[mekender]

I agree the authorities have to do something to protect the population, but running out and violating his rights and arresting him when he's done nothing wrong (at this point) is complete over-reaction.

If they were REALLY concerned about what he might do, put a tail on him and another at the mall. It's a minimal expense and violates no one's rights and fulfills the police's responsibility to protect the public. You have NO IDEA how many times cops hear people spouting off about killing them, others, shooting up stores and businesses, blowing things up, etc. They can't take them all seriously - there needs to be a measured response to such a claim. Context means EVERYTHING and you can't just run out and arrest someone on bogus charges for running his mouth or fingers. Unfortunately, the complete lack of common sense and critical thinking in society is also affecting/spreading to police departments.

Since courts have repeatedly ruled that police are under no obligation to protect anyone, why are they acting on it at all? making a threat that you cannot actually carry out isnt a crime.

[Jered]

He's dumb.

From Article 1 of the Washington State Constitution:

SECTION 5 FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Every person may freely speak, write and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right.

I think this counts as an abuse.