The Instigator
arkwrightman
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
JBlake
Con (against)
Winning
25 Points

Blogger Threats

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
JBlake
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/18/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,731 times Debate No: 9248
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (5)

 

arkwrightman

Pro

Is Hal Turner guilty of threatening three federal judges? Yes, I say!

This article caught my attention the other day. http://www.twincities.com...

After some research, I concluded that the case is debatable.

Below my initial argument you will find (1) the criminal statute allegedly violated by the defendant, and (2) a statement of the facts (see Complaint and Affidavit).

Initial Argument:

On June 2, 2009, Turner posted the following statement on his website. The statements show his desire and intent to kill the judges:

"Government lies, cheats, manipulates, twists and outright disobeys the supreme law and founding documents of this land because they have not, in our lifetime, faced REAL free men willing to walk up to them and kill them for their defiance and disobedience.

Thomas Jefferson, one of our Founding Fathers, told us "The tree of liberty must be replenished from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots." It is time to replenish the tree!

Let me be the first to say this plainly: These Judges deserve to be killed. Their blood will replenish the tree of liberty. A small price to pay to assure freedom for millions. "

Here is a statement expressing a threat:

"Shortly thereafter, a gunman entered the home of that lower court Judge and slaughtered the Judge's mother and husband.[1] Apparently, the 7th U.S. Circuit court didn't get the hint after those killings. It appears another lesson is needed. "
http://www.usdoj.gov...

__________________________________

(1) Complaint and supporting affidavit - http://www.usdoj.gov...

(2) The statute allegedly violated by Turner:
� 115. Influencing, impeding, or retaliating

against a Federal official by threatening or

injuring a family member

(a)(1) Whoever—

(A) assaults, kidnaps, or murders, or attempts

or conspires to kidnap or murder, or

threatens to assault, kidnap or murder a member

of the immediate family of a United States

official, a United States judge, a Federal law

enforcement officer, or an official whose killing

would be a crime under section 1114 of this

title; or

(B) threatens to assault, kidnap, or murder,

a United States official, a United States judge,

a Federal law enforcement officer, or an official

whose killing would be a crime under such

section,

with intent to impede, intimidate, or interfere

with such official, judge, or law enforcement officer

while engaged in the performance of official

duties, or with intent to retaliate against

such official, judge, or law enforcement officer

on account of the performance of official duties,

shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).

_____________________

(3) The word 'threaten':
Definitions of 'threaten'. http://dictionary.reference.com...
JBlake

Con

I would like to thank arkwrightman for providing me with the opportunity to debate this topic.

The occasion requires little space to refute the claims of Pro. As such, my opening argument will be short.

-----------

I stand in firm opposition to the resolution, that Hal Turner has violated Title 18, United States Code, Section 115.

----------

I understand "Title 18, United States Code, Section 115" to mean the statute quoted by Pro in his opening statement. The full text of the statute can be found directly below.
(http://www.capdefnet.org...)

======

Pro alleges that Mr. Turner's blog posts of June 2, 2009 and June 3, 2009 are in violation the aforementioned statute. However, any attempt to apply the statements to the statute will show these allegations to be false.

======
Burdens applied
======

Intent is very important when determining a "true threat". In order to win this debate, Pro must prove that the defendant, Mr. Turner, intended to carry out the alleged threats. I will show that this is an impossible task.

======
1. Statements Lack Intent
======

While Mr. Turner's aforementioned statements appear to be harsh and somewhat abusive, they do not constitute a direct threat by Mr. Turner to any judge, generally or specifically. Let us examine the alleged threats of June 2 and June 3 of 2009:

1. June 2, 2009: In this blog post, Mr. Turner expressed his belief that certain judges deserve to be killed.
2. June 3, 2009: In this post, the defendant expressed his opinion that certain judges on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court needed further lessons in jurisprudence.

In neither of these instances (quoted in Pro's R1, and linked to above) did the defendant express an intent to "assault, kidnap, murder, or attempt or conspire to kidnap or murder, or threaten to assault, kidnap or murder a member of the immediate family" of any judge or official.

Since there is no expression of intent by Mr. Turner to commit any of the actions provided for in 18, USC, Sec. 115 it cannot be concluded that he violated said statute.
Debate Round No. 1
arkwrightman

Pro

arkwrightman forfeited this round.
JBlake

Con

We are going to re-open this debate in another debate. I will post the link in the last round and the comments section if it is up by then.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 2
arkwrightman

Pro

arkwrightman forfeited this round.
JBlake

Con

The new debate has yet to be posted. I will post a link in the comment section.

Vote Con
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
+7d for JBlake
Posted by Volkov 8 years ago
Volkov
B & A: Tied
Conduct: CON; due to PRO's forfeits
S & G: Tied
Argument: CON; Pro didn't prove sufficiently enough that Turner broke the law while CON did refute the claim effectively - though I personally believe PRO could have won this, had he not forfeited.
Sources: PRO; PRO used more sources than CON
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
CON. Duh.
Posted by I-am-a-panda 8 years ago
I-am-a-panda
Hmmm.....I think JBlake proved well enough that there is no immediate threat of an action be committed by the person in question. Arresting that person was a clear enough violation of free speech. if Hal Turner said "I'm going to kill 3 of those judges", he has expressed intent. I think CON won that one.
Posted by Miles_Finch 8 years ago
Miles_Finch
Okay, I didn't know that thanks.
Posted by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
We will be re-opening this debate shortly. Arkwright is dogparktom. He closed this account to avoid being banned. I'll post the link when it is up.
Posted by Miles_Finch 8 years ago
Miles_Finch
arkwrightman has closed his account, that means JBlake wins this debate.
Posted by arkwrightman 8 years ago
arkwrightman
Con can pretend that he or she is a juror. That is what I did. The statements, claimed to be threatening, are in the affidavit. The jury must compare the statements to the relevant parts of the statute. What is the meaning of 'threaten' and the other relevant words in the statute? Does the defendant have a free speech defense?
Posted by Cerebral_Narcissist 8 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
I am not really sure how Con can argue this!
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
arkwrightmanJBlakeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Volkov 8 years ago
Volkov
arkwrightmanJBlakeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
arkwrightmanJBlakeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by dogparktom 8 years ago
dogparktom
arkwrightmanJBlakeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
arkwrightmanJBlakeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07