onmymedicalgrind

quote:

---

Foreseeable that a reasonable person could see it as a threat is the question. I believe the email as a whole meets that standard.

---

Well we'll have to agree to disagree. I think that email as a whole falls under aggressive, offensive political hyperbole. It criticized specific actions this official did while in the performing of his public duties. It noted that history will not look kindly upon his actions, and therefore he will never know piece. I don't think it comes close to a true threat.

quote:

---

Wrong. I think a reasonable person could perceive what was said as a threat. There are several in this thread that said that.

---

Your first mistake: most posters on this board aren't reasonable.

quote:

---

I don’t think it ALONE is a criminal threat.

---

Again....................you are agreeing with me. It's OK to admit it and stand proud. 99% of the time agreeing with me means you are in the right.

quote:

---

Take your own advice. I simply claimed you stating it was not a threat does not make it true.

---

....a statement of mine you later admitted to agreeing with :cheers:

quote:

---

The same could be said of the original email

---

I think the citizenry deserves wide latitude when it comes to criticizing the government officials who work for us.

quote:

---

It's a close call. It certainly comes across as "unhinged."

Does unhinged warrant a wellness check? I think folks could argue that either way. Likewise, if this or other messages are edging close to line, the federal authorities are actually doing him a service in calling it to his attention.

I'm inclined to agree with Decatur though, that if it did rise to the level of an actionable threat, they would've picked him up, and brought him in.

---

I think it is hyperbolic and provocative political speech that should remain protected. And I think its clear the government agrees, or to your point, he definitely would have been arrested.

I don't view the govt giving him a "warning" as a benevolent act to keep him out of trouble. It wreaks of a way to intimidate without implicating a legal or constitutional issue.

quote:

---

But I would be interested in your opinion about the validity of the lawsuit assuming we have complete context on all sides already (I don't think that we do BTW). What is the actual harm driving the suit?

---

I think you are spot on. The lawsuit fails because the harm is zero or de minimis.

I find the discussion of whether his email rises to unprotected speech far more intriguing.

quote:

---

Then we amuse each other. it takes a lot to get under my skin. You haven’t come close. You’re entertainment. I like when people post with hubris from a place of complete ignorance…as you do.

You aren’t special. I have interactions on here all the time with dumb people posting legal conclusions with absolutely zero legal acumen to back it up. You’re a dime a dozen. Now go clean the instruments.

---

Whatever makes you feel better about yourself :cheers:

quote:

---

And a scrub tech pretending on the internet to be a doctor shouldn’t be making fun of anyone’s profession.

---

:lol: :lol:

I really get under your skin. I'm not sure why, but it does amuse me.

quote:

---

He’s gone. I called him out and asked him to cite the definition he claimed to know and called others ignorant over…and poof. Gone.

---

:lol: :lol:

I have this thing called work. During times of my day, I cannot immediately respond to TD posts. I hope thats OK with you.

quote:

---

Are you too dumb to recognize that is what this post was saying?

---

You think my asking "Different set of Amendments apply to spiritual leaders?" is equivalent to my stating "context doesn't matter?" Bless your heart....

Feel free to quote me saying context doesn't matter. You'll have as good a chance finding that as "psychopath" in the DSM V :lol: