Police arrest man after he allegedly posts violent anti-cop rant on Youtube - Page 6

PhillyLikwid · 07-01-2008, 03:39 PM

So I decided to look into this a little bit because I heard people saying locally that the weapon was NOT registered. Yet I found no stories online listing any gun related charges. Is it possible that these charges are just related to the video itself and the gun charges are considered to be part of the arrest so that he can be charged separately because there is no double jeopardy? Not sure what to think, but I suspected someone this stupid did not have a registered fire arm.
This story explains the charges a little more clearly.

So a child was operating the camera, corruption of a minor will stick.

They are also claiming that since the video names the Philadelphia Police department specifically, that is why the terrorist threat charge was added on top
of the harassment charge.

He also has a previous record, I doubt anyone will be swinging the bat for this guy , he will likely get the opportunity to plead down and out of the aggravated assault and perhaps one of the two verbal charges.

ExpectantlyIronic · 07-01-2008, 04:03 PM

Yeah, the involvement of a 12 year-old in the making of the video does justify this guy having charges brought against him. Too bad they filed that aggravated assault charge, though, as that will deligitimize the cities case a bit, but I'm sure he'll still be convicted of the corruption of a minor, at least.

Italiano · 07-02-2008, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ExpectantlyIronic

Who's going to go out and commit acts of violence because of the video? Are you? The thing is, it's really difficult for me to imagine that a YouTube video could be the primary cause of violence against a police officer. Videos that show police brutality would be more likely to contribute to someones motivation for a violent act, than would some dude talking. Do you advocate that charges be pressed on people who film those sorts of videos?

There are people out there who will act impulsively on something they read in a fortune cookie.

Like your comment about hinting to kill the president and actually saying it is illegal, the same formula for specificity applies. Same thing with Duke's comment about saying "let's kill all the jews". It can't be considered an offense until you start narrowing down to specifics.

If the guy had said "Let's kill police" then that wouldn't be enough to pass charges, but he said "Philadelphia Police Dept" targeting a specific minority within a minority.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ExpectantlyIronic

Then he clearly didn't facilitate free speech, which is commonly understood as the ability to speak freely without receiving punishment from an authority of some sort.

Exactly, he wasn't really for free speech, he just used it to find out who his enemies were.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ExpectantlyIronic

I've always thought they were pretty backwards in that regard. To outlaw holocaust denial just makes it seem that holocaust deniers must have an awful compelling case to make. Why else worry about them? In America--where holocaust denial isn't illegal-- holocaust deniers are laughed and looked down upon by most. They hardly seem like a threat.

It's not because holocaust deniers are a threat, Europe just feels more compelled and sensitive than the U.S. is about denying the occurrence.

Rapier · 07-02-2008, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Italiano

There are people out there who will act impulsively on something they read in a fortune cookie.

Like your comment about hinting to kill the president and actually saying it is illegal, the same formula for specificity applies. Same thing with Duke's comment about saying "let's kill all the jews". It can't be considered an offense until you start narrowing down to specifics.

If the guy had said "Let's kill police" then that wouldn't be enough to pass charges, but he said "Philadelphia Police Dept" targeting a specific minority within a minority.

Exactly, he wasn't really for free speech, he just used it to find out who his enemies were.

It's not because holocaust deniers are a threat, Europe just feels more compelled and sensitive than the U.S. is about denying the occurrence.

Of course they are a threat. Israel was manufactured by the Holocaust and billions of dollars of "reparations" extracted from subjugated German citizens who had absolutely nothing to do with anything that took place during WW2.

Italiano · 07-03-2008, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rapier

Of course they are a threat. Israel was manufactured by the Holocaust and billions of dollars of "reparations" extracted from subjugated German citizens who had absolutely nothing to do with anything that took place during WW2.

At this point there are people in Israel who are more of a threat than a few disgruntled Germans.