A Colorado Springs man faces federal charges for posting threats against police officers

[tangent4ronpaul]

http://www.9news.com/story/news/cri...fbi-threats-against-police-officers/20827267/



DENVER – A Colorado Springs man faces federal charges for posting threats against police officers after Google alerted the FBI about a comment he had allegedly made on YouTube.

Jeremiah Perez, 33, was arrested Monday without incident. According to a news release from the US Department of Justice, Google contacted the FBI's San Francisco office on Dec. 17 to report a threat made in the comments section of a YouTube video under the username "Vets Hunting Cops." Authorities were able to trace the IP address associated with the comments to Perez's home in Colorado Springs.

The threat Perez allegedly posted read, "SINCE DARREN WILSON our group has killed 6 retired sheriffs and cops......because of this event we will hunt two more in colorado this week.....for every innocent citizen that cops kill WE, VETERANS WILL KILL RETIRED HELPLESS COPS."

It went on to say "COPS ARE THE REAL ENEMIES OF FREEDOM LOVING AMERICANS and TIME TO STRIKE BACK IN ALL OUT WAR IS NOW."

FBI agents in Colorado Springs began surveillance on Perez's residence on Dec. 17. They obtained a warrant to search his home a day later. Military records indicated that he was a member of the U.S. Armed Forces who was under investigation for a non-judicial military violation.

According to the criminal complaint against Perez, he admitted that he posted the comments during an interview with the FBI, and said "his intent was to engage YouTube viewers in conversation."

During a forensic examination of Perez's computer, the FBI says it found additional postings from "Vets Hunting Cops" that threatened police officers. The FBI says it also found searches on his computer that included phrases including "Kill Barack Obama," "Kill Cory Gardner," "Kill Darren Wilson," "Hunt Darren Wilson's Family" and "Locate Bill O'Reilly's house." During an interview with the FBI, Perez allegedly admitted to making these searches, but he didn't intend on following through with them, according to the criminal complaint.

The FBI contacted Perez again on Dec. 22. According to a Department of Justice release, the FBI then determined Perez knew law enforcement officers would read his posts, and Perez wanted them to be afraid after reading them.

"The perceived anonymity of the Internet will not serve as a shield for espousing violence in violation of federal law," Denver Special Agent in Charge Thomas Ravenelle said in a news release.

Perez appeared in court Tuesday. He will be held in custody pending a detention hearing and preliminary hearing on Dec. 29.

He is charged with transmitting a threat in interstate and foreign commerce. If convicted, he faces up to five years in federal prison and a $250,000 fine

(KUSA-TV © 2014 Multimedia Holdings Corporation)

-t

 

[Weston White]

What the FBI didn't wine-and-dine-him-to-later-set-him-up-and-bust-him? I suppose that means during their 'investigating' into him, they determined that his IQ was just too high for that sort of op, eh?

His statements are not directed threats, they are vague statements expressive of his (reasonably justified) resentment and hatred toward a certain profession, and are factually hyperbole. To bring criminal charges forth, a total waste of governmental resources.

 

[Christian Liberty]

What the FBI didn't wine-and-dine-him-to-later-set-him-up-and-bust-him? I suppose that means during their 'investigating' into him, they determined that his IQ was just too high for that sort of op, eh?

His statements are not directed threats, they are vague statements expressive of his (reasonably justified) resentment and hatred toward a certain profession, and are factually hyperbole. To bring criminal charges forth, a total waste of governmental resources.

I disagree.

I am not, to any degree, a fan of the cops. I'm "on his side" on this. Cops are indeed the enemies of freedom, and while I don't support killing them, I am far more disgusted when a cop guns down an innocent civilian than when a civilian lashes out against someone who is at least somewhat guilty. I would vote to nullify if I were on this guy's jury.

But... what does he really expect? That the State will tolerate outright declarations of war against it? It never will.

It is not at all a "waste of government resources" from the standpoint of a government that seeks to control us with an iron fist. Its evil, yes, its government evil that drove this man to the point that he would say something like that, but from their standpoint this does "make sense."

 

[Philhelm]

Remember: Cops can outright threaten to preemptively kill people, in person, and while armed.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Remember: Cops can outright threaten to preemptively kill people, in person, and while armed.

Agreed. I wasn't saying this was OK, only that we can't expect the State to let people openly declare war on it. I am not on their side.

 

[tmg19103]

His statements meet the legal definition of a true threat and are thus a crime.

"for every innocent citizen that cops kill WE, VETERANS WILL KILL RETIRED HELPLESS COPS."

Need to be careful how you word things. He could have made his point in a threatening, yet legal manner that was not a true threat.

Per case law, a “true threat” is “a statement which, in the entire context and under all the circumstances, a reasonable person would foresee would be interpreted by those to whom the statement is communicated as a serious expression of intent to inflict bodily harm upon that person. It is not necessary that the defendant intend to, or be able to carry out his threat; the only intent requirement for a true threat is that the defendant intentionally or knowingly communicate the threat.”

This is actually before the Supreme Court. Most states just require the person "knowingly made the threat" and a "reasonable person" would regard it as threatening. Other states take it a step further and say it must also be proven the speaker "intended" to provoke fear of harm.

Where he may be able to get off depending on how the Supreme Court rules is whether he had "intended" to provoke harm, but it appears that way. The "we" "will" "kill... cops" statement of his does not help his case. That appears to be an intent to provoke harm. If not by him, then by others, so it is a true threat and a crime.

Appears he broke the law and will be found guilty. Be careful how you word things. You can make essentially the same point by wording it differently so it is not a true threat.

 

[Weston White]

Agreed. I wasn't saying this was OK, only that we can't expect the State to let people openly declare war on it. I am not on their side.

However, attempt to define his context of “war” and then to that end he intends what exactly? Is not war subjective? He is after all neither a nation nor government official, for him declare war is for him to merely indicate that he is set to fight for his causes.

...Or else isn’t Abraham Lincoln then guilty of the same?

We the People are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts–not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.

Does our national charter mean nothing and serve no purpose, so then we ought to just burn it on the steps of our Nation’s capital, while joyously dancing around its floating embers or instead should we perhaps heed the forewarnings of people such as Thomas Jefferson?

When the people fear the government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

His statements meet the legal definition of a true threat and are thus a crime.

"for every innocent citizen that cops kill WE, VETERANS WILL KILL RETIRED HELPLESS COPS."

Need to be careful how you word things. He could have made his point in a threatening, yet legal manner that was not a true threat.

It is not a ‘true threat’ because it is far too vague, nonspecific, and lacking actual or known targets—but it does contain a conditional warning. Perhaps if he instead asserted that he or his group of trained wet-working operators will upon the murder of the next innocent citizen exterminate the entire executive board of the Acme Benevolent Police and Brotherhood of the Blue Association (or the ABPBBA), then that would qualify as a true threat. (Further noting that “Put Wings on Pigs!” is by no means a valid threat either.)

Who exactly is “we”— it is only him being criminally charged. Oh is it the “veterans”, as in all of the veterans worldwide are “we”? Well, I am a veteran and I have zero part to play in his stated intentions. It is highly doubtful that there is any evidence of him conspiring with any number of individuals, let alone veterans, to meet the objective of his threats.

Who exactly are these “retired helpless cops” being threatened? Highly doubtful that there is any evidence of him researching such individuals addresses or that he even had access to such intimate information—it is simply unreasonable to assert that he could acquire any personal information whatsoever on retired law enforcement personnel, as it is in no way knowledge available to the public; or that he is aware of some imagined way to differentiate a retired helpless cop from a retired helpless citizen from a retired helpless non-citizen from a retired non-helpless cop from a retired non-helpless citizen from a retired non-helpless non-citizen from an employed helpless cop from an employed helpless citizen from an employed helpless non-citizen from an employed non-helpless cop from an employed non-helpless citizen from an employed non-helpless non-citizen from an unemployed helpless cop, citizen, or non-citizen from an unemployed non-helpless cop, citizen, or non-citizen.

Retired law enforcement personnel are generally permitted lifelong CCW/CCP with large-capacity magazines and hence, are vastly less “helpless” that the average citizen.

Outside of his statements, is there any existing evidence of his premeditation to devise a kill strategy, acquire needed equipment, to then enable him to carry out his stated intentions? Again, the element of imminence is highly doubtful.

His stated intent (or mens rea) was not commit to such acts literally, but to spark and impassion political debate on the underlying matter with others also voluntarily participating in discussion on a public forum.

 

[tmg19103]

It is a true threat. The below PA criminal statute has passed constitutional challenges on a true threat basis. Does not matter who "we" is. If somebody makes a statement that "we" will blow up a government building, that is a true threat and a terroristic threat. Same for stating "we" will kill cops. It would have been legal if he stated "we" believe cops should be killed. "Will" is the operative word that provided for intent to kill cops - and killing cops is a knowingly made threat. Again, the case law goes to what a reasonable person would think. Reasonable people can disagree, but I see a jury convicting.

Note the below criminal statute states communicate directly OR indirectly.

§ 2706. Terroristic threats.
(a) Offense defined.--A person commits the crime of
terroristic threats if the person communicates, either directly
or indirectly, a threat to:
(1) commit any crime of violence with intent to
terrorize another;
(2) cause evacuation of a building, place of assembly or
facility of public transportation; or
(3) otherwise cause serious public inconvenience, or
cause terror or serious public inconvenience with reckless
disregard of the risk of causing such terror or
inconvenience.

 

[torchbearer]

This whole forum is a thought crime.
I've reported us all to the DHS.

 

[Weston White]

It is a true threat. The below PA criminal statute has passed constitutional challenges on a true threat basis. Does not matter who "we" is. If somebody makes a statement that "we" will blow up a government building, that is a true threat and a terroristic threat. Same for stating "we" will kill cops. It would have been legal if he stated "we" believe cops should be killed. "Will" is the operative word that provided for intent to kill cops - and killing cops is a knowingly made threat. Again, the case law goes to what a reasonable person would think. Reasonable people can disagree, but I see a jury convicting.

Certainly, tests vary from circuit to circuit, but it does matter, it matters because there never actually was any "we"—it was only he, himself, and him. Moreover it matters because a statement such as "Should any police kill any more innocent citizens Chuck Norris is going to crack the skulls of the entire NYPD and then circle back to snap their necks into two for good measure!", it is pure hyperbole and thus not a true threat.

The threat needs to be explicit to a person or persons, group, place, or thing; otherwise it is civil or criminal harassment at best. It is similar to how the KKK had recently made unwarranted threats to shoot Ferguson protesters, which have gone unchallenged.

More simply, his statement is more of an ambiguous warning threat than an explicit true threat. So if he is guilty of anything it is of being a poser or Internet tough-guy, which is not an actual crime.

 

[phill4paul]

They arrested Officer Phillip White for this comment didn't they?

"Threaten me or my family and I will use my God given and law appointed right and duty to kill you. #CopsLivesMatter" and "By the way if anyone feels they can't breathe or their lives matter I'll be at the movies tonight, off duty, carrying my gun."

No? Well, surely he was fired. No? Ah, suspension. That will teach him.

 

[euphemia]

Remember: Cops can outright threaten to preemptively kill people, in person, and while armed.

In my town they serve hot chocolate to people who denegrate them and cause a disturbance.

 

[JK/SEA]

In my town they serve hot chocolate to people who denegrate them and cause a disturbance.

so?

 

[Christian Liberty]

#CopsLivesMatter

Your victims matter more than you do, pig.

But even you can repent and be saved. And when you do, don't listen to the lies of whatever congregation you end up in. You need to quit, whether they will tell you that or not.

 

[tmg19103]

Certainly, tests vary from circuit to circuit, but it does matter, it matters because there never actually was any "we"—it was only he, himself, and him. Moreover it matters because a statement such as "Should any police kill any more innocent citizens Chuck Norris is going to crack the skulls of the entire NYPD and then circle back to snap their necks into two for good measure!", it is pure hyperbole and thus not a true threat.

The threat needs to be explicit to a person or persons, group, place, or thing; otherwise it is civil or criminal harassment at best. It is similar to how the KKK had recently made unwarranted threats to shoot Ferguson protesters, which have gone unchallenged.

More simply, his statement is more of an ambiguous warning threat than an explicit true threat. So if he is guilty of anything it is of being a poser or Internet tough-guy, which is not an actual crime.

All statutes referencing such threats as crimes state they can be direct threats or indirect threats. This is certainly an indirect threat. People get arrested and convicted for saying stupid things like this all the time. The group threatened was retired cops. Whether that was hyperbole or not is up to the jury. He absolutely gave the police probable cause to arrest, and that was really stupid.

 

[JK/SEA]

another bullshit story designed to take the heat off the real killers.

 

[Weston White]

All statutes referencing such threats as crimes state they can be direct threats or indirect threats.

That simply means if the threat itself was directly or indirectly stated to the intended target or through third-parties or alternative mediums of communication, i.e., the difference between speaking or writing to the person themselves or speaking or writing about the person to the media, another person, or public forum.

The group threatened was retired cops.

Again however, "retired cops" is not an actual group composed of organized and knowable individuals (whereas the BPA or your local American Birth Control League...errr...Planned Parenthood are, for example) that is by any logical means capable of being quantified and discerned, it is no different that making a public threat against blacks, white racists, the "1%", anybody who violates a boycott issued by local protest leaders, terrorists, buildings, dumb Americans who voted for President Soetoro, Millennials, Christians, etc.

Further, for example, the East Coast Avengers has a song called Kill Bill O'Reilly, all throughout advocating for his (and Michelle Malkin') murders (warning it is explicit): YouTube Video (Lyrics)

The song has encouraged responses from the public such as:

I would love it soooo much if someone murdered bill o'reilly and his wife and kids if he has any...I would love the murder to be public and I would love to watch his blood just flow from his racist child molesting body.

* Noting also that public figures are legally prone to undergo more scrutiny or objectification from the general public, this including agents and officials of the government.

Whether that was hyperbole or not is up to the jury.

Actually, it matters during the indictment process as it was best stated by Johnny Cochran "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit." and Charles Barkley "Because anything less would be uncivilized." And anything else is just overzealous or malicious prosecution and ultimately an abusing-misusing waste of both public resources and revenue.

#CopsLivesMatter

Shouldn't it actually be #AllLivesMatter or #EveryLifeMatters?

ETA:

Is it me or does that man look very similar to one of the stars of Lone Survivor? (Yet another compelling Wahlberg movie.)

 

[acesfull]

Any 1st Amendment issues here or would this fall under the can yell fire in a movie theater theory?

CCJ

 

[tmg19103]

That simply means if the threat itself was directly or indirectly stated to the intended target or through third-parties or alternative mediums of communication, i.e., the difference between speaking or writing to the person themselves or speaking or writing about the person to the media, another person, or public forum.



Again however, "retired cops" is not an actual group composed of organized and knowable individuals (whereas the BPA or your local American Birth Control League...errr...Planned Parenthood are, for example) that is by any logical means capable of being quantified and discerned, it is no different that making a public threat against blacks, white racists, the "1%", anybody who violates a boycott issued by local protest leaders, terrorists, buildings, dumb Americans who voted for President Soetoro, Millennials, Christians, etc.

Further, for example, the East Coast Avengers has a song called Kill Bill O'Reilly, all throughout advocating for his (and Michelle Malkin') murders (warning it is explicit): YouTube Video (Lyrics)

The song has encouraged responses from the public such as:



* Noting also that public figures are legally prone to undergo more scrutiny or objectification from the general public, this including agents and officials of the government.



Actually, it matters during the indictment process as it was best stated by Johnny Cochran "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit." and Charles Barkley "Because anything less would be uncivilized." And anything else is just overzealous or malicious prosecution and ultimately an abusing-misusing waste of both public resources and revenue.



Shouldn't it actually be #AllLivesMatter or #EveryLifeMatters?

ETA:

Is it me or does that man look very similar to one of the stars of Lone Survivor? (Yet another compelling Wahlberg movie.)

And he will be convicted. Juries always side with cops and he made threatening statements towards cops - albeit retired cops. I can just see the prosecutor to the jury: "retired police officers risked their lives honorably serving the community and now they have to live in fear of this person and his threats when they just want a peaceful retirement".

 

[JK/SEA]

Any 1st Amendment issues here or would this fall under the can yell fire in a movie theater theory?

CCJ

what if the theater was on fire, would it still be ok to yell fire?...