NY Comptroller Apologizes For Violent Remarks Against Bush

[Johnboy60]

New York, NY (AHN) - New York State Comptroller Alan Hevesi apologizes for saying a fellow Democrat will "put a bullet between the president's eyes."

The Associated Press reports Hevesi called a press conference just hours after he said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., is "the man who, how do I phrase this diplomatically, who will put a bullet between the president's eyes if he could get away with it."

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7003785176

 

[cyberfugue]

I want to know why the Secret Service hasn't showed up at this guy's door.

Heads need to be seriously knocked about when people make hateful, violent statements like this.

 

[Gramaic]

I want to know why the Secret Service hasn't showed up at this guy's door.

Heads need to be seriously knocked about when people make hateful, violent statements like this.

You have a point.

 

[burrow_owl]

Humor - even the lame humor that Hevesi routinely traffics in - is constitutionally protected.

At any rate, Hevesi is one of the most stand-up guys in NY politics, an actual advocate for the public. He'd make a great governor, but he's such a dry technocrat that it'd never come to pass.

 

[cyberfugue]

Humor - even the lame humor that Hevesi routinely traffics in - is constitutionally protected.

Sorry, but no. Threatening the President publically with "a bullet in the forehead" is NOT constitutionally protected. It is NOT free speech. Though I've no doubt you honestly believe it is.

The scary thing is, many people think as you do - that they can talk smack like this all they want and that there's nothing anyone can do about it.

I have the feeling there are many rude awakenings coming. No doubt someone will listen seriously to a comment such as this, attempt to actually assassinate the President and then scream that their "free speech" is being violated when they are thrown into a dark hole for life. And people like you will defend them.

At any rate, Hevesi is one of the most stand-up guys in NY politics, an actual advocate for the public. He'd make a great governor, but he's such a dry technocrat that it'd never come to pass.

Anyone who would say anything close to what he did is not my definition of "a stand up guy".

You're a Democrat, right?

 

[nightflight]

I would rather live in a country where such speech is protected, vile as it is.

 

[nightflight]

I wonder why Pat Robertson doesn't get a pass when he says the same about Hugo Chavez.

 

[burrow_owl]

First, Hevesi didn't say he'd like to do that; he said Schumer would like to.

Second, even if Hevesi had said he'd like to kill the president (which he didn't), I'm telling you that, as a matter of law, what he said wasn't an offense. He was obviously being hyperbolic - no reasonable person would think he seriously wanted to kill the president.

If you think there's a problem, you should get started drafting your amendment repealing the first amendment. Good luck with that.

No doubt someone will listen seriously to a comment such as this

I don't where you are, but in our country we don't criminalize speech based on what the insane may think is being communicated.

 

[cyberfugue]

First, Hevesi didn't say he'd like to do that; he said Schumer would like to.

Oh, thanks for clearing that up then. That's a WORLD of difference.

Second, even if Hevesi had said he'd like to kill the president (which he didn't), I'm telling you that, as a matter of law, what he said wasn't an offense. He was obviously being hyperbolic - no reasonable person would think he seriously wanted to kill the president.

Does that mean you won't have a problem if I joke about a friend of mine who wants to put a bullet in your forehead?

Don't much like that, do you?

Yep - essentially that's it. My "freedom of speech" ends where your personal space begins. I don't have the right to threaten you with death, or make a joke about someone else putting a bullet in your brain - at least not without consequences.

If you think there's a problem, you should get started drafting your amendment repealing the first amendment. Good luck with that.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt in my last response, but obviously you ARE clueless.

I don't where you are, but in our country we don't criminalize speech based on what the insane may think is being communicated.

You don't know what free speech is - that is, you don't know where free speech ends and personal responsibility begins. You are an example of where a big problem lies today in this country. People who think they can say / do anything, and anyone else it affects negatively can like it or lump it.

I won't need to change the first amendment, because the first amendment doesn't protect people against threats such as that one.

Clever as you seem to think such a statement is - as protected as you seem to think it is - it isn't either clever, or protected.

One day, perhaps you'll understand the difference. Until then, this conversation is over.

 

[cyberfugue]

I would rather live in a country where such speech is protected, vile as it is.

What if such comments / theats were made against you or a beloved family member?

Would you still have no problem with it?

Or would you report it to someone?

 

[burrow_owl]

Does that mean you won't have a problem if I joke about a friend of mine who wants to put a bullet in your forehead?

If Hevesi made a bad joke about how Governor Pataki would put a bullet in my head if he could, and then laughed to indicate it was a joke, I wouldn't mind. I'm a reasonable person, and understand the difference between threats and hyperbolic humor.

 

[cyberfugue]

I wonder why Pat Robertson doesn't get a pass when he says the same about Hugo Chavez.

If Pat Robertson was Venezuelan and had said that about Chavez, the consequences would have been a lot more severe for him than simple secret service questioning. Think about that.

He never should have made that comment in either case. It was an idiotic thing to say, because not only was it vile - it stirred up support for Chavez amongst people who traditionally didn't like him.

Think about that also.

 

[cyberfugue]

If Hevesi made a bad joke about how Governor Pataki would put a bullet in my head if he could, and then laughed to indicate it was a joke, I wouldn't mind. I'm a reasonable person, and understand the difference between threats and hyperbolic humor.

Somehow, if that happened - I doubt you'd be so reasonable. Especially if it were about a family member.

It's remarkably easy to chuckle about it when it is someone else (that you don't like) isn't it?

 

[burrow_owl]

Per Virginia v Black such things are OK to say unless: 1) a reasonable person would take the statement as a threat; and 2) the speaker intended it as a threat.

Neither is satisfied here.

 

[cyberfugue]

Per Virginia v Black such things are OK to say unless: 1) a reasonable person would take the statement as a threat; and 2) the speaker intended it as a threat.

Neither is satisfied here.

There are also laws against incitement, you know? There's nothing 'humourous' about what he said at all. The fact that you think there is says more about you than anyone else involved.

Many people would differ in your opinion that it was not intended as a threat. Many of those people are very reasonable people.

He only apologized after the heat was turned up on him.

The sad thing here is that if it were a Republican or other party who said this about a Democrat president, the media would plaster it everywhere and people would be screaming for his/her resignation (and you, no doubt, wouldn't be defending him).

True free speech, for example, was what the Dixie Chicks said about Bush. They didn't make any threats - they merely stated that they were ashamed he was from Texas. The threats they received from people after that were not free speech - they were hateful threats.

That's the difference between you and I. I'd take the same attitude towards this issue either way.

Heck, all you're doing is cherry-picking which parts of my argument you want to respond to. While that is a common tactic in debate, it is very disingenuous. This is a waste of time and energy for me.

Have a nice day.... cheers!

 

[burrow_owl]

There are also laws against incitement, you know?

Incitement requires that the statement be of incendiary nature (it wasn't; it was a bad joke) and in a space where people are riled up enough to act on it, such that the actors are tantamount to unthinking extensions of the speaker. This was at a graduation, hardly the kind of place where people are packing and ready to kill.

And we did see that kind of thing when some republicans said stuff about how judicial activism is why judges get shot. The left criticized the behavior as irresponsible, but no one made the preposterous argument that they should be arrested for incitement.

Let me end on this: what he said may have been stupid, but it wasn't illegal. I'm just stating the law for you.