Friday, August 12, 2016

What Trump said no where near reaches the level of a criminal threat

"Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish the Second Amendment. If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people—maybe there is, I don’t know." Donald Trump

The Democrats and Hillary Clinton are obviously scared. Expect more firestorms based on throw away lines by Trump. Trump was talking about Clinton picking judges that will infringe on the 2nd Amendment (something prohibited). Then he says the 2nd Amendment people (which is really the citizenry of the US) may be able to do something about it.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." So who exactly are the 2nd Amendment people? I would say they are those that believe the right of the people to bear arms are necessary for a free state.

What Trump said no where near reaches the level of a criminal threat; as a matter of fact, unless you believe that a call for 2nd Amendment advocates to vote against Hillary Clinton is a threat, what Trump said was not a threat at all) Below is the Corpus of CA 422 PC criminal threats.

"Any person who willfully threatens to commit a crime which
will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, with
the specific intent that the statement, made verbally, in writing, or
by means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a
threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out,
which, on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made 

is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to
convey to the person threatened, a gravity of purpose and an
immediate prospect of execution of the threat, and thereby causes
that person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her own

BTW the Secret Service has pretty much ignored Trumps remarks, assuming it is just political rhetoric (contrary to CNN's reporting Trump has not been contacted by the Secret Service). As this former Secret Service explains to Hillary supporter Don Lemon of CNN.

So here you have CNN trumping up an off the cuff remark by lying this issue is so important the Secret Service has contacted Trump, then Lemon of CNN completely losing his mind when someone with experience in such matters, calls the idea that Trump had made a threat of violence against Hillary, laughable (which it is).


  1. Not sure what sort of standard you can apply to egging on dangerous unstable people with firearms. The courts may have one definition, but the public isn't an ordered group. Perhaps Gabbie Giffords isn't a perfect example of incitement; but you can't dismiss what people thought they heard Trump call out for. DT is just as dangerous for what he alluded to than what was said.

    1. Of course the question is, what did he allude to? The "Second Amendment group," is known primarily as a single issue voting block, that has affected many elections, as in Colorado where they forced a recall of two state representatives and caused another not to run for reelection. In California, anti-gun state representatives punched through gun restrictions in an attempt to stop Gavin Newsom's from following through with his anti-gun proposition, as they were concerned the proposition would bring out a large contingency of pro-gun, 2nd Amendment people, that don't usually vote, but would show up to vote against gu7n restrictions, but will also vote for other conservative issues and candidates. The Tea Party is loaded with 2nd Amendment people and they have been nothing more than peaceful and law abiding demonstrators/protestors and voters, and their shear numbers and popular message, changed the political landscape. So the mere saying "Although the Second Amendment people—maybe there is something that can be done)", or similar has historically never been used to call for an armed insurrection (or assassination) and neither does the 2nd amendment. Instead the 2nd Amendment was more like the our founders giving the people an atomic bomb to defend itself from a tyrannical government; while never meant to be used (the same as the Cold War MAD policy), it would still make any attempt to change power paradigm in the Constitution from the people to the government, an unwinnable proposition.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.