Discussion: MD Newspaper Declined Pursuing Charges Over Suspect's 2013 Threats

1 Like

That would seem appropriate.


This would be one of those cases where it falls to a judge to make a formal finding of the glaringly obvious.


I don’t think it is appropriate to give bail to somebody who is accused of murdering five people in cold blood. Just saying.


His appeal of his case against the paper was dismissed years ago. I’m sure the president’s attacks on “fake news,” calling journalists “scum,” “really bad,” and “enemies of the people” did nothing to give this guy permission to act on his revenge fantasies.

Other than letting him know he wasn’t alone in his scorn for journalists and desire to see them punished, that is.


And Sarah says an attack on the journalists is an attack on all of us. I am SURE she means that.


This is EXACTLY what I think. Sure…he had a long standing grudge. But in a way…why now since the case was over several years ago? I will always believe the rhetoric out of the offal office spurred him to act out his murderous fantasy.


Thought experiment: If this guy was a black dude and had a twitter reference to Maxine Waters, would the media be so circumspect? Maybe.


And all of a sudden Ma Hamhock throws Trumpski’s anti-free press words into reverse: “Strongly condemn the evil act of senseless violence in Annapolis, MD,” White House press secretary Sarah Sanders tweeted. “A violent attack on innocent journalists doing their job is an attack on every American.” This is clearly an effort to put space between his words and this action. He was declared a danger to journalists before the election.


Yep! @littlegirlblue included a very accurate link in her post last night highlighting the abuse Katy Tur was subjected to while covering donnie’s campaign.


I looked at his twitter feed last night. It was pretty much entirely threats against the paper or specific journalists tied to it, accusations of “stalking” which I didn’t get, pictures of court filings accompanied by complaints against judges or lawyers. Totally unhinged and filled with violent fantasizing about deaths of journalists. Mostly more than a year old - guessing he had some other twitter outlet. But this case that was dismissed wasn’t some one-off thing that mysteriously resurfaced. He’s been on the verge of this for a long, long time.

The idea that the person responsible for that multi-year tirade could legally purchase a firearm is just plain insane.


As I mentioned in an earlier post every town has its share of cranks and crazies who scare the hell out of the local police, bench, bar and press. Sometimes the local mental health community too. The same individuals show up all the time making threats. They don’t give up. The don’t get treatment. Most importantly they don’t get better. You just hope that one day they don’t develop enough energy to hurt somebody.

In this case the former publisher knew this guy was a danger and said so back in 2013. He probably isn’t the only dangerous local crazy with a grudge against that newspaper, but he was a known danger. That he never received adequate mental health treatment says a lot about the current state of the law and mental health treatment. I am surprised more of these attacks don’t happen.

In this case there is a convergence between the President who publicly wallows in his personal grievances giving crazies permission to wallow in theirs.


Why would he get mental health treatment if it might make it harder to get a firearm?

This guy was involved in lawsuits regarding stalking women and was a known harasser who frequently made violent threats against both organizations and individuals. Yet he was able to pass a background check. I don’t think the “more mental health” line from the NRA would have made a whit of difference either.


“A violent attack on innocent journalists doing their job is an attack on every American.”

Oh but continual verbal incitement like when Trump himself calls journalists at his political rallies “enemies of the people” isn’t an attack? How fucking convenient and self-serving.


Since the GOP won’t allow us to adopt common-sense gun control laws, perhaps we need to issue a set of laws focusing on the NRA’s “bad people with guns” and begin treating violent threats made by individuals a form of assault that requires jail time.


But to quote Nixon/Nixonians, “It’s not a crime when the president does it!”

Sanders and tRump threw the word violent in to cover Donnie’s practice of attacking the media at his rallies. These people are cowardly scum.

Of course, they’ll also have try to send part of Trump’s campaign speech in Dec. 2015 down the memory hole:

[quote]“I hate some of these people [journalists], I hate ’em,” Trump told the crowd. “I would never kill them. I would never do that.”

Then he decided to reconsider.

“Uh, let’s see, uh?” he said aloud, his voice rising. “No, I would never do that.”[/quote]
That seems kind of violent. Unless, perhaps, he was thinking about killing them compassionately?


OK, but for how long? There’s little evidence these people get over their obsessions due to a little reality checking. Anyway there probably are already plenty of laws on the books; getting them applied to the right targets is another matter entirely.

1 Like

I agree.

I am just so terribly angry and frustrated about more good people dying because gun sales matter more than human life.

Finding a way to change the dialogue from controlling guns to controlling the shooters might be a way to get something through the GOP, but the most effective route to reduce these murders is to control access to guns.

1 Like