• FuzzyRedPanda
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    30
    ·
    2 months ago

    Right! Legal consequences; arrest the guy, charge him with something!

    But showing up to intimidate him and not arrest him? I don’t want my government doing that to me the next time I say something they don’t like.

    • Todd Bonzalez
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      It’s called being let go with a warning. It’s letting you know your threats are being taken seriously, and that consequences are coming if you don’t stop.

      And what has he done since? Gone back online and said that killing Kamala Harris is constitutionally protected because of the Second Amendment… (It is not)

      I hope they arrest him, because making terroristic threats is, in fact, a crime.

      • timbuck2themoon@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        Nah, the person you’re responding to is right. Arrest the fuckhead. No warning needed.

        Im honestly agreeing with you but this shithead could stand to actually face consequences. He made a threat and should pay for it.

        • Todd Bonzalez
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          The guy I was responding to wasn’t earnestly saying that the guy should be charged. He was making a bad faith argument that any law enforcement interaction that doesn’t include an arrest is unlawful. He’s making it seem like the police have no authority to speak to you without a warrant. I was informing him of what is actually happening, not saying he shouldn’t be arrested.