Posted on 08/06/2010 10:12:47 PM PDT by Mad Dawgg
NEW HAVEN, Conn. — Connecticut police say they arrested a man at a management company after he mentioned the shooting rampage across the state that killed nine people and said he understood the killer's mindset.
Fifty-eight-year-old Francis Laskowski of Derby was charged with breach of peace Wednesday after making the comments while working at Fusco Management Co. in New Haven.
(Excerpt) Read more at google.com ...
Are you kidding me? Well, this is Connecticut; what do you expect?
I guess some folks got upset and hit the panic button. People are so JUMPY today.
1984 is finally coming true
1984 has been here for a long time.
Arrested?
I hope there’s more to this story that justifies the arrest. I think not.
I know some parts of it had been here already but with this incident and the arresting of the militia types in Indianna Michigan and Ohio for "Talking" about a plot to shoot a policeman to start a ruckus with the government I think we have officially crossed into the realm of "thoughtcrime"
Don’t know the details but...kinda like school 0 tolerance.
I would like to see more “context” on this. A professional dealing with pathological psychology could understand his “mindset.” A police officer who has had extensive contact with criminals could understand his “mindset.” Neither of these examples mean that while someone could understand his “mindset” that it means agreement with his actions.
He lives in Wussyville. Whoever arrested him should be horse whipped. How’s them words?
It would take only one jumpy jack or jill hearing that, taking it the wrong way, and getting shocked, to generate a complaint like what brought the cops. Nobody had to mean anything wrong. At least they did not taze him.
...understanding is now a crime. [!?]
Yes, but even if he agreed with the actions I can't see that as a crime but then I guess I am old fashioned and believe that "talking" about doing a crime is not the same as actually "doing" a crime.
But then also I was taught that freedom of speech meant pretty much any and all things even if someone said something that personally upset me. Liberals on the other hand believe you aren't allowed to offend someone with your speech.
I have no idea why an intelligent, honest person would not assume that the media is misrepresenting this story.
Welcome to the Obamanation...
I worked in security...possibility from my experience this guy was mouthing off at his worksite upholding what the mass killer did, then his superiors invoked a policy by asking him to leave the property, he refused, and cops were called to enforce.
A business has the right to ban someone from the property. Lots of people don’t know that.
I say that is a one scenario...
Well you used to have that right but then the Civil Rights act made it a crime if it could be proved you banned someone on the basis of race, religion, etc.
Would he also have been arrested if he wished the (black) man been shot dead before he had a chance to kill anyone? Hate speech, maybe? /sarcasm
Breach of the peace laws are written to cover situations wherein someone says something likely to provoke a violent reaction. It appears here that there was no violent reaction, and that people were offended. It is why I would like to know the whole situation before I jump.
I’m still sour on the Costco shooting, but shouldn’t let that get in the way of the facts.
I wonder what motivated Mr Laskowski.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.