Posted on 08/13/2010 4:10:48 PM PDT by Cardhu
A Brooklyn jury took less than two hours Friday to convict right-wing loudmouth Harold (Hal) Turner of threatening to kill three Chicago judges.
Turner's mom and teenage son gasped and sobbed as the jury found the Internet shock jock guilty of a single charge of threatening to murder the judges - a charge that carries up to 10 years in prison.
An ashen-faced Turner stripped off his tie and belt and handed his wallet to a clerk before he was led out of the courtroom in downtown Brooklyn.
"I love you, dad," his son, Michael Turner, 16, said after the verdict was read.
Relatives of Turner angrily denounced the lightning-quick verdict, which came on the fourth day of his second retrial.
Two previous trials ended in mistrials after jurors were unable to agree on a verdict.
"There goes the First Amendment for everyone," said Kathy Diamond, Turner's mother. "These judges, their job is to protect the Constitution, not shred it.
She hugged her grandson who also insisted his father did nothing wrong.
"It's totally wrong," Michael Turner. "It's (his) opinion not a threat."
Jurors rushed out of the Brooklyn Heights courtroom without speaking to reporters. No date was set for sentencing.
(Excerpt) Read more at nydailynews.com ...
Maybe now we can go after those “cracker” killers who want to kill “cracker babies”. NOT!
An old Czarist Russian trick coupled with the Victorian British police, to employ an obvious "nut case" and then clamp down on any sympathizers.
I sincerely think several notable gentlemen in the Chicago area have said worse. I guess since it was "whitey" they hated, they gets a pass and high salary.
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” The hypocrite Jefferson.
The difference is giving names and addresses? What was GWB address? who was prosecuted?
Liberals and progressives are such hypocrites
From what I understand, he called himself a libertarian and white supremacist. He worked on the campaign of Pat Buchanan --- a fascist, perhaps, but hardly a progressive or liberal.
Well, please. The judges deserve to be alive. But whether these arrogant morons deserve respect from the disrespected is another question.
I have read more about him, he seems to to have a history of threatening to kill anyone that he disagrees with.
He hates the Jews denies the Holocaust and advocates killing and revolution.
I was referring to the fact that if these had been conservative judges,the liberals would be scrambling to defend him. I don't like racists but I see a double standard here
ummm....
Maybe next time he’ll release the names, addresses, and photos, (all probably public information anyway) along with his opinion on WIKILEAKS - and he’ll be heralded as a free speech hero.
Judges Posner and Easterbrook (2 out of the 3 judges he threatened) are among the leading conservative judges in America. They voted to uphold the Chicago gun law only because prior precedent had upheld it, and they said that if it was to be overturned, only SCOTUS could do so.
Didn’t this guy work for the Feds?
I believe he did, as they often recruit nut cases as agents provocateur by playing upon their infantile nationalism and sense of grievance, giving them a feeling of importance and conspiracy to manipulate them.
Probably over half the people he knows who agree with him also work for the Feds and tattle about each other.
>>I was referring to the fact that if these had been conservative judges,the liberals would be scrambling to defend him.
>
>Judges Posner and Easterbrook (2 out of the 3 judges he threatened) are among the leading conservative judges in America. They voted to uphold the Chicago gun law only because prior precedent had upheld it, and they said that if it was to be overturned, only SCOTUS could do so.
They are incorrect. They certainly COULD have overturned the gun-ban on its contra-Constitutional basis; case-law/’precedence’ is a cancer that the judiciary can use to avoid reading-and-applying the law directly.
Let me give you an example.
The New Mexico State Constitution reads, in Art II Sec 6 as follows:
No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.
This is plain-English and states explicitly that the State government cannot “legalize away” the Citizen’s right to bear arms. Notice also the Counties and Municipalities have an even GREATER restriction: they cannot regulate an incident of keeping and bearing arms; this means that the municipality/county cannot legally arrest/charge you with “disturbing the peace” or “brandishing” for openly carrying [and even using] arms. Secondly, this also means that the big signs on Municipal [and County] Courthouses are in blatant violation of the state Constitution.
How, do you suppose, the officials therein would react to that being pointed out?
Never heard of him before, and can honestly say that your comments have prevented me wasting any time researching him as I'd been about to....
It’s called inciting
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.