Posted on 01/24/2017 1:49:50 PM PST by SSS Two
A Broward man who was accused of posting Facebook threats to kill or harm President-elect Donald Trump was released from jail Thursday after federal prosecutors dropped the allegations, jail and court records show.
Kevin Keith Krohn, 59, who was never formally charged, was released just one day before Trump's inauguration.
He was arrested Dec. 21 at his Pembroke Pines home after law enforcement informed the U.S. Secret Service agents who protect Trump about the postings.
Agents said that Krohn wrote, "I'm just glad Obama didn't take all our gunz! I see a good use for one now," above a picture of Trump that read, "He's not my president / He's an enemy of the state."
Agents said Krohn posted another comment: "The EXPEDITER of Trump! He will never last long!" above a picture of a man in camouflage holding a scoped sniper rifle.
Krohn responded, "Keep yer eyes open!" when another Facebook user asked what he meant.
Krohn, who has a history of arrests, did not seek to be released on bond and remained jailed on the allegation from Dec. 21 to Jan. 19. He told the agents who arrested him that he did not intend to threaten Trump and that his comments were merely an expression of his First Amendment rights to free speech.
(Excerpt) Read more at sun-sentinel.com ...
I am fabricating nothing. I'm defending the #FirstAmendment using recent court case law.
The rest of your post seems to be an argument that we need to give up a little freedom for a little temporary safety. I reject that.
A threat goes beyond a political statement. You are scary.
I'm only advocating for the #FirstAmendment protections articulated in Watts v. United States. I understand that you think that no "threat" can be a political statement. Please understand that your position necessarily restricts #FirstAmendment rights that currently exist. I'd argue it is scary for people to want to restrict Free Speech.
You aren't defending anything. You are in fact doing the contrary of defending the first amendment. You are damaging it by trying to claim a scope of influence it never had.
Threats to kill the President were never protected anymore than yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. It is just such calls for violence that have caused numerous left wing lunatics to actually kill people.
The rest of your post seems to be an argument that we need to give up a little freedom for a little temporary safety. I reject that.
Incorrect. The rest of my post is pointing out that you cannot posses your idea of "freedom" and exist in a civil society. Your idea of freedom can only exist for despots or in social vacuum.
Live on an Island and rant about killing the President, but inspire fools to commit such crimes in the larger society, and you need to go to jail.
Threats to kill the President were never protected anymore than yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. It is just such calls for violence that have caused numerous left wing lunatics to actually kill people.
Please review Watts v. United States. Your understanding of the law is inaccurate.
To quote Max Plank, "that's not even wrong."
Well said.
I stand by my statement. Threatening to kill the President is not free speech. It is liberal chaos.
I see what's going on here. You're exhibiting cognitive dissonance. You know you should support Free Speech. After all, every freedom-loving person supports Free Speech, right? But there's conflict. You know that the law allows for speech that you disapprove of. So you need to engage in what psychologists call "dissonance reduction" in order to reconcile your "ideal" of Free Speech with your desire to restrict speech. Your dissonance reduction of choice is to deny information that conflicts with your preexisting beliefs. In this case, you deny that the Free Speech protections found in Watts v. United States are truly the law of the land. Therefore, when you advocate eliminating those protections, you're not really in opposition with Free Speech.
Compare your dissonance reduction with a person who wants a healthier diet and to limit high fat foods. He starts eating a doughnut. He knows that eating a doughnut is not a healthy choice, and this creates cognitive dissonance. So he simply denies that the doughnut is a high fat food. Presto! Cognitive dissonance reduced. Watts v. United States doesn't protect crude, offensive political hyperbole. Presto! Cognitive dissonance reduced!
Crude political hyperbole is not a knowing and willful threat against the President of the United States. (See: Watts v. United States). Hope that clears it up for you.
Yes, that helped - again proven to me that half this country's problems are caused by these judges semantically tap-dancing to allow "crude threats", i.e. "and if they put a rifle in my hand it is the people that put the rifle in my hand, as symbolized by the President, who are my real enemy."
The protester identifies a specific target and the judge declares it "symbolism"?
Here are some others where that judge, no doubt, classify them as "crude threats" and mere "symbolism":
ALERT – Second Trump Advisor Survives ASSASSINATION Attempt. This is Terrifying.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3517355/posts
VIDEO: Public School Teacher Fires Water Pistol At Projection of Trump, Screams "Die!"
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3517537/posts
Crawford Central School Board member defends 'clean head shot' Trump posts
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3517497/posts
Allowing these people to shoot off their mouths with no fear of repercussion will only encourage others, and maybe one of them will say, "Hey, now THERE's an idea!"
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.