Comments on Advance Indiana™: Indianapolis Man Faces Federal Charges For Online Threats Against Judge And Attorney

Again, you missed the question, but you invite an ...

2013-08-14T08:12:20.568-05:00

Again, you missed the question, but you invite an interesting sociological discussion.

"Assuming for the sake of argument that the accused was a victim of some form of injustice, it would not justify threatening the lives of a judge and his attorney. As they say, two wrongs don't make a right."

That argument has no logical proof, and it proffers a non sequitur at the end, when you go off presuming a "wrong" in absence of a supporting argument.

Your argument takes this form:

Premise: The accused was a victim of some form of injustice.

Conclusion: The injustice does not justify threatening the lives of a judge and his attorney.

Without going afield for your answers, and confining yourself strictly to the argument, do you find that the argument holds? Universally? Can you imagine no case in which your argument doesn't hold?

Consider these possibilities:

If a judge and an attorney unjustly put your wife and child on a boxcar to Treblinka where they were, in the ordinary course of operations, killed, would not some sort of retribution be deserved?

If a judge an attorney conspired to sentence your wife to death for a farce so her heirs could sell her vast oil-rich lands that she was unwilling to let be used for such purposes, would you not be morally justified in seeking a private remedy?

Additionally, you note an interesting sociological dimension to the discussion. If the people feel themselves wronged in one form of dispute resolution forum, is it not possible that they will seek alternate forms of dispute resolution?

Governmental dispute resolution only has primacy because people find it legitimate or they bow to the guns of the state and accept it.

A government's dispute resolution forums are thus only as binding as the people allow them to be.

A government risks much if it allows the credibility and conduct of its forums and officers to be scorned, ridiculed and distrusted by the governed.

Assuming for the sake of argument that the accused...

2013-08-13T16:16:47.812-05:00

Assuming for the sake of argument that the accused was a victim of some form of injustice, it would not justify threatening the lives of a judge and his attorney. As they say, two wrongs don't make a right.

While your answer is correct, Gary, you missed the...

2013-08-13T15:51:18.531-05:00

While your answer is correct, Gary, you missed the question.

The threats were made over the Internet. That give...

2013-08-13T13:09:58.294-05:00

The threats were made over the Internet. That gives the feds jurisdiction.

Given that all parties are within Indiana, how is ...

2013-08-13T13:00:42.840-05:00

Given that all parties are within Indiana, how is this matter legitimately within the jurisdiction of the federal courts, and does Hogsett ever do anything with his office besides protect the government and prosecute the smallest of small fish?

Will anyone look at how diligently and fairly all parties handled his case?

I'm interested in knowing the details of the injustice he believes he suffered, absent journalistic coloring.