I find it at once amusing and terrifying that when an article like this and that, wherein some poor schmuck is being horribly abused by the authorities…everyone clams up!

That’s exactly the wrong response, the one fascists rely upon to impose themselves.

That’s why the Germans, upon reunification, erected in their new central government square a statue of a small girl shouting futilely into the wind.

As eternal vigilantes of freedom, it is our inescapable duty to stand up for the faintest voice of the smallest person and to stand against the smallest abuse of the most powerful.

Servais has actually asked in both articles for anyone to clue this prosecutor in.

So here goes: Mr. McEachran, wise up!  Find yourself some real work and let the poor schmuck get on with his life.  Admit you were wrong (check that previous link for plenty of examples) and get on with doing your job.

Now, you already got Servais on your ass and if you want to add me and anything I can bring, then keep this nonsense up.  But if you haven’t dropped these charges by the end of the week, I’m signing up with Servais to take you on as a project.

Get busy and do your piece of work, don’t be one.

When Tip Johnson listed a number of examples of threats to kill that had been posted as comments to articles or blogs in the Herald, I thought he had good point.  Upon further reflection and rereading of these comments to include the Gargaro threat, I tend to agree that the situation warrants prosecution of some sort. The question of culpability on the part of the Herald, is problematic at best.  I think one would be hard put to find the Herald guilty of aiding and abetting.  The Herald is guilty of other things, including bad journalism, but that for another day and another argument.

The difference between the usual rants to kill and that of Gargaro is specificity.  To wit: “...You know what, I am going to go shoot up sunset square today. . . . Just for the hell of it. No drugs, no mental illness. . . . You can blame today episode on video games and George Bush’s example of “pay back” to society.”

When I worked as the Senior Analyst of the Counter-Terrorism Desk of the National Military Intelligence Center at the Pentagon, we received many intelligence reports of plots to bomb this and that, here and there.  The problem in taking a report seriously and then engaging in any action was the lack of specificity.  What really got us worried was a report giving a date, time, place coupled with our knowledge of a group’s capability to actually carry out such action.  Those are the elements in the Gargaro rant.  Date: today.  Time - after this posting.  Place: Sunset Square.  Capability - many people have guns in Bellingham.

That nobody at Sunset Square that day knew of the threat or was in fear is immaterial.  If someone is stalking me with the intent to kill me and I don’t know about it (stalking does connote not knowing)the stalker is no less guilty of a crime, if evidence discovered in the future points to his having actually stalked me. 

If Gargaro has no past record, he probably ought to just get probation at the most.  The Herald ought to be locked up for stupidity, however, that is not yet a crime.

Nota Bene:  The term schmuck is from Yiddish and is considered quite vulgar as it refers to the male member.  You may want to be more judicious in using the term.  I prefer the term schlub, meaning a yokel or a boor.

Dick adds some thoughtful fine points, but I’m not too sure they really add up.  With the issue of specificity, it’s like those kooks carrying signs that the world will end tomorrow.  Nobody arrests them.  And tomorrow is a pretty specific time.  Even if I add more specificity, for instance, “I found a secret weapon left behind by aliens and I’m going to blow up the planet tomorrow morning at 9:00 AM if the combined governments of the world don’t fork over a gajillion dollars”, nobody is going to arrest me, even with the extortion added. Well, gee, I sure hope not! 

I agree, I don’t know how important it is for a threat to be known.  Like the snipers, their victims didn’t know, there were no announcements of place or time. But it did still terrify people.  Really, if people know in advance, why would they be terrified?  Wouldn’t they just stay away?

It gets back to those

in the Herald.  I don’t buy the idea that they are too general. One says any pit bull owner is subject to being shot and killed any time, any place.  If you had a pit bull, you’d be terrified to go outside.  Many other comments are aimed at Jews, Gays, Immigrants or Blacks.  I think these approach crime far more than the comment of the poor guy being prosecuted.  It’s amazing how McEachran casually ignores hate crimes and racial slurs.  If you don’t think those things are terror, try being Jewish, Hispanic or Black in a community of bigots who know the prosecutor will turn a blind eye!

For me, it mostly boils down to conduct.  Sticks and stones, not words. Now, if you have some prior planning, logistic support, that’s conduct.  But just to blurt something out with no intention of acting upon it is not a crime.  But maybe Dave would like to set the precedent?  After all, if it is tantamount to terror, can’t he have the guy indefinitely detained?  I dare him.

I haven’t bothered to look up when Dave is up for reelection, especially since I have already offered him a week to drop the charges before committing myself to the McEachran Laughing Stock Project, but I fail to see how a stunt like this could possibly help his next campaign - though I can’t think of any other reason a public official would voluntarily do something so petty and stupid.

I can’t wait until the next time the Prosecutor’s Office cries that their work load is too high and funding too low!

BTW, Dick, thanks for the clue.  I feel like a shlub for calling him the other word!