"threatened to kill Mr. McDermott, as well as the congressman’s friends and family, and to put the congressman “in the trash.
Mr. Habermann threatened to kill Mr. McDermott in a voice mail message on Dec. 9 in an effort to interfere with his vote on the tax cut proposal, the federal complaint said.
Mr. Habermann is the second man to be charged with threatening a member of Congress in the last week. On Friday a Colorado man was arrested for threatening to shoot people at the office of Senator Michael Bennet, Democrat of Colorado, and set a fire around its perimeter.Last week, the Illinois state legislature raised the Illinois income tax rate from 3% to 5% for personal income tax, and raised the corporate income tax from 4.8% to 7%. The decision was partisan; no Republicans voted for the tax increase, which will span 2011 to 2015. Experts advised the increase, declaring the Illinois budget situation 'unusual', above and beyond the shortfalls facing other states.
The two cases represent some of the few threats – among hundreds of similar situations in the past decade – that federal prosecutors deemed serious enough to press charges.
On Friday night, according to a story from the Chicago Tribune,
"Authorities say Democratic state Rep. Edward Acevedo wasn't injured in the Friday night incident. Police say someone in a van pointed the gun at the legislator before the vehicle pulled away....Police say no arrests have been made and investigators did not have a motive."Because the person pointing the gun at Representative Acevedo was not caught, no motive for the incident is currently known. Acevedo is the assistant majority leader of the house, a veteran legislator in his seventh term of office in the state House.
While it is possible there was some other reason for the gun incident than the taxation issue, such as random gang violence, given the tea party/more far right rhetoric, that this was politically motivated is certainly one possibility. It remains to be seen if in the current climate of public opinion, if anyone will contact Acevedo with a follow-up threat, either as the actual gunman, or taking advantage of the published reports of the incident.
Over the approximately same interval, Arizona shooting victim James Eric Fuller remains hospitalized for an involuntary mental evaluation after he threatened the Arizona Tea Party founder, Trent Humphries. Police arrested Fuller on misdemeanor charges, for making the threat and for disorderly conduct. Humphries will be pressing charges, on the advice of the Pima County Sheriff's Department, according to - appropriately call lettered - KGUN9 television station
"Fuller's arrest could no be more ironic. The law allowing deputies to hold Fuller for evaluation is the same state law Pima Community College could have invoked, but didn't, in response to disruptive behavior by then-student Jared Lee Loughner, the accused gunman. The question of why no one ever demanded a mental health evaluation for Loughner was a major theme of Saturday's the town hall meeting."It crossed my mind to wonder if Mr. Fuller might be suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome as a result of the shooting. While his outburst should not be excused because he himself was a shooting victim, it should be noted he did not apparently have a gun with him, and may not own a gun.
It is also being reported that Sarah Palin has received death threats, presumably for her stupidly offensive 'blood libel' comments. There is no excuse, there is no defense for these death threats from anyone. The threats, and the people who made them, deserve to be emphatically condemned for these threats, and I can only express my heartfelt hope that law enforcement will pursue these people, and prosecute them for their conduct. To attempt to intimidate her for her views is reprehensible, it is un-american. No harm, no fear should ever come to Mrs. Palin or her family from her exercise of freedom of speech. No one should be afraid to say things, whether they are pleasant or intelligent, or kind of stupid, and offensive. It is not acceptable for speech to trigger violence or threats of violence, regardless of whether the speaker or writer is on the right, the left, or in the center; we must unite to condemn such actions, across the board.
There was a time when the very idea of such partisan violence was inconceivable in our politics.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTax cuts / tax increases appears to be an issue over which violence and threats of violence have occurred.
ReplyDeleteSo long as the incidents which are clear in cause are clearly identified from the incident that is speculative, it is appropriate for inclusion. The possible cause for the Illinois incident is provided as an explanation for this threat of violence, a threat which involved a gun, as contrasted with a verbal threat only.
It is not libelous, under the legal meaning of the term; there is no denial by the police of a gun threat, in the event this individual is subsequently caught.
I can't see how a different motive would make this incident either legal or acceptable. The timing of the event makes raising the speculation logical, as a possible motive, as distinct from an accusation.
I don't think violent threats are a good thing but I don't see why anyone is surprised at this. This country was founded in a war primarily over taxation. The Whiskey Rebellion was over taxes. The Civil War had a lot to do with tarriffs. People in this country have gotten violent over taxation they percieved as unfair since this country has existed.
ReplyDeleteYour history is correct, but in the US, violent opposition to our government is illegal.
ReplyDeleteIt is unacceptable to use or threaten violence against any legislator, or any other political person, (or any other person) simply because one does not agree with their political views.
While I still think that rash speculation on the motives are hasty and inappropriate, the potential for violence against legislators is equally unacceptable.
The people of Illinois elected their legislature. There are methods in some states to recall the legislators, and if not, then the people have the right, at the next election, to put other legislators in office who are more suitable to their will.
Remember though: Illinois is in even more dire financial straights than California in some respects, and the legislature did what they did to avoid financial collapse.
I think that part of the reason people in Illinois are mad is the legislature raised the state tax but did nothing about what got them into debt to start with. Illinois has the largest unfunded pension obligations of any state. I don't know how prevalent it is but there have been a few highly publicized cases of teachers and other government employees retiring with a pension larger than their normal salary. Most people are planning how to live on 75% or less of the income they make while working when they retire and then you tell them you are raising their taxes to pay for pensions amounting to 95 to 105% of the salaries of govt workers and they get mad. Now the reality may be that only 5-10% of the teachers and govt workers somehow worked the system to get a deal like that but the perception is that it is most of them getting that kind of deal.
ReplyDeleteTtuck wrote:"I think that part of the reason people in Illinois are mad"
ReplyDeleteCan you cite a source that indicates 'people in Illinois are mad'? You present this as a fact, implying this is a significant segment of Illinois. (If it is not a signficant segment of people, then....why bring it up?)
Ttuck wrote:
ReplyDelete"Now the reality may be that only 5-10% of the teachers and govt workers somehow worked the system to get a deal like that but the perception is that it is most of them getting that kind of deal."
I would suggest that there is some really widespread false perceptions of what the pay is for 'teachers and government workers' generally - I've seen a LOT of disinformation (NOT merely misinformation) circulated by the right. If part of their pay package on hiring is better retirement plans on the back end, but in many cases lower pay on the front end, that is the deal they accept, and local, state, and federal government shouldn't be reneging on it.
You write, Tuck, 5 to 10%...how about closer to 5 or 10 total, not percent, are getting 105% of salaries. And can you show HOW that is happening? Can you demonstrate that this is what you call 'gaming' the system, rather than in some way proper?
I'm getting really tired of the unproven allegations of corrupt teachers. God bless 'em! They have a difficult job to do, and a majority of them are very dedicated educators. And for all the crap they take, the majority of civil servants are dedicated and hard working too - god bless them as well!