this post was submitted on 19 Dec 2023
196 points (99.5% liked)

News

23275 readers
3454 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

A Florida man has pleaded guilty in connection with threatening to kill a Supreme Court justice.

The guilty plea from 43-year-old Neal Brij Sidhwaney of Fernandina Beach stemmed from a call he made to a Supreme Court justice in July, the Justice Department said in a news release Monday.

He faces up to five years in federal prison on one count of transmitting an interstate threat. A sentencing date has not yet been set.

Prosecutors said that Sidhwaney identified himself by name in an expletive-infused voicemail and repeatedly threatened to kill the Supreme Court justice, who is not named in court documents.

Sidhwaney warned that if the justice alerted deputy U.S. Marshals, he would talk to them and “come kill you anyway,” according to court documents, which did not indicate what prompted Sidhwaney to make the threat.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 36 points 11 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (3 children)

How I feel about this very much depends on which justice he threatened to kill.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (4 children)

I'm mildly surprised there hasn't been more reactionary stochastic terrorism from the left. I guess we still have optimism while the right has had it beaten out of them every day by the news and, well, I have to assume they make their own daily lives pretty miserable anyway.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 11 months ago (4 children)

It isn't happening as much from the left because we understand that the full power of the state will be used to crush the left violently and without remorse in a way that doesn't happen to those on the right.

Imagine if the actions on January 6 were done by leftists. What do you think we would have seen play out instead?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago

Imagine if the actions on January 6 were done by leftists. What do you think we would have seen play out instead

Depends if they were all white

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The Left is smarter. Interpret that however you like.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago

More to lose, as well.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 11 months ago

The problem is that the left are the good people, lmao. That's why it takes so long until they start pushing back. Everything has to really go to shit until the left are picking up the pitchforks. It's a bit tragic ngl

[–] [email protected] 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Maybe the secret ingredient is human empathy. Not that crazies are unique to the right by any means, but the organized effort to dehumanize and attack segments of the population has gone disproportionately mainstream on that side of the spectrum. So many talking points involve a vaguely-defined "enemy" of some kind. It's unfortunate that people get sucked into it, but you can't really blame the individuals when the leaders they look up to are actively working to mobilize them in that way as a political strategy.

I guess the ideological space the left fills at the moment just isn't one that requires that type of anger to support. There are certainly issues to get angry about, but in general it's just taking that low-hanging fruit of giving your fellow humans the same respect you would want for yourself and your loved ones, even if they seem different or weird to you.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

Yeah I suspect you're right.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Is it??? Anyone calling public servants with death threats I'm gonna go ahead and disagree with

[–] [email protected] 15 points 11 months ago (2 children)

When the SC publishes ethical rules legalizing bribery, they’re inviting anyone with a sense of justice to take matters into their own hands.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 11 months ago

We need a Batman but unfortunately its because of billionaires that cause this. Could we crowd source one?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 11 months ago (5 children)

Shit take. Anyone calling in death threats is ethically bankrupt at the very least. What justice is there in murder?

[–] [email protected] 24 points 11 months ago (2 children)

For legal purposes, this is only a joke.

It's really the only way for a normal person to effect the SC. They are given lifetime appointments, it doesn't say how long those lifetimes have to be.

Checks and balances, yo.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

Many of you here need to grow up.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 11 months ago (2 children)

The Supreme Courts decision to gut abortion rights has threatened the lives of millions of women. I can see where someone would find justice there.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 11 months ago (7 children)

At some point it becomes self defense.

Maybe guys wife died because she was refused health care.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Im the last person to approve of SCOTUS. Does that mean I think it's ever right to call in death threats to like, anyone? Absolutely fucking not. I think it's truly insane that anyone here is entertaining this. Imagine (well, you don't really have to) the "other side" doing this shit. It would be reprehensible, just like this bullshit. Hell, for all we know it was a "liberal" justice getting threats and suddenly our opinion on this situation changes? Screw that.

Two wrongs and all that. Eye for an eye... surely there is some simple saying that makes this easy to understand

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I guess so, but I'm not seeing a ton of liberal policies that are causing harm to individual lives. I think that's where you are seeing a "double standard" appear.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago

It's not just about the double standard, it's about right and wrong. If we abandon our morals at the first sign of adversity, then what do we stand for? How can I stand for democracy if I'm okay with the life being snuffed from those who disagree with me. That's not democracy. There is no room for political violence

[–] [email protected] 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

There's justice in ~~murdering~~ removing by any means dictators like the H guy, Stalin, Putin... What about their main advisors? Then what about the influential people who prop them up? The line is somewhere.

One could argue certain judges'/politicians' responses to COVID, Ukraine funding, women's healthcare, etc. are already costing far more lives than they are helping/saving.

Cynical leaders tie themselves to the alternate track and see how many bodies they can stack on the main line while daring someone to switch the trolley.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Ah yes Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas. They will surely be remembered amongst the likes of Hitler. How many lives have you cost vs saved? Can you possibly know? Should I call in death threats to anyone I personally judge to have a negative effect on the world? Where do you draw the line? WHO gets to draw the line?

This is insanity

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I don't think we're there yet either but at the same time, if we were to get to that point, most people (including myself probably) would not recognize it without some painful hindsight. Don't be like the frog that doesn't notice the water approaching boiling point.

Besides, I'm not comparing our SC to murderous dictators of the past. I'm just refuting your assertion that threats and/or force are never the right option. When you follow the "what ifs" to their extremes it seems obvious that pacifism is not a universal good.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I think it's extremely hard to justify violence other than in very clear cases of absolute self-preservation. I think the system needs to change and that the SC is anti-democratic. However, we are excusing/advocating for terrorism here. The aim is a policy change through violence or the threat thereof.

Fair enough - I figured you were drawing comparisons. Regardless in this case, I say, no matter which Justice this maniac was threatening, his actions are wrong. Period.

It's disheartening to read so many rabid comments from people who I otherwise probably agree with on most things. I usually see that kind of bloodthirstiness from a different kind of person.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago (3 children)

On one hand, you're absolutely correct. On the other, our founding fathers were very clearly A-OK with murder of "tyrants"...

If the Supreme Court is willing to let women die in hospital parking lots because they don't like a modern interpretation of the due process clause, and if they're willing to inexorably beholden us to cultural norms from multiple centuries ago and also allow politicians to systematically eliminate our ability to influence the political process in any meaningful way, then they've made very clear themselves that a certain amount of death is inevitable and acceptable. Frankly, it was only a matter of time before desperate citizens followed that train of thought through to its logical conclusion.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

our founding fathers were very clearly A-OK with murder of "tyrants"

You'd be right to think that, what with the whole "Revolutionary War" thing, but it's interesting in that the whole reason we have impeachment is because of Benjamin Franklin's opposition to assassination:

https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/173296

“What was the practice before in cases where the chief magistrate rendered himself obnoxious? Why, recourse was had to assassination in which he was not only deprived of his life but of the opportunity of vindicating his character. It would be the best way therefore to provide in the Constitution for the regular punishment of the Executive where his misconduct should deserve it, and for his honorable acquittal when he should be unjustly accused."

Madison followed:

"It is indispensable that some provision be made for defending the community against incapacity, negligence, or perfidy of the chief magistrate. The limitation of the period of his service is not a sufficient security. He might lose his capacity after his appointment. He might pervert his administration into a scheme of peculation or oppression. He might betray his trust to foreign powers."

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago

Thomas Jefferson: "What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago (6 children)

The system is constantly changing. We have the power and tools to effect change, despite the recent backsliding. SCOTUS is corrupt, yes, but we should be trying to change it, not making fucking deranged phone calls threatening people's lives

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

This comment was removed out of an abundance of caution, while I brought it to the other moderators for their thoughts. After a discussion, I agree that I acted in haste, and I truly am sorry.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

I’m against the death penalty for two reasons. One, it’s surprising (and disturbing) how often “solved” cases turn out to be wrong, and convictions are overturned. Finding someone innocent does no good if they’ve already been executed.

Two (and I’m not proud of this one) if someone has done something worthy of the death penalty, I want them to suffer. Dying by quick, painless lethal injection is relatively easy. I want that asshole to spend decades in a cage, and not get an audience for their parting words.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago

Death row inmates are usually there for quite some time but, yeah, I agree with everything else you said. Capital punishment is just fucked up. Our whole prison system should be more about rehabilitation and protection of society from harmful criminals (that includes violent as well as white collar). Less about retribution. And deterrence pretty much doesn't work on the worst crimes.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Calling the current Supreme Court "public" servants is a stretch. 🤷‍♂️

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago
[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago (9 children)

This guy would be advocating against killing Hitler in 1943 because he's a "public servant".

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 11 months ago

Agreed but unfortunately they haven’t named the justice yet.