Marine being held against his will for Facebook Post

[Texas42]

From reading the article, the guy wasn't sent to the psych ward because of his facebook, but was due to his interviewed by "Chesterfield menthal heath official(s)."

The guy just might be crazy. . .

 

[TXDARKHORSE361]

Kept my mouth shut for the time being as I try and find out more on this, still going to keep it that way for now but came across this video, it's the audio from an interview with his mom.

 

[TheDan]

dumb enough to post something that is a violation of Federal law...

It sounds like he probably does have some mental issues considering the "9/11 was a lie" remarks, but what federal law did he violate?

 

[majormadmax]

It sounds like he probably does have some mental issues considering the "9/11 was a lie" remarks, but what federal law did he violate?

This one...

18 USC § 2385 - Advocating overthrow of Government

Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or

Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or

Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

As used in this section, the terms “organizes” and “organize”, with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.

An individual can criticize the current administration, and advocate it being replaced; but when one uses the term "revolution" which is defined as "A forcible overthrow of a government or social order for a new system" it can be construed as a violation of the above US Code.

People should be smarter about their "freedom of speech," but most aren't.

 

[thack1963]

This one...



An individual can criticize the current administration, and advocate it being replaced; but when one uses the term "revolution" which is defined as "A forcible overthrow of a government or social order for a new system" it can be construed as a violation of the above US Code.

People should be smarter about their "freedom of speech," but most aren't.

Sounds like Obama should be locked up under that? Hope the guys with the white coats don't show up.

 

[TheDan]

This one...

Seems somewhat un-American

I suppose it should be determined if he was advocating forcible overthrow of the constitution, or revolution in some other sense. If he wanted to replace the constitution then he's also an oath breaker. I'd bet a dollar that's not what he meant, however...

It seems strange that of all the people saying idiotic things on facebook, this guy gets singled out. I wonder what else he did to get that attention.

 

[grasshopperglock]

Va. judge orders release of detained veteran - SFGate

 

[deemus]

Maybe he is crazy? I have a relative who had some mental issues. My wife was able to smooth over things a few times for him. He lived in his own apartment, and had her over there several times a week for shopping, etc.

One day he borrowed a guy's car. When the cops showed up my wife went there to deal with it. While talking to one of the cops, the owner of the car and the apartment manager, the crazy guy asked the other cop if he could borrow his Glock. He had a noisy neighbor, and it would "only take a minute" to take care of the issue. Needless to say, he got to take a ride in a police car that day. Turned out to be his last day of freedom.

My point is, the Marine may have some mental issues. No way to know what the guy said to the cops or the docs who reviewed his case. Simply putting an opinion on FB is not grounds for the nut house.


Edit - just saw grasshopper's post. Good for him. Maybe he will learn to use a little more disgression.

 

[RetArmySgt]

18 USC § 2385 - Advocating overthrow of Government is a direct contradiction to the founding documents of our great nation.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness... it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Also the whole point if the second amedment was to keep the Government it check and be able to change it should it become necessary.

 

[majormadmax]

18 USC § 2385 - Advocating overthrow of Government is a direct contradiction to the founding documents of our great nation.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness... it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Also the whole point if the second amedment was to keep the Government it check and be able to change it should it become necessary.

Really? It's OK to directly threaten and call for the overthrow the US government? If it were someone from outside this country, many would be screaming for war; but some nut case that just happens to be a US citizen does it it's protected under the First Amendment?

Sorry, there are limitations on free speech, any sane person knows that. People are not free to do anything and everything they feel; actions (and words) have consequences. Next thing you know this guy is the next Timothy McVeigh, and people ask why nothing was done to prevent another Oklahoma City.

There are recourses for anyone who has an issue with the government, advocating revolution is not one of them.

By the way, many of us on here swore an oath to protect this nation, which includes its government. That was never dependent on the current administration or your agreement with its policies and actions. If so, then whoever raised their hand and made the pledge wasn't paying attention to the words they were saying...

 

[RetArmySgt]

My oath was to the Constitution not the administration or the codes that contradict it. So if someone put in the USC that you can no longer own a firearm would you defend that, also a direct contradiction to the document you swore to uphold and defend.

 

[RetArmySgt]

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey all lawful orders of the President of the United States and the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.


This is the Oath i took what did yours say.

 

[hkusp1]

I'm surprised the atheists haven't got god taken out of the oath yet.

 

[RetArmySgt]

I'm surprised the atheists haven't got god taken out of the oath yet.

They tried and were told to kick rocks a couple years ago.

 

[winchster]

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey all lawful orders of the President of the United States and the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.


This is the Oath i took what did yours say.

That's what mine said.

 

[jocat54]

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey all lawful orders of the President of the United States and the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.


This is the Oath i took what did yours say.

The same one I took 46 years ago.

 

[Texan2]

Unless you break rule one, dont talk to the police you are GTT.

Talking to the police clears far far more people than it incriminates.

Sent from my VS840 4G using Tapatalk 2

 

[Texastransplant]

Take a look at MK Ultra you will find that our govement which supposedly outlawed does this still. I believe to achieve and end to their means.

 

[Mic]

Couple thoughts here...

1) We've had a lot of issues here lately with significant shootings. Many people (including some on this board in our threads) have said guns aren't the problems, it's the nutbags with issues that go off shooting.
2) This guy made some statements that got the police and FBI's spidey senses tingling. So they took him in, questioned him, then he winds up in a psych ward.

I'm guessing these two things are related. Whether or not he said anything to warrant being locked away, none of us know. Fortunately, some judge realized that at the very least, those who put him away didn't justify it, so he was released.

As somebody who believes as strongly about the first amendment as the second, I worry when we say lock up the nutbags. How do you identify them, short of the things they say? Occasionally, they will do other acts before the really bad ones, but definitely not always. So, we will find ourselves trusting a system to put people away for the things they say....there goes the first amendment.

M2 has some valid points. Whether you agree with current law or not, he has posted it up showing that it is not okay to make threats of overthrowing government. If there were a Muslim message board out there and the folks on it were talking of overthrowing or attacking our government, how many people here would be calling for them to be locked up? How many of us would be outraged that they were taken away for simple internet postings?

My concern is that on the Internet, a lot of us get worked up and make quite a few anti-government posts. Sometimes we say a little more than we mean. If folks were to get start rounding up anybody whose words get a little out of line, a lot of us would get taken away. Kind of scary stuff.

I'm sure that was a bit rambling. Point is that the folks in government have a job to do to protect us. They are going to do so with more interest in preventing occurrences than in preserving our freedom of speech. We need to be careful what we say.

 

[TheDan]

My oath was to the Constitution not the administration or the codes that contradict it.

Exactly... There is a difference between "the government" and the Constitution. It was very deliberate choice of words that the oath is to uphold and defend the Constitution.

M2 has some valid points. Whether you agree with current law or not, he has posted it up showing that it is not okay to make threats of overthrowing government. If there were a Muslim message board out there and the folks on it were talking of overthrowing or attacking our government, how many people here would be calling for them to be locked up? How many of us would be outraged that they were taken away for simple internet postings?

Outraged? No, but it would concern me. There should be more than just some internet ramblings to lock someone up for attempting to overthrow the government. It should require evidence of an actual conspiracy or organization. It sets a bad precedence if you lock someone up for just a little bit of fiery rhetoric. It wouldn't take much to apply that to people you and I might agree with.