Christopher Fox, 39, was charged with making a threat against a public official, authorities said.
He was taken into custody by San Jose police and is awaiting extradition here.
When the story first broke, I thought anyone who claims to take the mayor's remarks seriously as a threat, like Kurt did in his article, was just doing the old rhetorical trick of the gun rights debaters: exaggerate the fault of the enemy and argue as if it's true.
But now I'm wondering. It seems inconceivable to me that anyone could have sincerely taken the silly remarks of Mayor Daley seriously, but maybe they did. This guy in California actually picked up the phone, dialled up Chicago and left a message.
Didn't he, or Kurt Hofmann for that matter, realize the mayor was really saying "guns are dangerous and if you get shot with one you'd realize it?" Didn't they understand it was a gritty or shocking way to express that simple truth of gun control theory?
I still think Kurt realized all that and took advantage of the situation to get on his soap box, the inevitable result being that the less intellectually gifted readers take it so seriously they spring into action by truly threatening people.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
mikeb: Didn't he, or Kurt Hofmann for that matter, realize the mayor was really saying "guns are dangerous and if you get shot with one you'd realize it?" Didn't they understand it was a gritty or shocking way to express that simple truth of gun control theory?
ReplyDeleteOf course. And if Beck or Limbaugh had made some remark in which someone "should" be shot or killed, opponents would recognize it as a gritty or shocking way to express a truth and not make a big deal of it.
Right?
Y'know, when I first read this story, I thought to myself 'Sounds like another NRA gunloon who lives with his parents.'
ReplyDeleteThen after reading several news accounts where Fox's mommy seemed to be answering a lot of the questions---I ran into this news article:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-05-28/news/ct-met-daley-threat-20100528_1_mayor-richard-daley-mayor-s-behalf-fox
""A plumber who lives with his mother in San Jose, Fox was arrested at his house by police who then searched the residence. He said he was outraged over how he has been treated.""
What is it with all these gunloons who are over 21, unmarried, and live with mommy?
--JadeGold
Well, well--still talking about that article, eh?
ReplyDeleteI still think Kurt realized all that and took advantage of the situation to get on his soap box, the inevitable result being that the less intellectually gifted readers take it so seriously they spring into action by truly threatening people.
So, let me make sure I'm following you here--it's my fault some guy in California allegedly threatened Daley, eh?
Tell me, Mr. B302000, do you think he said something more threatening than "If I put a gun up your butt, you'll know how angry I am. Let me put a round up your, you know."?
You obviously must think it was more threatening than that, because you seem to have no objection to that man's arrest, or to Daley's continued freedom--despite Daley's acknowledgment that he meant to "scare" the reporter.
Actually, Mr. B302000, what would your reaction be if the California caller had said almost exactly (exchanging a "will" for the "would") what your translation of Daley's rant comes out to:
Guns are dangerous and if you get shot with one you'll realize it.
That wouldn't be a threat worthy of an arrest, I take it?
Of course, the parallels can only be drawn so far. This guy was calling from thousands of miles away, while Daley was in the same room with the reporter he was trying to scare. Daley was very clearly holding (dare I say "brandishing"?) a bayonet-tipped rifle, while we have no idea if Daley's alleged caller actually had a gun, and it certainly wouldn't have been apparent from an answering machine. Finally, the reporter to whom Daley passed his "wisdom" presumably has no security detail (and cannot, in fact, legally own a handgun--much less carry one--in Chicago), while Daley has a large, well armed, 24-hour security detail.
Given the huge differences in their respective abilities to carry out the violence being discussed, clearly, then, the guy in California must have said something vastly more alarming than Daley's "let me put a round up your, you know," for him to deserve to be arrested, while Daley remains free.
Disagree with any of that, Mr. B302000?
The story says he made the same threat to Daley that he made to the reporter. Didn't the police, or MikeB for that matter, realize the man was really saying "criminals are dangerous and if you get shot by one you'd realize it?" Don’t you understand it was a gritty or shocking way to express that simple truth of gun control theory?
ReplyDeleteWhat is it with all these gunloons who are over 21, unmarried, and live with mommy?
ReplyDeleteIs Daley's mother even alive (and have he and Margaret split up)?
Kurt and TS and FishyJay, When the mayor made that remark, no one thought it was a threat. Not even you guys. But since you consider him the enemy, you took this opportunity to attack him, exaggerating his offense like you did.
ReplyDeleteWhen Glenn Beck, or any other public figure, this would include you too Kurt-the-Examiner-writer, speaks in these exaggerated terms knowing that some of their listeners will take it seriously and literally, that public figure shares in the responsibility of what the listeners do.
When that nut in California called the mayor's office in Chicago and said some stupid shit, the police were very justified in detaining him and perhaps even charging him with a crime.
The reason for that is that every time there's a major shooting by an unhinged nut, the Holocaust Museum for example, and they go back in the guys recent history, they see things that should have been red flags. Everyone says, "why the hell didn't they see this coming?" So they should do exactly what they did in this case in order to ensure that this guy didn't have a plane ticket to Chicago for later that night, of a history of gun misuse.
When the mayor made that remark, no one thought it was a threat.
ReplyDeleteAh--OK, gotcha. Daley can talk about sticking a bayonet-tipped rifle up a reporter's ass and pulling the trigger, because we're all supposed to "know" he's . . . kidding (or something). But an unknown person in California can't say the same thing to Daley and get away with it, because . . . well, he doesn't have Daley's "Super Freedom of Speech," as befits royalty (Daley's powerful position is, after all, largely a matter of heredity).
In other words, whether or not such an utterance is a threat depends not so much on what is said, but on who says it, right, Mr. B302000?
When Glenn Beck, or any other public figure, this would include you too Kurt-the-Examiner-writer, speaks in these exaggerated terms knowing that some of their listeners will take it seriously and literally, that public figure shares in the responsibility of what the listeners do.
Actually, I guess you're advocating a three-tiered First Amendment, aren't you, Mr. B302000? There's the top tier, where guys like Daley can talk about committing forcible sodomy by rifle (and blade, and pulling the trigger while he's at it), guys like Snuffy Pfleger can talk about "snuffing out" gun shop owners and pro-gun politicians, and guys like the Brady Campaign's Peter Hamm can threaten to shoot people for calling him Petey.
Next is the second tier--the "regular" people, who can't make exactly the same threats and get away with it, because they're not so privileged.
Finally, there's the bottom tier First Amendment--for the famous people like Glenn Beck, and apparently me(?!)--who not only cannot get away with making threats, but must even be held accountable when we talk too nastily about the top tier folks, in case that "inspires" stupid middle tier folks to do something crazy to the top tier folks.
Is that about right, Mr. B302000?
And I guess I know the difference between famous people like Daley, on the one hand, and Beck (or me, apparently), on the other--Daley is for the tyranny of forcible citizen disarmament, and is therefore above suspicion, while Beck and I are opposed to it, and therefore highly suspect.
Yep--I think I understand now.
No one thought it was a threat?
ReplyDeleteThat's pure crap MikeB. If I'd said that to you I bet you'd consider it a threat.
Jadegold has done and said worse than that before, but he's an anti like Daley, and the rules are different for you folks right?
MikeB: “Kurt and TS and FishyJay, When the mayor made that remark, no one thought it was a threat.”
ReplyDeleteCitizens get arrested for making “joke” threats all the time. I don’t know if this guy’s tone was serious or not, but it wouldn’t surprise me to see him arrested either way.
Mike W. said, "If I'd said that to you I bet you'd consider it a threat."
ReplyDeleteThat may be true depending on the context. But I assure you I wouldn't think it was a serious threat if you were a gun control mayor of a town which was conducting a news conference to show off the guns you'd confiscated. In that context I'd have the basic honesty to not claim it was a serious threat.
So, Mr. B302000, now that we've established your espousal of a multi-tiered First Amendment, my question is, what do you consider your tier to be?
ReplyDeleteI'm guessing you don't see yourself in the bottom tier, with Glenn Beck and me, and so you are free to harshly criticize people, and if a reader takes your criticism too closely to heart, and decides to do something crazy, that wouldn't be your fault.
So are you at the second level, with Mr. Fox (the alleged maker of threats in the California), where threats you might happen to make should be taken seriously, and you should be detained, charged with some unspecified "minor offenses," and apparently rendered defenseless for life?
Or are you at the top level, where you, like King Richard II, can make any threat you want, and everyone should "know" that you don't really mean it?
> every time there's a major shooting by an unhinged nut ... they see things that should have been red flags. Everyone says, "why the hell didn't they see this coming?"
ReplyDeleteHindsight is 20/20.
Identifying spree killers is hard--from page 5:
"Moreover, the use of profiles carries the risk of over-identification," the Secret Service says in its report. "The great majority of students who fit any given profile will not actually pose a risk of targeted violence."
Also see 'mental illness' on p 2, and 'violence' p 3.
http://www.knowgangs.com/school_resources/deadlylessons.pdf
Kurt, The idea that I support a three-level understainding of the 1st Amendment is total bullshit made up by you. You're a good writer, but what you're really good at is putting words into the mouths of your opponents in debate and arguing ferociously against what you said they said. It's a good trick which if you really had a good argument you wouldn't have to resort to.
ReplyDeleteAnd none of this Daley-making-terroristic-threats business has anything to do with the 1st Amentment anyway. Threatening someone is a crime. Daley didn't do that. It was immediately obvious. The California caller may not have either, but he needed to be looked at.
If you don't believe in a multi-tiered implementation of the First Amendment, how do you justify punishing one man for saying what you acknowledge is the same kind of thing said by a man whom you say should not be punished (my emphasis added):
ReplyDeleteThe mayor was being video-taped when he made those stupid remarks, obviously intended to express the fact that guns are dangerous and removing them from the streets is good.
Christopher Fox, on the other hand, picked up the phone, called long distance and said the same kind of stupid remarks to Mayor Daley who is a public official.
In other words, you admit that it's not what was said that is different, but who is saying it, and to whom it's being said. If that's not calling Fox's words a threat, while calling similar words from Daley "protected free speech," what the hell is it?
As for the third tier, you have a long history of claiming that people whose words are seen or heard by a large audience "share responsibility" for any crazy/evil acts done by knuckleheads who might have been influenced by those words--even if the words themselves neither call for violence, or can be considered remotely threatening.
Anyway, I found the topic interesting enough to be worth an article of its own.