David Joseph Lenio
According to a human rights group and two local rabbis, reducing charges to anything less than a felony would allow him to purchase and own more guns under current law.
Lenio, a restaurant cook, was arrested in February of last year after his roommate said that he had moved guns and ammunition into their apartment. He first came to the attention of authorities when Jonathan Hutson, who was a spokesman for the Brady Campaign at the time, alerted them to the online threats.
Initially jailed with bail set at $500,000, Lenio has since been released on his own recognizance and into the custody of his parents in Grand Rapids, Michigan.
Ah, another shining example of how well things work out when the Brady Campaign gets involved. It sounds like the BC and the local prosecutor had gotten a bit cocky in their decisions to charge. Lets keep in mind that, with all due respect, a public defender is representing Lenio.
ReplyDeleteThis public defender has gotten bail reduced to own recognizance on a felony charge. And is apparently offered a plea deal that the prosecutor is seriously considering because the case must be pretty weak.
The public defender also got one of the two felony charges dismissed,
"His attorney, Brent Getty, filed a motion in May asking that both felony counts of intimidation and criminal defamation be dismissed in part because they were unconstitutionally over-broad and there was no victim.
The judge on Tuesday ordered that the criminal defamation charge be dismissed, while denying the motion to dismiss the intimidation charge."
http://missoulian.com/news/local/judge-dismisses-charge-against-whitefish-man-accused-of-threatening-kids/article_97aeebbb-f72f-5294-891d-a554ea8dc199.html
The news source I provided a lot of information since they have been following the case pretty closely. Apparently this whole thing came about because he got into a Twitter pissing contest with Huston.
The Raw Story left that stuff out.
The justice system notwithstanding, this is a"nother shining example" of one of you guys. Own it.
DeleteThe justice system notwithstanding, this is a"nother shining example" of one of you guys.
DeleteOne of who guys? I'd wager that no regular commenter here has ever threatened to kill Jewish people or execute school kids. Well, I think you and Dog Gone have managed to stifle any urge to utter such threats, anyway. Your bravely anonymous pal inspires less confidence, but I guess I'm feeling generous today.
Anyway, since this guy is defined by his issuance of those threats, then in what way could he be linked to people who have never--and would never--make them?
If you're looking for someone to link this guy to, look no further than this "gun control" advocate:
After a gun-control advocate posted "Which one do I need to shoot up a kindergarten?" on a pro-gun Facebook page, Missouri police arrested him illegally, he claims in court.
Some people are just way too stupid to help any cause whatsoever. I am glad that he was arrested. That's what the police do. They arrest people who have crossed certain lines. Whether or not he gets convicted is not important to the arresting officer.
Delete"since this guy is defined by his issuance of those threats"
DeleteWhe said that? You? You said that in order to distiniguish yourself from him. I say what defines him is his gun ownership. That's why I associate him with you and the other commenters.
You said that in order to distiniguish yourself from him. I say what defines him is his gun ownership.
DeleteThat's idiotic by even your idiotic standards. The only reason any of us have heard of this dipshit is the threats he allegedly made. If he were like scores of millions of other American gun owners (you know--the scores of millions who have never issued such threats), his very existence would be unknown to any of us.
So tell me, Mikeb; is it fair to associate you with every, single person who does not own a gun?
For that matter, do you think it's fair to Gabrielle Giffords and Mark Kelly for them to have to "own" some bizarre connection to me? All the gun owners who nevertheless support "gun control" measures that I deem the blocking of which to be worth killing and dying for--do they deserve to be associated with this guy, and with me?
Dumbass.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteI know you are going with the headline from Raw Story, but it is a bit sensational. This is not a done deal. Perhaps there is some inside information regarding sympathies from the prosecuting attorney. Still, the decision has not yet been made. I mean, nobody in their right mind truly believes in the inviolate right to bear arms, no matter what the criminal offense that an individual is convicted of. I think that even these hard-core, right-wing Montana conservatives might be forced by some sense of righteousness into doing the right thing. I could be wrong. But if there is an unhealthy relationship between the prosecuting and defending attorneys, it will be found out and destroyed. My bet, this kid will avoid prison time, but will not be allowed to keep his guns without extensive time and court costs.
You're right. The right wing gun nuts have no problem throwing an idiot like this under the bus - where he belongs. The problem is they pretend he's an anomaly while he's actually just one of them.
DeleteThis guy in Montana should never have written what he did; that he thinks those things is sufficient justification for him not having guns. Ever. Period.
ReplyDeleteAny attempt to minimize that by calling this a 'weak case' is ridiculous.
And I don't have any faith in right wing nuts in Montana doing the right thing on their own. There is no real justification for such a belief.
"This guy in Montana should never have written what he did; that he thinks those things is sufficient justification for him not having guns. Ever. Period."
DeleteYou're entitled to your opinion DG. Fortunately, the First Amendment protects speech, and by extension, thoughts. As for whether this situation crossed the line into illegal speech remains to be seen.
Have a little faith. Contact the SPLC. This thing can go to trial.
DeleteAnd I'm tired of people saying that I am nuts to believe that republicans are not entirely evil. Republicans are not only human beings. They are Americans.
ss, are you actually saying the guy has a 1st Amendment right to say he's gonna “execute grade school children?”
Delete"are you actually saying the guy has a 1st Amendment right to say he's gonna “execute grade school children?"
DeleteThe court, and presumable a jury will get to determine whether Lenio crossed the line that makes speech a criminal act. Don't forget that so far, one of the two charges has been dismissed, so while various people are trying to talk the prosecutor to not accept a plea deal, if the case goes to trial, there is also the possibility of acquittal.
For example, one of the three firearms confiscated from Lenio apparently doesn't even work,
"Getty’s Nov. 19 motion said one of the rifles, a Hi-Point brand 9 mm Luger carbine model 995, was missing numerous parts, had other parts misaligned and would not function as received, as determined by the Montana Forensic Science Division."
http://missoulian.com/news/local/witness-defense-attorney-in-lenio-case-spar-over-meaning-of/article_ab486297-de77-5df2-ad1a-244e3a728196.html
That leave him with what is reported to be a Russian made bolt action rifle and a .32 pistol. I wonder if they'll show what I believe is likely a Mosin Nagant rifle to the jury.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosin%E2%80%93Nagant
It might be a challenge to convince a jury that he was intending to assault a school with a bolt action rifle from the 1800's and a small caliber pistol.
I repeat: are you actually saying the guy has a 1st Amendment right to say he's gonna “execute grade school children?”
DeleteMike, we are free to say whatever we like. That's what free speech is all about. We are not free to make threats. The difference is context and legitimacy. For example:
DeleteI TS, am planning on building a Death Star and blowing up the planet Earth.
Did I just threaten seven billion people? Should I go to jail? Lose my gun rights for life? Or at least my Death Star rights? No. Because of context and legitimacy. And that's what Sarge was talking about. The authorities are investigating whether this was a real threat or an Internet pissing match. There are no specific set of words that aren't protected, but I'm not surprised that you think that way.
Wouldn't a .22 be good enough to kill a little kid?
ReplyDeleteI don't think that the viability of his weapons cache is relevant to a legal case about on-line threats. It would still be illegal if he had no guns at all.
"I repeat: are you actually saying the guy has a 1st Amendment right to say he's gonna “execute grade school children?”"
ReplyDeleteHe might. That is for the courts to decide. I though I was pretty clear on that. Am I happy he said it? Of course not, but I have to live within the rules of this country, to include allowing people excercise their First Amendment rights as long as it doesn't wander into illegal speech.
The system is currently determining that.