The article discusses this, and explains why the sheriff is contorting the plain meaning of his 4-words and an image (about Kirk) into a threat of violence (to a nearby school). This won't stand in court, so they are punishing him before then.
>The article discusses this, and explains why the sheriff is contorting the plain meaning of his 4-words and an image (about Kirk) into a threat of violence (to a nearby school). This won't stand in court, so they are punishing him before then.
"For my friends, everything. For my enemies, the law."
As I said the bar is the person making an intentional threat, which is what's going to make this an interesting case. Most people in this thread have no clue what they're discussing, as is typical in political adjacent threads, because it's very easy to see what he did as a threat.
You have a former police officer (in other words: armed) who was obviously rather unhinged, a political extremist, lived near a Perry High School, and then posts an image that shows Trump saying "We have to get over it." with the subtext being "Donald Trump, on the Perry High School mass shooting, one day after." All under the title, "This seems relevant today..."
That's obviously very easy to interpret as a threat. Imagine some unhinged nearby former police officer or military posted something similar about a school where e.g. your kids happened to go to. My kid's not going to school that day! So the case is going to revolve around whether he intended it to be a threat. He will claim he did not, and assumed people would understand his post had nothing to do with the nearby Perry High School. The prosecution will argue that he knew this would be interpreted as a threat on said high school.
