anything like that on this site with the exception of an idiot who signs up and a couple of posts later gets the boot. I suppose they do watch this site, demon lefties that we are, and I'd love to know if they'd actually give their lives to save the Orange Fuhrer. Hard to imagine.

The Democratic Party's agenda is our goal, here.
Perhaps you're at the wrong site or do not understand where you are?

They're interesting in physical threats. Even if such things were brewing on the DU, the Secret Service don't need to monitor this site. There's no shortage of RWers creeping around here. They'd be happy to report any post that could conceivably be taken as a threat. I haven't seen any such posts, myself. They're probably few and far between, and when it does happen, I imagine they get deleted and the poster banned in short order.

Not a criticism of folks running DU. They could get a visit from the Secret Service if they let certain discussions run rampant on the boards and I don't see how that would be good for anyone.

Although I don't recall the details.

Twitter, etc.

And rarely if ever has anyone here made the kind of threat that might warrant a visit from the Secret Service.

How many Poindexter Oglethorpes can there be? They'd find you in a heartbeat!

It's not. And I've never used it anywhere else but here on DU.

And I just did a quick google search. There's no real person out there with this name. And even my presence under this name on DU doesn't register.

Even if you do, I think they could easily trace back to you. Also, your Google skills are lacking.
Google automatically thinks you screwed up and gives the results for what they think you meant.
They give you the option to fix their mistake.

Showing results for Poindexter Oglethorpe
Search instead for PoindexterOglethorpe

You found me!

Since I don't know what a proxy server is, I am probably not using one. Maybe I need to, and come back here under a different name.

And, yes, I do censor what I say. I don't put anything passed this administration.

Even if I'm trying to be witty. I've was cleared under a secret service evaluation years back to meet a former president.

However, for the first time I worry about them. To listen to the stupidity, they must try not to hear and not respond. Professional.

in your vicinity, the Secret Service would visit the area prior to his appearance. They would almost certainly speak with local law enforcement and get some idea about the local cranks and crackpots. They might keep an eye on those people, or pay a visit to the ones who seem threatening.

I don't think most of us here have to worry about any of that. I do censor myself. I do it IRL, too. There are some things that sane people do not say out loud. Trump says them, but I did say sane people.

Publicly, in some grotesque and humiliating fashion.

However, I reject any suggestion that he should be deliberately harmed.

or any variation on that theme - you know someone who's going to kill the president, for example - someone will report you and you'll probably get a visit.

If you say you wish he was dead, that's not a threat. I never heard that they visited any of the multitude of RWers who said they were praying for God to strike Obama dead. I suspect that falls under the category of "wishing".

I'm not concerned about my comments. I don't threaten to harm people, not in real life and not on the internet. However, I absolutely wish some of them were dead.

The many threats v. Obama partly led to my question...

That alone tells me they're very good at what they do, including sorting out real threats vs. people wishing he was dead. Of course, it is possible that there have been some close calls that we never heard about. Obviously if there were any such attempts, they failed.

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/352/1175/478677/

United States of America, Appellee, v. Richard Allen Humphreys, Also Known As Israel Humphreys, Also Known As Prophet Israel Humphreys, Appellant, 352 F.3d 1175 (8th Cir. 2003)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit - 352 F.3d 1175 (8th Cir. 2003)
Submitted: December 16, 2003
Filed: December 22, 2003

William A. Delaney III, AFPD, Sioux Falls, SD, for appellant.

Michael E. Ridgway, AUSA, Sioux Falls, SD, for appellee.

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, HEANEY, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

On March 8, 2001, Richard Allen Humphreys told others that either he or one of his followers would douse President Bush with a flammable material and throw a match on him. The Government charged Humphreys with making threats against the President of the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 871(a). A jury found him guilty. In projecting Humphreys' sentence, the presentence report (PSR) did not recommend a four-level decrease in Humphreys' offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2A6.1(b) (5) (2002), which authorizes a district court to decrease the offense level for threatening communications offenses by four levels if no other adjustments under § 2A6.1 apply and "the offense involved a single instance evidencing little or no deliberation." Over Humphreys' objection, the district court* found Humphreys did not qualify for the decrease because he made statements threatening the President in an Internet chat room on February 2, 2001. The district court sentenced Humphreys to thirty-seven months in prison.

Humphreys appeals asserting the § 2A6.1(b) (5) decrease applies. The district court did not commit clear error in finding Humphreys' offense did not involve "a single instance evidencing little or no deliberation" within the meaning of § 2A6.1(b) (5). Although "single instance" does not necessarily mean "single threat," "single instance" suggests both a temporal relationship and a single purpose or scheme. United States v. Sanders, 41 F.3d 480, 484 (9th Cir. 1994); United States v. Freeman, 176 F.3d 575, 579 (1st Cir. 1999). The term suggests the reduction applies only to "defendants whose threats are the product of a single impulse, or are a single thoughtless response to a particular event." Sanders, 41 F.3d at 484. Humphreys communicated his threat about burning Bush to different people on different occasions, specifically, in the chat room, by fax to the White House, and in person to three individuals at different times. See United States v. Fann, 41 F.3d 1218, 1219 (8th Cir. 1994) (per curiam) ("single-instance" reduction did not apply because defendant communicated threat more than once to different people using different modes of communication).

Humphreys contends the chat room statements were not threatening and were not meant to be taken seriously. In the online chat, Humphreys stated:

HE IS NOW, HE FEARS ME SOMETHING TERRIBLE, GORE DOES TOO BECAUSE I PRAYED FOR A TIE IN THE ELECTION AND GOT IT WHEN THE GORE PEOPLE TOLD ME THAT IF I WANTED JUSTICE I NEEDED A DIFFERENT CANDIDATE, SAID TO THEM, "SO BE IT" GOT THE TIE AND DIFFERENT CANDIDATE, NOW GOING TO ASK BUSH FOR JUSTICE, AND IF I DON'T GET IT I AM GOING TO PRAY FOR A BURNING BUSH. GET IT? SO IF YOU HEAR THAT A MAN RUNS UP AND THROWS GASOLINE AND A MATCH TO BUSH YOU WILL KNOW THAT GOD DID SPEAK THROUGH THE BURNING BUSH. LOL

Even if "LOL" indicates Humphreys was "laughing out loud," as he contends, the district court did not commit clear error in finding Humphreys' chat room statement threatened the President. Humphreys knowingly and willfully made the statement and a reasonable person could view it as a serious expression of intent to inflict bodily harm. See Freeman, 176 F.3d at 578 (defining threat under § 875(c)).

Because the district court did not commit clear error in denying the § 2A6.1(b) (5) decrease, we affirm Humphreys' sentence. We recommend to the Bureau of Prisons that Humphreys serve his term in the Federal Medical Center, however. The record shows Humphreys suffers from a bipolar disorder and has had several periods of hospitalization because of his delusions. His symptoms are treatable with medication. Hopefully, medication over a significant period of years will result in his being able to live outside the prison confines, free of delusions and the type of behavior he exhibited here.

*

The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of South Dakota

Thanks!