"the authorities" should not be spending our precious tax dollars on an anonymous letter or two that threatens to have someone banned from an Internet message board for strong political language. The horror! Banned from a message board!

Let's have some perspective here, please.

The "authorities" were not able to do anything about the hoodlums that attacked our Andy Stephenson and arguably hastened his death and certainly caused him enormous grief.

Why would they spend resources on this blip, as painful as it might be for bravenak's supporters?

Many believe that the same hoodlums are involved. Might as well move on to the next dustup here.

There was no direct threats in the letter.

understand what stalking is.

First link on search is
https://www.victimsofcrime.org/help-for-crime-victims/get-help-bulletins-for-crime-victims/bulletins-for-teens/stalking

which might be more appropriate here, but that will be to a US Attorney to decide.

From what I've seen, they sent 2 letters, one to the wrong address (so I guess they didn't know the address for certain, and still don't, and had to send a letter to each of the 2 possibilities they found).

That's not a pattern of behavior. It's not 'repeatedly'.

It's a single, ardent attempt to make sure that an intimidating letter got to her. IOW, it may be the start of stalking behavior.

....thought crimes and future crimes have no place in our jurisprudence.

Nor does "ardor".

It's a threat by its very nature. I don't see what it matters if it's repeated.

The repetition is needed for the legal definition:

I don't understand why some in this thread (this isn't directed at you) are trying to make it out as if it's no big deal. To me it's irrelevant whether the authorities will get involved or not.

It's a big deal here. That we can agree on.

It's not a big deal to authorities and people here should not expect it to be.

There could be a post or two I've missed where someone did think authorities would get right on the case and have an arrest within 24 hours. But I haven't seen it.

Everyone giving the advice it shouldn't be reported should.

How many times must something happen to be a pattern? At what point, what number, does "repeated" become "repeatedly"?

Online disagreement offline by tracking down her address and sending the hostile letters to her home *is* threatening.

...but you would not be correct.

The letter's words may only have threatened alert stalking, but the unspoken message of sending it to her home was "We know where you live"

I don't know if it rises to any actionable offense, but to me? Yeah, threatening as hell.

that it takes, according to another poster, only a couple of minutes to locate that person's address, how can that person feel threatened if they receive snail mail? It's no secret that people who reveal personal information on line are making their private lives public which means people have different ways of reaching them.


This is an instance of bolting the door after the horses have fled. If anyone doesn't want unwanted mail or people for that matter showing up at one's door than don't make personal info public.

but I've seen talk of federal offenses, jail time, homeland security... I'm just saying if there's something there, let's get to the bottom of it posthaste so it isn't exploited.

this can take a year. So have patience. And once a case is ongoing none can say a thing. We watch them way too often now. So I do not expect nada from this if something happens for a good 12 to 14 months.

If the authorities deem it NOT to be stalking, then so be it. Until then, she has my unqualified support. I do see it as stalking, even though there were no explicit threats of bodily harm, kidnapping, etc.

And you will likely never know what the authorities ever deem, if they do.

though I agree likely not chargeable due to the content.. that said, if she gets a series of letters, or gets more with more threatening language that will change QUICKLY.

The stalking tough could be.

On edit, realize that the decision to charge is up to the US Attorney, as well as the offers for plea deals.

surely you know what constitutes an actionable threat.

A warning that someone wants to have you banned from a message board is NOT an actionable threat.

And recommending the use of a U.S. Attorney to litigate this matter is preposterous.

Just preposterous.

in the cambrian the US Attorneys refused to act. Back then, they did not take any of this that seriously, That has changed, significantly.

You know it and I know it.

that is what I know.

......then it was by definition not actionable.

the police are under no obligation to act, even if someone were in violation of a restraining order.

Sad but true.

physical harm do you know?

stalking, harassment laws are state level....and any lawyer worth his or her salt will argue who has jurisdiction, My view Alaska does.

The feelings of Duers who did not get fucked up letters sent to their houses.

FTR, yes, authorities have been contacted, so feathers can unruffle.

My bet is nothing.

They asked if authorities had been contacted, so the honor of some DUers would stay intact. I answered. You'll have to do your own research on what, if anything, said authorities can do.

that they dropped their schtick for a moment.

There are several OPs today from people more concerned about themselves than about victims of stalking. I got this one mixed up with another.

I hope some folks have tea and plenty of warm blankets. Poor dears.

It always does, right?

It has to be pretty extreme for a letter to be considered actionable.

I, for one, would be pretty unhappy about law enforcement or DoJ resources being used for petty acts such as this. An anonymous warning about being banned from a message board for strong political talk. In the big picture, a mere blip.

as to the number of things they actually do investigate that might not rise to your level... trust me, these days any and all threats receive SOME level of concern.

What about the implied threat of "I know where you live?"

That would concern me if I got a letter from someone I didn't know even if the letter was just "You're a jerk"

Bryant

I don't think that any authority would pay attention to one letter (or 2, since they seem to have sent another, identical as far as we know, to another address that the deliverer successfully corrected) that just talked about alerts on an internet forum. They would say "this is one letter, addressed using publicly available information, some of which was made public by the recipient".

but that doesn't make it actionable.

Being proactive on what information is out there about yourself can help prevent crazy people from tracking you down. There had to have been some bread crumbs somewhere that this loon found to track her down.

the cretins keep dossiers on each of us that captures their interest.

Once a letter is mailed, that crosses the 'basic keyboard troll' line. I'm positive the local field office will be very helpful about this issue.

They don't get too excited about someone warning someone else that he/she will be banned from an Internet message board for strong political language.

Especially in the USA. This person is an active poster, outspoken AA woman who received an anonymous letter through postal mail. Why wait to contact authorities?

If anything, knowledge of contact with authorities will make the jerk stop. Or perhaps 'whoever' sent the letter is of interest to the authorities.

As is, though, it's unlikely that Federal authorities will take investigative action.

Bravenak made her personal information easily available. Gathering personal information from the Internet and then using it for various purposes (including mailings) is not a crime. It may be a concern for some, but it is not a crime.

Facebook alone is the criminal elements shopping Paradise.

incident itself is "questionable"? Nice going.

Certainly the wellbeing of a DUer (Bravenak) is the foremost concern, but judging by the way this unfortunate event is being exploited to perpetuate the bogus notion that Sanders supporters are of a particular ilk, it would be best for everyone to resolve it asap.

the police will not be likely to. Yet this is not enough for you, so you need to cast aspersions on B.
Like I said, nice going.

Last I saw, she showed a second letter she received from this Mr Citizen.

Would be nice to know if he is a DU member. Those of us with right-wing workplaces don't want our names found by this guy.

They will only take action if a federal prosecutor believes they can make a case, or if a life is in danger. Based upon the content of the letters Bravenak's physical well being has not been threatened, therefore I would say the most likely outcome is that they will take a report but will not proceed with an investigation. Forensic labs have backlogs of work to be done, and it's unlikely they will tie up the facilities running fingerprints on a letter that doesn't threaten physical harm - especially if the fingerprints are unlikely to match anything in their offenders database.

That said, it is important that this incident be reported to the authorities in case the sender of the letters escalates his behavior.