Volkmann On Leave While High School Investigates Obama Comments

MMAPlayground.com » Community » MMA News Share Forum » Volkmann On Leave While High School Investigates Obama Comments
« Previous Page
Sir_Karl
1/13/11 1:24:53PM
The MMA arena is no place for politics, especially childish low IQ comments like the one he purposely "injected" into the interview. Volkmann gets a major thumbs down from me. Boo! Boo!
bjj1605
1/13/11 1:37:47PM
Ok again, if you actually read the code that Blueskies posted instead of just offering your own opinion you will realize that this does not legally constitute a threat and it was a mistake to do the investigation.

First problem, saying somebody should knock him out does not show intent. The statement must show that the person has the intent to kill or injure the president. Since he said "someone" and not anything to do with himself, you could not prove that he had criminal intent

Second, the code allows for exceptions. If the statement was "mere political argument" "idle or careless talk" or "said in a joking matter", it does not constitute a true threat.

Differing from what most of you are doing here, I am using the language provided by the Secret Service explaining their organizational purview to decide if this investigation was warranted. I think clearly, by the laws on the books, Volkman's statement did not warrant any action.

Statements like "All threats against the president have to be investigated because..." are not helpful and fail to address the issue. If the statement he made was not a "threat" as defined by the agency then this argument can be true with out meaning anything important for the case at hand.

I think some people in the United States are so conditioned not to criticize the government that they throw their logic out the window and make excuses when common sense tells them the government has made a mistake. Every time something like this does happen and people criticize the government for it, the Press Sec. comes out with some lame ass excuse/reason/response. Those are obviously effective because people are now coming up with them themselves.

TutGadol
1/13/11 1:54:16PM
You can't go on national TV and say you are going to beat someone (not a fighter) down, I understand the sarcasm but the suspension is well deserved.
mrsmiley
1/13/11 2:05:01PM

Posted by pmoney


Posted by bjj1605

Its totally understandable that the school would suspend him. Like Blueskies said he is still an employee of theirs when he's fighting or giving interviews.

I don't understand why the Secret Service would wast time and resources (however limited, ie gas money to get to his house) to investigate these comments.

It wasn't a serious threat. He didn't say "I'm going to knock out Barrack Obama." or "I'd kill him if I had the chance." He made a comment that was well with in his first amendment rights to criticize the government. It makes no difference if he said it publicly or if you disagree with him. The Secret Service should not be taking actions that deter people from voicing their opinions.



i agree 100%. All Volkmann's leave does is teach the kids at his school never to question authority, tow the company line, be a "good role model", etc. etc. Let's not forget the right to revolution is guaranteed in the United States Constitution. All this country does now a days is railroad people and punish (and sometimes imprison) people for exercising their civil liberties.

Better fall in line everyone! Post on your Facebook, but never call or see anyone you talk to. Go to work, go to the store, go home and watch TV. Then just keep paying taxes until you die. That's a good citizen!




Don't forget we also must spy on people at WalMart now too.
bjj1605
1/13/11 2:51:49PM

Posted by TutGadol

You can't go on national TV and say you are going to beat someone (not a fighter) down, I understand the sarcasm but the suspension is well deserved.



Sure is a good thing he didn't say anything like that then isn't it.

He said "someone should knock him out". Not that he was going to. The devil is in the details and there were several details missing to make this a threat.
FlashyG
1/13/11 4:07:45PM

Posted by bjj1605

Except it wasn't a threat. He said someone should do it. Not "I'm going to" or even "I'd like to."



You can't be serious?!?

He was asked "who do YOU want (to fight) next"

He responeded "Obama..... Somebody's gotta knock some sense into that idiot"

In what bizarro world is that not a threat?

His answer, given the question he was asked, leaves no room for debate or discussion...he threatened (Jokingly) the President of the United States.
BlueSkiesBurn
1/13/11 5:13:50PM

Posted by bjj1605

Ok again, if you actually read the code that Blueskies posted instead of just offering your own opinion you will realize that this does not legally constitute a threat and it was a mistake to do the investigation.

First problem, saying somebody should knock him out does not show intent. The statement must show that the person has the intent to kill or injure the president. Since he said "someone" and not anything to do with himself, you could not prove that he had criminal intent

Second, the code allows for exceptions. If the statement was "mere political argument" "idle or careless talk" or "said in a joking matter", it does not constitute a true threat.

Differing from what most of you are doing here, I am using the language provided by the Secret Service explaining their organizational purview to decide if this investigation was warranted. I think clearly, by the laws on the books, Volkman's statement did not warrant any action.

Statements like "All threats against the president have to be investigated because..." are not helpful and fail to address the issue. If the statement he made was not a "threat" as defined by the agency then this argument can be true with out meaning anything important for the case at hand.

I think some people in the United States are so conditioned not to criticize the government that they throw their logic out the window and make excuses when common sense tells them the government has made a mistake. Every time something like this does happen and people criticize the government for it, the Press Sec. comes out with some lame ass excuse/reason/response. Those are obviously effective because people are now coming up with them themselves.




And if you actually read the code I had posted you would find that it pertains to actually being charged with the felony, not being interviewed by the agency in charge of investigating the crime.

See, peace officers of EVERY kind interview people EVERY day without actually charging them with a crime.

Volkmann spent a total of like an hour with the policing agent in charge of keeping the President safe and was not charged with a crime. Happens all the f*cking time.

Also, people for the last time, he was not placed on leave because the Secret Service came to talk to him, he was placed on leave from the school BECAUSE you're not allowed to disseminate personal politics when you teach and coach K-12
machodog76
1/13/11 6:36:14PM
I think everyone needs to calm down a little, use one font in your posts and look at the big picture, this is an easy pick! First round round TKO by ground and pound Volkman!
bjj1605
1/13/11 11:52:06PM

Posted by BlueSkiesBurn

And if you actually read the code I had posted you would find that it pertains to actually being charged with the felony, not being interviewed by the agency in charge of investigating the crime.

See, peace officers of EVERY kind interview people EVERY day without actually charging them with a crime.

Volkmann spent a total of like an hour with the policing agent in charge of keeping the President safe and was not charged with a crime. Happens all the f*cking time.

Also, people for the last time, he was not placed on leave because the Secret Service came to talk to him, he was placed on leave from the school BECAUSE you're not allowed to disseminate personal politics when you teach and coach K-12



Like I said before I had no problem with the school suspending him. I agree that people working for Public Education shouldn't share their political views.

My problem would be with the secret service doing an investigation (presumably to determine if Volkman should or could be charged with anything) when the comment is clearly not a threat. I didn't' need to do any investigation to determine that and they didn't either. I think this was probably done as a warning. It was to make an example of Volkman. "We might not be able to charge you but were going to hassle you for it". And I think its BS. He was expressing a political view in a sarcastic and joking way. There was no intent and the Penal Code provides exemptions for exactly this sort of thing.

You posted that code to prove that what he did was wrong and that the secret service was right to investigate. Now that you see the code disagrees with you you're backing away from it by using circular rhetoric.
BlueSkiesBurn
1/14/11 12:49:16AM

Posted by bjj1605


Posted by BlueSkiesBurn

And if you actually read the code I had posted you would find that it pertains to actually being charged with the felony, not being interviewed by the agency in charge of investigating the crime.

See, peace officers of EVERY kind interview people EVERY day without actually charging them with a crime.

Volkmann spent a total of like an hour with the policing agent in charge of keeping the President safe and was not charged with a crime. Happens all the f*cking time.

Also, people for the last time, he was not placed on leave because the Secret Service came to talk to him, he was placed on leave from the school BECAUSE you're not allowed to disseminate personal politics when you teach and coach K-12



Like I said before I had no problem with the school suspending him. I agree that people working for Public Education shouldn't share their political views.

My problem would be with the secret service doing an investigation (presumably to determine if Volkman should or could be charged with anything) when the comment is clearly not a threat. I didn't' need to do any investigation to determine that and they didn't either. I think this was probably done as a warning. It was to make an example of Volkman. "We might not be able to charge you but were going to hassle you for it". And I think its BS. He was expressing a political view in a sarcastic and joking way. There was no intent and the Penal Code provides exemptions for exactly this sort of thing.

You posted that code to prove that what he did was wrong and that the secret service was right to investigate. Now that you see the code disagrees with you you're backing away from it by using circular rhetoric.



I'm going to try this one last time since you're still not getting it.

The code does not disagree with me. The code says that if he suggested or intended injury that they could investigate. Also, the code didn't say that jokes and such didn't constitute A THREAT, it said they weren't a TRUE THREAT.

As I said before, Volkmann violated TWO of the three criteria for being charged with a felony. They didn't charge him because he didn't meet the third. They had every right to ask him questions because he met the first and third.

I haven't backed away from anything. If anything, you're hardly addressing the points that I've made. You conveniently skipped over several posters, including myself, that have pointed out to you that Volkmann did meet their criteria and that knocking someone out is a threat of injury.

I've also addressed that I have first hand knowledge of how the Secret Service operates and that my family has a long history of being Special Agents and I've told you that visits like this are common place.
bjj1605
1/14/11 2:02:15AM

Posted by BlueSkiesBurn


Posted by bjj1605


Posted by BlueSkiesBurn

And if you actually read the code I had posted you would find that it pertains to actually being charged with the felony, not being interviewed by the agency in charge of investigating the crime.

See, peace officers of EVERY kind interview people EVERY day without actually charging them with a crime.

Volkmann spent a total of like an hour with the policing agent in charge of keeping the President safe and was not charged with a crime. Happens all the f*cking time.

Also, people for the last time, he was not placed on leave because the Secret Service came to talk to him, he was placed on leave from the school BECAUSE you're not allowed to disseminate personal politics when you teach and coach K-12



Like I said before I had no problem with the school suspending him. I agree that people working for Public Education shouldn't share their political views.

My problem would be with the secret service doing an investigation (presumably to determine if Volkman should or could be charged with anything) when the comment is clearly not a threat. I didn't' need to do any investigation to determine that and they didn't either. I think this was probably done as a warning. It was to make an example of Volkman. "We might not be able to charge you but were going to hassle you for it". And I think its BS. He was expressing a political view in a sarcastic and joking way. There was no intent and the Penal Code provides exemptions for exactly this sort of thing.

You posted that code to prove that what he did was wrong and that the secret service was right to investigate. Now that you see the code disagrees with you you're backing away from it by using circular rhetoric.



I'm going to try this one last time since you're still not getting it.

The code does not disagree with me. The code says that if he suggested or intended injury that they could investigate. Also, the code didn't say that jokes and such didn't constitute A THREAT, it said they weren't a TRUE THREAT.

As I said before, Volkmann violated TWO of the three criteria for being charged with a felony. They didn't charge him because he didn't meet the third. They had every right to ask him questions because he met the first and third.

I haven't backed away from anything. If anything, you're hardly addressing the points that I've made. You conveniently skipped over several posters, including myself, that have pointed out to you that Volkmann did meet their criteria and that knocking someone out is a threat of injury.

I've also addressed that I have first hand knowledge of how the Secret Service operates and that my family has a long history of being Special Agents and I've told you that visits like this are common place.



Saying you want to knock someone out would be a threat. Saying someone should is not. And it has to be a TRUE THREAT in order to be illegal. From the VIDEO EVIDENCE (which required no investigation to acquire) you can tell that there was no TRUE THREAT. If you can discover that no crime was committed without an investigation then doing an investigation would be absurd. Thats what happened in this case.

I'm addressing the points you've made. I skipped lots of posters because the points were irrelevant. Everyone agrees that threats on the President should be investigated. What we disagree on was whether or not a threat was made in this case.

Edit: I just looked back. I skipped one poster. He made a point that was irrelevant to the discussion. Other than that I have responded to everyone including yourself who posted since my last comment.
BlueSkiesBurn
1/14/11 2:28:26AM

Posted by bjj1605

Saying you want to knock someone out would be a threat. Saying someone should is not. And it has to be a TRUE THREAT in order to be illegal. From the VIDEO EVIDENCE (which required no investigation to acquire) you can tell that there was no TRUE THREAT. If you can discover that no crime was committed without an investigation then doing an investigation would be absurd. Thats what happened in this case.

I'm addressing the points you've made. I skipped lots of posters because the points were irrelevant. Everyone agrees that threats on the President should be investigated. What we disagree on was whether or not a threat was made in this case.

Edit: I just looked back. I skipped one poster. He made a point that was irrelevant to the discussion. Other than that I have responded to everyone including yourself who posted since my last comment.



Asking to fight the President, while following it with "someone should knock that idiot out" is going to get you visit from the Secret Service. End of story. It doesn't matter who says it. If I were to post the same stuff on the internet, I would expect a visit.

It doesn't matter what YOU think should warrant a visit, the agency decides what should warrant a visit. Perhaps you should do a little research as to what the Secret Service has visited people for in the past. Lesser comments from everyday joe's have received visits from the Secret Service.

The law that I cited is what needs to be met in order for an individual to be charged. Not whether or not the agency is going to investigate. This is the third time that I have now said this. The video may seem likes it's a joke, but they're going to talk to Volkmann just to make sure. That's the job. Even if it seems stupid, you cannot afford a mistake.
bjj1605
1/14/11 11:41:49PM

Posted by BlueSkiesBurn


Asking to fight the President, while following it with "someone should knock that idiot out" is going to get you visit from the Secret Service. End of story. It doesn't matter who says it. If I were to post the same stuff on the internet, I would expect a visit.

It doesn't matter what YOU think should warrant a visit, the agency decides what should warrant a visit. Perhaps you should do a little research as to what the Secret Service has visited people for in the past. Lesser comments from everyday joe's have received visits from the Secret Service.

The law that I cited is what needs to be met in order for an individual to be charged. Not whether or not the agency is going to investigate. This is the third time that I have now said this. The video may seem likes it's a joke, but they're going to talk to Volkmann just to make sure. That's the job. Even if it seems stupid, you cannot afford a mistake.



Actually, considering this is a democracy, it sure as hell does matter what I think. And what the rest of the American people think. You can't just lie down and accept things for the way they are. You're first paragraph was a waste of words. Obviously (as shown by this case) those comments will get you a visit by the secret service. We're debating a normative question. SHOULD it?

And like I said before, I'm well aware of what the law you cited actually proves. Thats why I said you are backing away from the original intent behind you posting it. So, seeing as I've addressed this point, I'm not sure why you felt the need to repeat it three times. In fact I'll even show you the context of you posting it to help your memory along:


Posted by BlueSkiesBurn Posted by bjj1605 Except it wasn't a threat. He said someone should do it. Not "I'm going to" or even "I'd like to." I'm fine with the Administrative Leave like I said, its the SS investigation that bothers me. It wasn't a threat and the guy above me trying to draw a parallel between this and a mass shooting is way off the mark. United States Penal Code disagrees with you, sir. 18 USC 871, makes it a Federal crime or offense for anyone to willfully make a true threat to injure or kill the President of the United States. A person can be found guilty of that offense only if all of the following facts are proved beyond a reasonable doubt: First: That the person uttered words alleged to be the threat against the President; Second: That the person understood and meant the words he used as a true threat; and Third: That the person uttered the words knowingly and willfully. A "threat" is a statement expressing an intention to kill or injure the President; and a "true threat" means a serious threat as distinguished from words used as mere political argument, idle or careless talk, or something said in a joking manner. The essence of the offense is the knowing and willful making of a true threat. So, if it is proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the person knowingly made a true threat against the President, willfully intending that it be understood by others as a serious threat, then the offense is complete; it is not necessary to prove that the person actually intended to carry out the threat. I'm actually sure that ncordless, who's going to law school, might be a tad bit more knowledgeable on the subject than yourself. EDIT: Volkmann also met two of the three criteria before the Secret Service ever met with him, the second criteria is something that you have to investigate, hence their visit.


So as you can clearly see, your posting of the Penal Code was a response to me saying that what Volkman said wasn't a threat. The only logical reason you would have posted it would be to prove that LEGALLY it was a threat. The post you made actually disproved your point. Now you are circling the issue by trying to say even if it wasn't a crime by definition it still warranted an investigation (despite the fact that video evidence definitively proved that it wasn't a crime, negating any need for an investigation).

In any case, I feel sufficiently satisfied that I've proved you wrong. It's really a question of opinion so I don't expect to to concede. But your arguments are getting weaker. You're back tracking on your words. And you don't have any valid responses to the arguments I'm presenting. I've received several props that suggest people agree with me.

The conversation is starting to circle. So, I'm out.
emfleek
1/15/11 1:00:16AM

Posted by bjj1605

The conversation is starting to circle.


This. Locked.
Pages: 1 [2]
Related Topics