Quote:

---

"Excuse me folks, I'm going to say this. We ought to find the people who are doing this, take them out and shoot them. Really. You take them out, they are traitors to this country, and shoot them. You have a problem with that? Deal with it. You shoot them. You call them traitors, that's what they are, and you shoot them dead. I'll pay for the bullets." How about you take Mark Dice out and put him in the middle of a firing range. Tie him to a post, don't blindfold him, let it rip and have some fun with Mark Dice."
-Michael "Reagan" Flaugher Bourgholtzer, 10 June 2008

www.infowars.com/?p=2679

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by piratenews:

Michael Reagan wants to shoot Pirate News.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by piratenews:

Michael Reagan wants to shoot Pirate News.

---

Then Michael Reagan is making good sense.

H

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:
http://libertyfight.741.com/markdice.html

Here's how you file an FCC complaint for solicitation for murder.

--------------------------
"I'll pay for the bullets."
--Michael Reagan

---

Quote:

---

"Now if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes to disarm you and they are bearing arms, resist them with arms. Go for a head shot; they're going to be wearing bulletproof vests. They've got a big target on there, ATF. Don't shoot at that, because they've got a vest on underneath that. Head shots, head shots. Kill the sons of bitches. If the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms insists upon a firefight, give them a firefight. Just remember, they're wearing flak jackets and you're better off shooting for the head. I was talking about a situation in which law enforced agents comes smashing into a house, doesn't say who they are, and their guns are out, they're shooting, and they're in the wrong place. This has happened time and time again. The ATF has gone in and gotten the wrong guy in the wrong place. The law is that if somebody is shooting at you, using deadly force, the mere fact that they are a law enforcement officer, if they are in the wrong, does not mean you are obliged to allow yourself to be killed so your kinfolk can have a wrongful death action. You are legally entitled to defend yourself and I was speaking of exactly those kind of situations. If you're going to do that, you should know that they're wearing body armor so you should use a head shot. Now all I'm doing is stating the law, but all the nuances in there got left out when the story got repeated."
-G Gordon Battle Liddy, attorney at law, FBI agent, US Army commander, Viacom radio host, Fox News anal ist, Hollywood actor, convicted felon Watergate burgler for CREEP in Tricky Dick Nixon White House, sentenced to 20 years in prison then commuted by President Zbignew Brezenski (a/k/a Barack Obama), er, Jimmy Carter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Gordon_Liddy

---

Quote:

---

Regarding the elements of the crime of PC 422-

1. A person who willfully threatens to commit a crime which will result in death or great bodily injury to another person.

The principle difference between a criminal threat and stalking is that a criminal threat is truly a crime of words rather than conduct. As such, Section 422 does not require a pattern of conduct: one threat is sufficient. However, the threat must be one of death or great bodily injury against the victim or the victim’s immediate family. However, recent case law indicates that even non-direct threats can be considered criminal threats depending on the surrounding circumstances.

2. The person who made the threat did so with the specific intent that the statement, made verbally, in writing, or by means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a threat.

The law does not require that the suspect had the intent to carry out the threat, only that the suspect intended the statement to be taken as a threat. The context and the circumstances under which the statement was uttered are important. The meaning of the threat must be gleaned from the words and all the surrounding circumstances.

3. The threatening statement, on its face and under the circumstances in which it was made, was so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to convey to the person threatened a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat.

Although the statute states that the threat must be “unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific,” case law has held that the language of the statute does not mean that the suspect must be standing in front of the victim with a weapon in his or her hand when he or she makes the threat. The courts have held that there does not have to be a showing that the suspect had the immediate ability to carry out the threat, nor does the statute require a time or specific manner of execution. Rather, the statute requires that the words used be of an immediately threatening nature and convey an immediate prospect of execution. The threat may be conveyed either face-to-face to the victim by the suspect or by letter, fax, e-mail, telephone, through third parties, or any other form of communication. Conditional threats are true threats if their context and surrounding circumstances reasonably convey to the victim that the threat is intended.

4. The threatening statement caused the other person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her own safety or his or her immediate family’s safety.

Sustained fear is defined as “a period of time that extends beyond what is momentary, fleeting, or transitory.” Fifteen minutes of fear may be more than sufficient to constitute “sustained fear”.

If all the above elements are present but the victim states he or she is not afraid, recent case law provides that an attempted criminal threat may be filed.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by piratenews:
playing on the internet instead of doing your so-called govt job.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by piratenews:
Last time I filed an FCC complaint, I got threatened with a $150,000 lawsuit by WNOX NeoConsRUs. Because somebody used the F-word on 100,000 watts, and I rebroadcast my own speech to city council on my TeeVee show. Then I got a 50-cent murder contract on my head. Doh! Welcome to the Infowars.

---