Skip to comments.Blogger Hal Turner Charged With Threatening Chicago-Area Judges (web posts are being watched)
Posted on 06/25/2009 5:52:20 PM PDT by STARWISE
An Internet radio host and blogger charged earlier this month with encouraging people to "take up arms" against three public officials in Connecticut was arrested again Wednesday on charges that he threatened to assault and murder three federal judges in retaliation for a ruling upholding handgun bans in the Chicago area.
FBI agents charged Hal Turner, 47, of North Bergen, N.J., at his home on charges related to the appeals court judges. The federal charges in Chicago arise from Internet postings on June 2 and 3 in which Turner allegedly proclaimed his "outrage" over a June 2 decision by Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook and Judges Richard Posner and William Bauer of the Chicago-based U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.
"Let me be the first to say this plainly: These Judges deserve to be killed," said the postings, which also included photographs, phone numbers, work addresses and room numbers of the judges, along with a photo of the building in which they work and a map of its location.
The Chicago arrest warrant affidavit suggests that the Internet postings were inspired by lawsuits in Chicago and suburban Oak Park that followed a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year upholding the right of citizens to keep handguns in their homes for protection.
The lawsuits challenged handgun bans that remained in effect after the high court's ruling. The three judges dismissed the lawsuits in an opinion written for a unanimous court.
Federal authorities said they found another Internet posting, allegedly written by Turner, claiming that the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals also ruled against Matt Hale, a white supremacist convicted of soliciting the murder of a U.S. District Court judge in Chicago. The blog entry noted that the slain judge's mother and husband also were killed by a gunman in her home.
"Apparently, the 7th U.S. Circuit court didn't get the hint after those killings," the posting said.
"It appears another lesson is needed."
State Capitol police in Connecticut charged Turner on June 3 with inciting injury to persons or property after he allegedly posted material on the Internet criticizing legislation to shift some control over the Roman Catholic Church affairs from the church to lay members.
The Internet blog targeting the Connecticut officials state Rep. Michael Lawlor, state Sen. Andrew McDonald and state ethics commission officer Thomas Jones promised to make public their home addresses.
On his Turner Radio Network blog, Turner allegedly wrote,
"It is our intent to foment direct action against these individuals personally. These beastly government officials should be made an example of as a warning to others in government: Obey the Constitution or die. ... If any state attorney, police department or court thinks they're going to get uppity with us about this, I suspect we have enough bullets to put them down, too."
Turner is scheduled to be presented this afternoon on the Chicago charges in federal court in Newark, N.J. If convicted, he faces a maximum sentence of up to 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.
He was presented at Superior Court in Hartford on Monday. He did not enter a plea. If convicted on the Connecticut state charge, he faces from one to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000.
Chicago Breaking News (CBN) reports that U.S. Attorney's office alleges that blogger Hal Turner publicly called for the killing of three federal appeals court judges who serve on the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago. The U.S. Attorney's office says that Turner's web site included photos of the judges and addresses for them, with statements such as:
"Let me be the first to say this plainly; These judges deserve to be killed."
Although the federal charges against Turner were brought in Chicago, he will appear in U.S. District Court in Newark, N.J. on Thursday, June 25.
Lotta looks, not many posts.
Maybe more people will post.
“These judges deserve to be killed.”
That’s completely out of line. I value right to free speech, but he crossed the line to inciteful (and crazy) speech.
He doesn’t get to say “they deserve to be killed”...for a gun ban? You might say a criminal should get the death penalty, but it’s abhorrent to make pronouncements like that.
Glad they are cracking down, hopefully some on a few other sites I visit will start to tone it down. They can be so mean spirited towards conservatives. *Here’s my disclaimer, Yes I know some on the right can be over the top at times. Hope every one is happy will my fair and balanced view. LOL
That’s troubling. That you don’t have a problem with someone saying judges should be killed and giving out their addresses and showing their pictures. You may have a problem with their ruling, but death? Seriously.
That’s REALLY troubling.
Oh man...calling for death? Libs are the worst! Some I’ve seen publicly would kill all the Fox News personalities, Rush, Sarah Palin...the list goes on.
But that is the “assimilate or be eliminated” mindset of groupthink liberals.
People thinking that posting addresses, pictures and a pronouncement of a pseudo-death penalty on people is ok had better be prepared to live with the kind of anarchy they are advocating.
I guess you didn't learn much when you were tossed from that show. No wonder Frank from QUeens and John from Staten Island went their own way.
Uh, when are they going to arrest Alec Baldwin for threating former Rep Henry Hyde and his family?....anyone?
The guy is a buffoon.
Laws don’t apply equally anymore.
I don’t think they’ve applied for a long time. I’m wondering when it changed? FDR? Lincoln?
This is WAY out of line. And he also cited the case of someone who murdered a judge and called for imitations.
Calling for an armed citizenry and the right to bear arms is not the same thing as calling on people to kill judges. These judges made a bad decision, but that is no excuse for something like this.
When I saw the headline, I thought maybe they had misread what he said or twisted it. But they did not.
That, more than anything else, is responsible for people going over the edge, I believe.
Probably sometime just after the Revolutionary War. I wonder if it's always been this way.
Sounds like the guy was ‘out there’ for sure. You can’t go around threatening people and calling for someone’s death. I don’t have a problem with the FBI going after someone like this.
If he had uttered the same words to an assembled crowd, pitchforks and torches in hand, the situation would likely be judged differently (although how Al Sharpton has managed to stay out of jail for his incitement of the crowd leading to the deaths at Freddie's Fashion Mart)...
Of course, having studied the law, the attorneys who brought the charges against the guy almost certainly know that his speech is protected by the First Amendment, but since when has a determined prosecutor allowed either the Constitution or the Law to get in the way of their efforts?
I thought he was in CT. NJ extradicted him there for threatening CT Reps.
Turner is a lib. He aligns himself with the Neo Nazi’s which is the National Socialists.
Ok. Looks like he’s really pro 2nd Amendment, though. Huh.
I do find that a lot of liberals support guns for themselves; but not for others. SPCA Animal Officers are good examples.
So, what’s Turner’s association with Hannity and Pat Buchanan?
I’ll admit I don’t know much about the guy. He sounds like a nut to me. Maybe not to other folks here, but he sounds like a nut to me.
Meet ‘em at the door, with a loaded forty-four!
>>>So, whats Turners association with Hannity and Pat Buchanan?
Very, very fair question. I would like to know too.
Brandenburg v. Ohio
The U.S. Supreme Court stated that the government cannot constitutionally punish abstract advocacy of force or law violation.
The Eighth Amendment - Excessive Bail & Fines, Cruel & Unusual Punishment
I know this thread is way old, but I leave this as a footnote for future readers: We’ve been punked ...
So Mr. Turner’s real job was, apparently, to blunt conservatism by deliberately drawing offsides the kook fringe psudo-conservatives, and that as a way to discredit or difuse any robust reaction among genuine conservatives against the mounting tyranny. I call these people pseudo-conservatives because principled conservatism is like a well-trained offensive line; we only respond after the ball is snapped, because we’re watching the ball, not listening to the count. These pseudo-conservatives don’t even know what the ball looks like, let alone how to watch it.