https://archive.li/asM5c

A Texas woman has been charged with threatening to kill the judge overseeing a criminal case against Donald Trump.

Abigail Jo Shry, 43, allegedly called US District Judge Tanya Chutkan a “stupid slave” and used another racial slur in a voicemail message she left at the Washington courthouse.

She is reported to have said: “You are in our sights, we want to kill you… If Trump doesn’t get elected in 2024, we are coming to kill you, so tread lightly, b----.

“You will be targeted personally, publicly, your family, all of it.”

The article also includes an expectation meeting mugshot. For people that talk about violence, I’ve never been less intimidated.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      32 years ago

      I assume that living in constant, irrational fear that the government is out to get you and anyone who isn’t exactly like you threatens your existence causes stress, which ages you prematurely.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    122 years ago

    I mean calling a federal judge stupid when you’re making material threats on a recorded line… just saying.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    1102 years ago

    My favorite part,

    “The 43-year-old said she had no intention of going to Washington to carry out her threats, before adding: “If Shelia Jackson Lee comes to Alvin [a city in Texas], then we need to worry.””

    How fucking stupid can you be to say this AFTER you’ve been arrested?

      • Phoenixz
        link
        fedilink
        26
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        This is what you get when you allow people with power and influence lie all the time

        Yes, we need freedom of speech, blah.

        You don’t have true freedom of speech, not even in the US, this article literally shows that

        We need more restrictions on speech. If you’re a politician and you obviously lie then you need to be at least called out on that, and be forced to correct yourself publicly. Maybe some naming and shaming will make politicians slightly more honest.

        All politicians lie up to some point and it’s been tolerable and tolerated for a long time but Trump weaponised disinformation and lying. This needs to stop, those in power need to be held accountable. If you’re the president and you startte spouting proven conspiracy theories then you need to either be forced to correct yourself and say you were staying dishonest information or you need to leave.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          10
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          Freedom of speech, but not freedom from consequences of said speech. If you go and say some ish then you better be able to handle the consequences of saying the things you’re saying.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              2
              edit-2
              2 years ago

              That’s an interesting question and highlights the gap between use of the phrase. The question is: who is free? The individual absolutely free from all consequence, or society to be free from dangerous, damaging, and intolerable behaviour?

              Does it mean freedom from impediment? Are you are allowed to say whatever you want, but the community has a right to discourage, deplatform, and criminalise the effects of those words have in breaking the social contract (e.g. attempting to cause panic, promoting a riot, trying to over throw democracy, racial intimidation, etc)?

              Or does it mean freedom from consequences? Are you allowed to say whatever you want and the community has no right to recourse for the effects of speech on the community (i.e. you can say literally anything and the without fear that it will negatively impact your standing within the wider community and social contract)? Does that mean we should allow people to promote ISIS? Or send direct threats to you and your family, if they never intend to act upon them? How about promote your family be seen as animals to be driven out or killed? Should those speech actions be free from consequences? Even if it escalates to a wider group or is given from a position of authority?

              I do not believe the latter is a tenable way of maintaining any form of contract and only enhances the power of bad faith actors. It’s also only ever selectively employed.

              The same people that tend to promote the latter in cases that suit their cause, threaten officials, promote hate, and drive division are the same group banning history books in schools. We cannot let people in bad faith muddy the waters of what free speech mean.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                12 years ago

                So then why call it ‘free speech’.

                Perhaps some other name should be used to better explain the concept.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  12 years ago

                  I disagree.

                  Free, in this context, means not captive (i.e. not controlled by a single entity). Speech is free. It just isn’t free from consequences in the wider standing of society. And most people do know that (my examples highlight it - should I have no consequences for inciting a lynch mob to kill your family if I didn’t string the noose?).

                  Don’t let bad faith actors force us to do…anything! They’re bad faith actors!

    • Echo Dot
      link
      fedilink
      162 years ago

      How fucking stupid can you be to say this AFTER you’ve been arrested?

      Well given what she was arrested for, I can safely assume that thinking is not her strong suit.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      52 years ago

      I’m not sure it’s necessary to question the intelligence of anyone who is part of the Trump cult. That question answers itself.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    112 years ago

    Quick, let’s just slap her on the wrists with 2 weeks of probation and then wonder why more of this will continue to happen.

  • OhStopYellingAtMe
    link
    fedilink
    932 years ago

    Why would they let a woman who threatened to kill a judge oversee trump’s criminal case?

    (Sorry. Had to be done)

  • Envis10n
    link
    fedilink
    192 years ago

    Remember folks, it’s not okay to (jokingly) threaten violence against things like the NRA convention or the Vatican. Please save your violent threats for judges and jury members of your favorite criminally-charged politicians. Thank you.

  • daisy lazarus
    link
    fedilink
    English
    462 years ago

    The scary thing is she probably has zero regrets and would do it again.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    132 years ago

    As much as I hate to admit it, these willfully ignorant racist fucks won’t stop until they get another war.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      92 years ago

      These choads haven’t getting over the whuppin’ they got from the last one. Make sure we hold their head in the toilet bowl for the full 3 minutes this time

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        1
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        I mean, we say that, but they have enough collective anger and enough legal connections that they plausibly could start a civil war next year and possibly even win it.

        There’s nothing that is stopping them from banding together and busting out the dumbasses thrown in prison over January 6th and, if they had the will, they could bust this stupid fucking clown out of jail, too.