Teen's Joke 'Threat' Lands Him In Solitary; While Cop Saying He Wants To 'Kill' The First Lady Walks Free
from the just-because-you-enforce-the-laws-doesn't-mean-they-don't-apply-to-you dept
In life, there are often (at minimum) two sets of rules -- one that applies to average people, and one that applies to those on a more rarefied plane. Our legislators do it all the time, enacting laws that they have little intention of following or carving out exceptions in those that already exist.
The law enforcement community is one of the worst offenders of the double standard. Unwritten rules protect bad cops and a nearly universal "hands off" policy ensures everything from minor traffic violations to drunk driving will be neatly swept under the rug.
Mike Riggs at Reason points out a particularly egregious application of the double standard. In recent months, a pair of teens have been arrested and arraigned on terrorism charges stemming from some ill-advised postings. Cameron D'Ambrosio, whose charges were ultimately dropped, was held without bail for two months as prosecutors pursued "communicating terrorist threat" charges. Justin Carter, a teen who made some unfortunate remarks during the course of some perfectly normal video game smack-talking, was arrested on March 27th and is still in jail.
For this transgression, Carter was not just investigated, but arrested. He's been in jail for months now, held on $500,000 bail. His attorney says he's been beaten several times and placed on suicide watch; suicide watch, in case you didn't know, translates to "placed naked in solitary confinement."D'Ambrosio's "threat" was non-specific and more centered on bragging about his impending rap fame. The inclusion of the Boston Bombing and the White House into his boasting caught the attention of local law enforcement. Carter's smack talking mentioned shooting up a kindergarten, ending with indications he was joking. In both cases, there was context surrounding the comments and neither "threat" was targeted at any specific person or group of people.
Contrast these two cases with one involving a District of Columbia police officer.
D.C. Police Officer Christopher Picciano, "a 17-year veteran who was a member of the elite presidential motorcade detail," will be suspended without pay for a little over a month after joking about killing the first lady, threatening to go on a shooting spree, and calling Pres. Obama a communist.No jail time. No terrorism charges. No trip to solitary confinement. No being held without bail. Here's a cop, who lives and works in DC, including working in close proximity with the president, who stated specifically he'd "wanted to kill" Michelle Obama, and yet, he walks away almost unscathed.
The lack of overzealous prosecutors is also conspicuous in its absence.
According to the Washington Post, the U.S. attorney's office declined to press charges against Picciano because it "agree[d] with the Secret Service that Picciano was not serious with his comment about Michelle Obama." Picciano also "wrote on Facebook about taking a rifle to a tall building," after the D.C. Council voted to trim pension benefits for the MPD. That wasn't serious either, apparently.The prosecutors "agreed with the Secret Service." That's rather cozy. Too bad no prosecutors went looking for anything other than having their biases confirmed when dealing with Carter and D'Ambrosio. In both teens' cases, their homes, belongings and computers were searched but investigators were unable to find anything more damning than the posts in questions. No weapons. No evidence of any intent to carry out these "threats." No background suggesting these threats should be taken seriously. And yet, both teens were incarcerated. Justin Carter is still in jail.
That's the process for everyday Americans, especially injudicious teens. Here's the flip side of the double standard.
Picciano joked about killing the first lady and going on a Charles Whitman-esque shooting spree, yet remains free and employed in a job that allows him to carry a gun; Carter, a 19-year-old who doesn't own a gun, joked about shooting up a school, and is being kept naked in solitary confinement as a result.As Riggs points out, law enforcement members are given a benefit of doubt that's rarely extended to the general public. This low level cronyism further drives a wedge between citizens and so-called "public servants" who shield each other from the repercussions of their words and actions. Law enforcement members have defended themselves by stating they need to "take every threat seriously." Obviously, that's nothing more than self-serving bullshit used to justify the overzealous prosecution of a few mouthy teens.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cameron d'ambrosio, christopher picciano, justin carter, law enforcement, overcriminalization, terroristic threats
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
In any case, the double standards are not exclusive of the US. Law enforcement is seen as a threat in a level similar to the real criminals in quite a few places around the world (and I am including my home country in that mix). I think every human being have a little tyrant inside them. Give them enough power and that tyrant will come out in an awfully large chunk of the population. Look no farther than the workplace where people with very little authority over others incur in psychological harassment. The ultimate issue in the US for instance is that the authority goes unchecked because the Govt itself has become some psychopathic megalomaniac itself with the aid of the corporations money. Again, it's happening everywhere, the US is just the most visible example because they bragged about being the land of the free...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No possibly about it. We are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Sooner or later the regular american will be no more than a slave with a paycheck. You work, they pay you for it but in return you have to shut up and do what they say...
I sure don't want to visit the US. They might look at me at the airport and decide i'm a terrorist threat because I have a beard or something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its all about the D.A.
These people look for an easy case, something to further their career, prosecuting a kid, is often the easiest way, its sick and demented, but its true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Its all about the D.A.
The cop is a better example than the kid if you want to show that this type of behavior is unacceptable.
However the DA would get a lot of flack if they put a decorated cop of 17 years behind bars compared to some kid no one has heard of or cares about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Its all about the D.A.
It's all in what sort of "example" you want to make, really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A bit complex
He appears to have strong political views that are have no real basis in reality, such as believing the POTUS is a communist. Even idiots should be protected by the 1st Amendment.
The big issue here is that the officer had means to actually attempt a crime, while the teens were obviously just joking. It's sad that no one in the justice system has been able to summon any common sense about those kids.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's cuz they are cops.. They are above the law. Especially stupid laws. Things like an anti-joking law are really only used to punish people they don't like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DUMBASS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Darnell Barnstromer on Jul 10th, 2013 @ 7:50am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I see no way where none of the above incidents would evoke "terror" of any kind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well said
When I hear terrorism, I think of an extended campaign designed to inspire fear in a group, not random acts of violence. Terrorism in legal speak, has become any action that scares people.
Mugging, robbery, rape, assault, verbal and non-verbal threats, any and all violent crime is now terrorism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well said
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Remember kids, if you want to break the law become a cop first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is one more difference...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Equal protection, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Equal protection, etc.
Neither should have been punished, but only the teen actually was. Losing your job because you pissed off you employer is not the same as being punished by a court of law.
Are you seriously arguing that there really should be a different set of effective laws for police vs ordinary citizens?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Equal protection, etc.
First off, yes -- the article is very biased. It's biased because I believe the teen has had the system thrown against him for a comment that was ugly, but still clearly innocuous when context is considered. The officer meanwhile works in close proximity to the party he DIRECTLY threatened and had both the weapons and the access to carry it out. One is in solitary confinement with bail set at $500,000. The other is a free man facing 40 days suspension. It's not just my article that's biased.
The facts are in the post and what's not in there is available by following the links. If you'd like to point out where the facts don't agree with what I've written, feel free.
Making a remark online is a bit different from making one to an individual, as out of line as it was, and both received punishment
This demands an explanation. As you've written it, it seems to indicate an online threat should receive more scrutiny and more punishment than a threat spoken to another person. I'm curious as to why you feel that way. The teen's post was a response to another person, not unlike a conversation. If you believe the method of delivery adds to the perceived "seriousness" of the threat, I'd be very interested in hearing an explanation of this rationale.
Perhaps had the teen had 17 years of law enforcement to mitigate his comments, he would have received equal treatment.
Perhaps. Or perhaps if the teen didn't have a criminal record or possess anything, either in his personal effects or online, that indicated this threat was serious or he had the ability, much less the potential to carry it out, it might mitigate his comments. But it didn't.
Or maybe if the teen's other words and actions indicated some sort of mindset or pattern, the authorities might have let him off as easily as they did this officer.
From the Washington Post article:
"A District police officer accused of threatening Michelle Obama has been cleared of administrative charges related to the first lady but was found guilty of posting a derogatory job description on social media and depicting the president as a communist, his attorney said Monday."
Oh, so the cop posts stuff "online" as well... hmmm.
"But during the investigation, detectives found troubling though unrelated postings on the officer’s LinkedIn and Facebook accounts."
Wow, he's all over the internet. Remind me again about how posting stuff online differs from in-person comments?
"Angry with the D.C. Council over a vote to curtail pension benefits, Picciano wrote on Facebook about taking a rifle to a tall building."
Christ. Again with the Facebook.
Ball's in your court. Perhaps you can find me some damning quotes from Justin Carter to justify his treatment. You can have your "mitigation." I'll keep my "bias."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Equal protection, etc.
Well played, sir. Have an insightful!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I've heard people call NFL players "thugs in uniforms". I always ask: what does that makes the police?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sounds like
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
American Just-Us
" "If you're looking for justice, that's just what you'll find -- just us." - Richard Pryor
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Starts with the clap!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Starts with the slow clap!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1) IANAL, but my impression is that political speech gets more protection than non-political speech. The cop's statements were political, while the teenager's statements weren't.
2) Perhaps the Obama administration exerted pressure to stop prosecution, because it didn't want to be perceived as thin-skinned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nor I, but it seems to me, had the kid made the statement that the cop did, it wouldn't be a political statement but rather a terrorist death threat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
if only someone played lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]