Woman arrested for threatening police officers on Facebook

Reba said:
I doubt that she would even be a friend of my Friends.

The people on my Friends list are actually friends and family, not acquaintances.
Click to expand...

All I am saying is that a random person you don't know could post something, and it could show up on your feed. You might be able to control who is on your FB account, but you cannot control who is on your friends FB account. And if a friend or acquaintance of yours shares something, it can end up on your feed.

I think it is admirable you wouldn't have a racist on your FB list, that would spout off that killing cops is OK - because for the most part, no one would want to be associated with someone like that. I know I wouldn't.
 
Free speech lawyer examines woman's call for cop-killing

EAST POINT, GA (CBS46) -
Ebony Dickens is accused of advocating the death of all white police officers after posting a threatening message on Facebook.

The first line of Dickens' post on Facebook reads, "Black people should rise up and shoot every white cop in the nation starting now."

Once she was arrested, Dickens claimed she didn't mean for anyone to kill in real life. Dickens' daughter defended her, telling our cameras her mother was just venting.

Dickens seemed to think she was protected by the first amendment, including a reference to it in her post, but police disagree. CBS46 went to an expert to get his take on the subject.

"I just think that the law itself is not geared for something like this," said Attorney Alan Begner.

Begner has a record of success defending clients in cases involving constitutional rights. He said he's not sold on this being an open-and-shut case against Dickens, but there's at least one glaring issue.

"If the post said, 'kill all police officers who are white,' it probably is not actionable, but it says 'now,'" said Begner.

He said because Dickens gives a specific time when she is telling people to kill police, added to her other remarks about "plotting" to do this herself, he thinks that part makes it especially difficult to defend her in this case. But he added that it's not impossible.

East Point police mentioned that they thought Dickens' threats were credible because she had a gun in her apartment. Begner said he did not think her ownership of a firearm was relevant.

Begner said he thinks it's possible to argue in Dickens' defense with her written Facebook statement as-is, but it would be a lot easier if she had been more vague when she was making those remarks.

"A sort of generalized observation is probably not terroristic threats," said Begner.

In his evaluation of the case, we never asked Begner if he thought Dickens' statements were right or wrong, but only whether they are covered by the first amendment.

He said he is interested in hearing the decision that a Fulton County judge or jury makes if this continues all the way to trial.

http://www.foxcarolina.com/story/28...amines-east-point-womans-call-for-cop-killing
 
I think she will beat it.
If not
A slap on the wrist, probation,community service.
Doubt she will get any time...
 
murky for sure but definitely could set a precedent. Having a gun in her house isn't really helping her case either I think.

The internet and cyber related technology has been around for at least 20 years and the law is still lagging behind sadly.
 
rockin'robin said:
Dunno...she does have a gun in her apartment...:hmm:
Click to expand...
Whifh was legal.
Thr gun wont be brought up in the court if it gets to trial, besides an ezcuse.the police used to Bsck up her arrest.
she wont do time for this...
Mark my signs
 
hoichi said:
Whifh was legal.
Thr gun wont be brought up in the court if it gets to trial, besides an ezcuse.the police used to Bsck up her arrest.
she wont do time for this...
Mark my signs
Click to expand...

Well, I'd like to see at least 6 months in jail and a hefty fine...suppose someone threatened to kill you?...Don't feel you'd take it lightly if they also had a gun or had a beef with you. It's a deadly threat, even tho' she didn't act upon it....And not allowing her to ever have a gun registered in her name.

Feel she'll be admitted to a mental hospital for awhile also.
 
rockin'robin said:
Well, I'd like to see at least 6 months in jail and a hefty fine...suppose someone threatened to kill you?...Don't feel you'd take it lightly if they also had a gun or had a beef with you. It's a deadly threat, even tho' she didn't act upon it....And not allowing her to ever have a gun registered in her name.

Feel she'll be admitted to a mental hospital for awhile also.
Click to expand...

I doubt she will be commited to to a mental institution. Shes prob slresdy on meds like the vsst majority of the population Anyway.
I see it plsying out like this.
She makes a deal, cuts s plea. No time, peobation, nger managment, losEs her Gun permit or rights. and community sevice. since s co,puter was used in the commision of the crime as in threat i can see the loss of co,puter use also in ber conditions.
It also has to do with ehats on her record if anytbing else.
Its not sbout what i think she deserves or even you.
The system is a game. Period.
Both for rhe da, and for Defence.
Its a game
The above is how i see it playing
 
Some people apparently think that freedom of speech means they get to say what they want without any repercussions. You get to say what you want (within limits), but no where does it say you have protection against what you said.
 
Woman accused of making threatening Facebook post says arrest was an injustice

ATLANTA —
The mother arrested for posting threatening messages on Facebook about killing white police officers has bonded out of jail Thursday.

Ebony Dickens, 33, arrived home after bonding out of jail after she was arrested Tuesday when police say she posted the threatening messages.

Dickens claims her arrest was an injustice, but she refused to comment.

"Why are you interested in my life?" Dickens said to a reporter. "I don't want to talk to you, it’s really simple, that’s all."

Dickens was arrested Tuesday and charged with making terroristic threats. A judge banned her from social media and gave her a $10,000 bond.

Police said Wednesday they would try to get charges upgraded to a felony, because a gun found during a search showed she had the means to carry out the threats.

The reporter later received a text message from Dickens' daughter, who wrote her mom was not trying to be rude she just needs time to take all this in and when she is ready she plans to talk about it.

http://www.actionnewsjax.com/news/n...d-making-threatening-facebook-post-say/nk6yD/
 
Welcome to the new "We, The government", the freedom of "We, The people" have long lost.

This proves our government true interest is protecting their power, and security over "We, the people".

Our Forefathers were right all along. What a shame!
 
200 years ago, one can threat to a cop without causing any harm won't get arrested, while today, it is OK for cop to arrest anyone who do the talking but cause no harm whatsoever.

Discovery a firearm during warrant search does not prove anything regardless. Anyone can have a gun with ZERO intention on harming anyone and speak their anger.

On other hand, cops have their handgun on them, does that necessarily mean that they have the intention to shoot and kill specific people? I don't think so. BTW, that issue was discussed in the movie called "Twelve angry men" using phrase "I will kill you", ended up proved it is pointless after all.

Cops could have better handle them, by give them time see if the suspect would walk up and starting shooting, that is WHEN it becomes serious enough to take that person down.

What corrupted government we live in!
 
diehardbiker said:
200 years ago, one can threat to a cop without causing any harm won't get arrested, while today, it is OK for cop to arrest anyone who do the talking but cause no harm whatsoever.

Discovery a firearm during warrant search does not prove anything regardless. Anyone can have a gun with ZERO intention on harming anyone and speak their anger.

On other hand, cops have their handgun on them, does that necessarily mean that they have the intention to shoot and kill specific people? I don't think so. BTW, that issue was discussed in the movie called "Twelve angry men" using phrase "I will kill you", ended up proved it is pointless after all.

Cops could have better handle them, by give them time see if the suspect would walk up and starting shooting, that is WHEN it becomes serious enough to take that person down.

What corrupted government we live in!
Click to expand...
Can you imagine...if she gets away with 1st amendment, then she kills a white cop one day? Isn't it possible?

For example, your neighbor says that he will kill you. What would you do? Call a cop?
 
Talk is cheap, aren't you aware of?

CrazyPaul said:
Can you imagine...if she gets away with 1st amendment, then she kills a white cop one day? Isn't it possible?

For example, your neighbor says that he will kill you. What would you do? Call a cop?
Click to expand...
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12_Angry_Men_(1957_film)



Juror 8 presents a convincing argument that one of the witnesses, an elderly man who claimed to have heard the boy yell "I'm going to kill you" shortly before the murder took place, could not have heard the voices as clearly as he had testified due to an elevated train passing by at the time; as well as stating that "I'm going to kill you," is often said by people who do not literally mean it. Juror 5 changes his vote to "not guilty". Soon afterward, Juror 11 (George Voskovec) questions whether the defendant would have reasonably fled the scene before cleaning the knife of fingerprints, then come back three hours later to retrieve the knife (which had been left in his father's chest); then changes his vote.Juror 8 then mentions the man's second claim: upon hearing the father's body hit the floor, he had gone to the door of his apartment and seen the defendant running out of the building from his front door in 15 seconds. Jurors 5, 6 and 8 question whether this is true, as the witness in question had had a stroke, limiting his ability to walk. Upon the end of an experiment, the jury finds that the witness would not have made it to the door in enough time to actually see the killer running out. Juror 8 concludes that, judging from what he claims to have heard earlier, the witness must have merely assumed it was the defendant running. Juror 3, growing more irritated throughout the process, explodes in a rant: "He's got to burn! He's slipping through our fingers!" Juror 8 takes him to task, calling him a "self-appointed public avenger" and a sadist, saying he wants the defendant to die only because "he personally wants it, not because of the facts". Juror 3 shouts "I'll kill him!" and starts lunging at Juror 8, but is restrained by Jurors 5 and 7. Juror 8 calmly retorts, "You don't really mean you'll kill me, do you?", proving his previous point.[6]
 
diehardbiker said:
Action speaks louder than words.
Click to expand...
Well, it would be too late to call the cops when there's action.

Neighbor: Pointing his gun at you, asking you to remember that he said that he will kill you.

You: I thought you were bluffing. Please don't kill me.

Neighbor: Oh really, you thought I was bluffing? See my gun pointing at you, therefore you thought wrong!

It can happen.
 
"Can", but it does not necessarily mean it will happen.

CrazyPaul said:
Well, it would be too late to call the cops when there's action.

Neighbor: Pointing his gun at you, asking you to remember that he said that he will kill you.

You: I thought you were bluffing. Please don't kill me.

Neighbor: Oh really, you thought I was bluffing? See my gun pointing at you, therefore you thought wrong!

It can happen.
Click to expand...
 
Back
Top