AK: Palin stalkers sentenced

[seamusTX]

Two Pennsylvania men, father and son, were sentenced in Anchorage yesterday to probation and monitoring. They had pled guilty to harassing Sarah Palin's attorneys.

The two men started calling Sarah Palin's house and her parents several years ago. The harassment apparently included threats of death, injury, and sexual assault. They included e-mailing a copy of a receipt for buying a firearm and the younger man traveling to Alaska on Sarah Palin's birthday in 2011.

The Palins got a restraining order, which turned the men's wrath against the lawyer. The defendants called the lawyers' offices hundreds of times a day, as often as 25 times an hour.

After being sentenced to confinement in a halfway house, the younger defendant (who has a misspelled name—presumably not his own fault—and a terrific case of acne), called the sentence "ridiculous."

Also notice he is wearing a hoodie.


http://www.frontiersman.com/news/palin- ... f887a.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This bizarre story was not on my radar. I can't get to the bottom of it. It seems like a classic case of celebrity stalking for no political reason. However, it is unusual (bizarre, actually) for an adult father and son to be involved in something like this. Stalkers almost always are loners.

- Jim

[WildBill]

After being sentenced to confinement in a halfway house, the younger defendant (who has a misspelled name—presumably not his own fault—and a terrific case of acne), called the sentence "ridiculous."

Not the best thing to say to a judge, but I guess stupidity runs in the family.

Judge Timothy Burgess ordered the two men sent to out-of-state federal prisons for psychiatric evaluations.

Good call, your Honor.

[seamusTX]

The sentence was ridiculous, but not for the reason that the defendant thought it was. He might benefit from a few months in a cell with Spike or Loco, learning about life in the real world with real tough guys.

Then again, he might be a slow learner.

- Jim

[sjfcontrol]

Harassing a politico is one thing, but harassing an attorney? Not a good idea!

Two 'people' you don't want to get angry -- The IRS, and an attorney. (And I suppose, "The Hulk")

[WildBill]

Harassing a politico is one thing, but harassing an attorney? Not a good idea!

Two 'people' you don't want to get angry -- The IRS, and an attorney. (And I suppose, "The Hulk")

What about an IRS attorney?

[sjfcontrol]

Harassing a politico is one thing, but harassing an attorney? Not a good idea!

Two 'people' you don't want to get angry -- The IRS, and an attorney. (And I suppose, "The Hulk")

What about an IRS attorney?

Or, worse yet, an IRS attorney that is accidentally exposed to the blast of a test detonation of a gamma bomb! Woah Nellie!

[The Annoyed Man]

Harassing a politico is one thing, but harassing an attorney? Not a good idea!

I don't even think that harrassing a politico is morally justifiable beyond a certain point, at least not within the context of a more-or-less functioning democracy. Send all the emails, witten letters, and hateful voicemails to their offices all day long, if that's what floats your boat, but their private property and private lives are off limits, and so are their off-hours. You take your hatred of my to my home, and now you're a threat to me and my family, and that's about when you and I are fixin' to go 'round and 'round. Yes, even elected officials have a right and reasonable expectation of some privacy. When I elect a representative, senator, or president, that give me no more right of access to that person's private life than an employer has of accessing an employee's private life. There are limitations to these things, and when people with no sense of proper boundaries or a functioning moral compass violate them, then there ought to be consequences, just as for any common stalker.

[WildBill]

Harassing a politico is one thing, but harassing an attorney? Not a good idea!

I don't even think that harrassing a politico is morally justifiable beyond a certain point ...

I don't think that sjfcontrol was suggesting otherwise.

[sjfcontrol]

Harassing a politico is one thing, but harassing an attorney? Not a good idea!

I don't even think that harrassing a politico is morally justifiable beyond a certain point, at least not within the context of a more-or-less functioning democracy. Send all the emails, witten letters, and hateful voicemails to their offices all day long, if that's what floats your boat, but their private property and private lives are off limits, and so are their off-hours. You take your hatred of my to my home, and now you're a threat to me and my family, and that's about when you and I are fixin' to go 'round and 'round. Yes, even elected officials have a right and reasonable expectation of some privacy. When I elect a representative, senator, or president, that give me no more right of access to that person's private life than an employer has of accessing an employee's private life. There are limitations to these things, and when people with no sense of proper boundaries or a functioning moral compass violate them, then there ought to be consequences, just as for any common stalker.

Chill-out TAM -- I was just hav'n some fun. Besides, if you can't harass a politico, who CAN you harass?

[seamusTX]

I don't even think that harrassing a politico is morally justifiable ...

This statement is sufficient.

Office-holders are rarely elected by more than 55 or 60% of voters. They sometimes have 90% disapproval rates on specific issues.

You have the right to voice your opinion loudly and in no uncertain terms. You don't have the right to threaten or call someone hundreds of times a day, which is tantamount to electronic vandalism.

These people in Pennsylvania weren't even constituents of Sarah Palin when she was governor of Alaska, and they were harassing her family and lawyers long after her candidacy for vice president was over.

BTW, I was once the target of repeated hang-up calls. The person literally called, hung up, and redialed hundreds of times a day. It stopped when I got the police to investigate it, and before they could set up my line for tracing (this was in the 1980s, before we had caller ID). I never did figure out who was doing it, but some of my neighbors were flaky.

- Jim

[57Coastie]

Harassing a politico is one thing, but harassing an attorney? Not a good idea!

Two 'people' you don't want to get angry -- The IRS, and an attorney. (And I suppose, "The Hulk")

What about an IRS attorney?

You mean like Michele Bachmann, WildBill?

Jim

[The Annoyed Man]

In my book, any convicted stalker is by definition both crazy and dangerous. In addition to whatever criminal sentences they may merit (and whether nor not they merit any at all is arguable, if they are truly insane), they need to be confined for extended psychiatric evaluation and treatment, and then released into mandatory outpatient psychiatric care until such time as they are professionally adjudicated to no longer be a threat. Does "stalking" even exist as a diagnosis in the DSM? Maybe it should.

[seamusTX]

The legal definition of insanity is unable to understand that one's actions are wrong or to participate in one's own defense. This is actually a difficult defense and rarely achieved. Jeffrey Dahmer, who kidnapped, raped, killed, and ate people and kept body parts in his refrigerator, was not considered insane by this standard.

TAM, you may have seen psychotics brought into the emergency room who thought they were being followed by aliens or had the FBI or CIA beaming thoughts into their brains, and who did things like bite themselves or try to scratch non-existent bugs out from under their skin. That's about how crazy someone needs to be to be legally insane.

Stalkers probably fit into a diagnosis of obsessive-compulsive. I dunno. I'm not a psychiatrist and didn't sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

They're not all dangerous. Most of them are just annoying to the object of their obsession, like that woman who thought she was David Letterman's wife.

Here's an interesting document: http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbNa ... ntID=32456" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

- Jim

[The Annoyed Man]

Jim, you're right.....they're not ALL dangerous. The problem is, how do you know which one is, and which one isn't.......until after they've actually harmed or killed someone? Plus, living in fear of your stalker equates to harm in my book. It doesn't matter if you're a rich Hollywood star or a struggling single mother in the ghetto....your quality of life is diminished by the person who is stalking you. That is harm. In the end, it is irrelevant if there is a psychiatric diagnosis for this or not. At its mildest, someone else's neurotic (or psychotic) compulsion is harming someone who does not deserve it and criminal charges and a psychiatric evaluation are called for. At the very worst, the stalker is nuttier than a Mars Bar and actually kills their stalking victim. Can society actually afford to treat stalking like it's an essentially low order victimless crime?

I don't know. I know what I think. What I do know is that I am very tired of people on the left who think that any behavior is permissible to them as long as the targets of their behavior are conservatives......behavior which they would be absolutely aghast at if it were used against themselves.

Maybe that is the medicine that will make conservatives out of them.

[seamusTX]

Stalking is a crime in every state now, and it can be prosecuted federally as in this case when it crosses state lines.

I agree that the object of stalking is an actual victim, just as if the stalker threw a rock at the victim or tried to burn down her house. As that article states, initial stalking laws 20 or so years ago were too broad to pass constitutional muster. Now the stalker has to intentionally commit acts that a reasonable person would find harassing or threatening.

There is no evidence that this case had any political aspect. Stalkers and kooks like John Hinckley Jr and Lee Harvey Oswald are attracted to people who are famous and somewhat charismatic. That probably was the case here.

Far more stalkers are attracted to movie stars and celebrities such as women tennis players or figure skaters, which probably are as apolitical as you can get.

- Jim