From what I know that I have read.

1. She made the comment about the "vision".
2. Stated in a couple of posts and reiterate that she supported and agreed with several mass shooters decisions and actions.
3. Stated she wanted to buy an AR-15.
4. Stated that "2019 has a lot in store if her plans go according!" (SIC).

One thing I take away from the story of the Boy That Cried "Wolf", is that the wolf showed up.


I would rather deal with things and accept that crazy people gonna do crazy things, "let freedom ring" and all that jazz. I can live life with the risk of live and let live, but I cannot expect that other people will accept the same.

So, I have no trouble with 5-0 hauling her stripper ass in and putting this on paper.

Where is the line between prior restraint and yelling "fire" in a crowded theater?

Permissible prior restraint on free speech usually requires some overt act toward an "immediate act of lawless violence."

There was no immediacy in what she stated from what I saw so far.

Responsibility for completed acts such as yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is not a violation of one's free speech rights. The harm, alarm, panic and break down of public order is complete upon utterance because of the way normal humans react.

However, the above statement is oversimplified because reaction to offensive speech is not the measure of constitutional limits. Just think of the KKK cases and the heckler's veto.

While free speech is certainly being attacked nowadays, it well may be that the statements in question do warrant criminal action. They involve more than offensiveness, but violence and a state of mind. Eugene Debs and anarchists had our earlier generations struggle with free speech in their time too.

In our modern environment, commenting as stripper did could be seen as a completed act of instilling specific public alarm to a general audience.

I don't know if the statute has been tested as an unconstitutional abridgement of free speech yet. But, our modern forms of communication are making wider and quicker communication possible.

The question is whether the statute under which she is charged is narrowly tailored enough to pass constitutional muster.

As a practical matter, a lot of mass shooters gave up their plans on social media beforehand. So, we can't ignore that truth as a society.

Normally, psychologists only give up their clients if there is a threat to someone specific.

These general cases are tougher. Where is the line between two friends arguing or even joking while yelling, "I'll kill you!" and the ones who really mean it?

The lines are not easy but there is apt to be tolerance for holding one accountable for social media statements given the desire to stop crazies from committing mass crazy.

How many mass shootings have been committed by women?

Not saying it couldn't happen, of course, but I'd bet the likelihood is less than minimal.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:
How many mass shootings have been committed by women?

Not saying it couldn't happen, of course, but I'd bet the likelihood is less than minimal.

4 last year? San Bernardino had 14 dead and 22 seriously wounded. It was probably more than a minimal problem to them.

Fill in the blank, "_________________, where the men are men and the women are too."

More women seem to be taking on other gender traits nowadays.

Besides, making a statute aim at a single gender (whatever that may mean in today's world) would not pass equal protection muster under the constitution.

So, I'm not sure, if you are referring to my post, what gender has to do with a statute aimed at anybody's act(s).

She stepped over the line. I have no issue with her being arrested and investigated.

Let the judge/court rule.

Unless one believes the "rule of law" is no longer appropriate and fears tyranny is the prevalent condition, and if so, better get your fucking guns out and go condition one.

I wonder how many folks here would be calling for heads to roll, if the bitch shot up some venue this week, because no one did nuffin'...

There is a fine line between order and anarchy.

quote:

Originally posted by Tubetone:
So, I'm not sure, if you are referring to my post, what gender has to do with a statute aimed at anybody's act(s).

No, not your post. I was just thinking that these shooters always seem to be crazy males and that women seem to be far less inclined to commit that level of brutality. Are there exceptions? Certainly. But, I'm thinking that this wasn't much of a real threat to begin with, coupled with the fact that women have a low likelihood of committing these acts, it seems to me that an arrest for a felony is a bit overblown.

But, it's easy for me to say sitting safe and sound in my easy chair 3000 miles away.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:
But, it's easy for me to say sitting safe and sound in my easy chair 3000 miles away.

That's the problem we all have about these things if we don't live within the "zone of danger" such a person creates.

The kid in Florida posted things and was known to the police, had acted out over a long period of time and his community was the one in danger.

The coddling school and police political philosophers let it go.

Afterwards, many said, "Yea, it was only a matter of time for that one." They weren't surprised at all.

Crafting ways to intervene is not easy in a free society.

The easy solution is for people to stop posting desires to do mass harm.

But, where people make such statements, it causes alarm and may cause law-abiding citizens to change their lives to avoid potential harm.

Assault is a crime because in a free society average people are not supposed to cringe or experience a fear of an immediately impending battery.

If social media statements make a community cringe from what sounds like an immediately impending shooting/explosion in public places ( ie: "2019") maybe communities should have uniform rules to intervene.

The ones closest live the impact of such statements more than remote observers.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by steve495:
More. Still no specifics about what she actually wrote.

quote:

Lakeland Police Officer Colton Thompson said in an arrest affidavit that he made contact with Brien Basarich, 31, at her home on Wednesday. During Thompson's interview with Basarich, he said she confirmed that a number of posts made to Tumblr, an online blogging site, under the username "taking-lives" were hers.

In those posts, Basarich reportedly stated that she had homicidal urges and that she planned to purchase an AR-15 "soonish." She also reportedly described having a "vision" of a bar or club with one way in and one way out, and that 2019 had a lot in store if her plans went smoothly.

When the officer asked why she'd made the posts, she described herself as a great admirer of serial killers and mass murderers.

Basarich was arrested and transported to the Polk County Jail. She was charged with making a written threat to kill or injure.

I simply was operating with whatever information I was able to find so far in making my initial post. If more comes out that clarifies what she actually wrote and that she did threaten someone specific, I'll add that to the thread.

The Lakeland PD info you posted just confirms my initial suspicion that this woman suffers from severe mental illness. But does that make her a threat such that she should have been 'arrested'?

She ABSOLOUTELY should have been arrested. Cops are not doctors and neither are you. She may have some sort of mental illness but that does not necessarily mean she is not criminally responsible for her actions. Mental illnesses are medically diagnosed conditions and only very specific conditions make some one legally incompetent to to answer for criminal charges. Those are determinations for Psychiatrists and the court.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:
Polk County stripper arrested after threatening mass shooting

Please read the story before posting comments. My question is simple...How is it legal to arrest this woman?

- She did not threaten violence on anyone in specific.
- She does not own a semi-automatic rifle (per another article I read).

I could see maybe hauling her in and Baker Act(ing) her so she could be psychologically evaluated, which would insure NICS was updated and prevented her from buying any firearms in the future. But arresting her? LEO's and attorney's help me understand how/why this is legal.

***Note***
Make no mistake, this woman did something that was stupid on steroids, and I am not defending her behavior, I;m just posing a legal question as to how LE handled her.

Cause if she hadn't, and then committed the act, some idiot on the internet would have posted a bunch of bullshit about how "someone should have done something" and about "insert racial/ideological/religious/otherbullshit supremacy, or some other silly shit."

On a more serious note, lighten up.

There are tons of reasons for this.

Let me tell a story from my work to try to prove a point.

It was "Black Friday" 3 years ago. I'm working afternoon shift and starting my day at the crack of 1300 hours, and hoping all hope that everyone would get tired and go home and stay in separate rooms, while not drinking alcohol, and not talking to each other, and the out of town family is at the airport so no one will call us...

But alas.... It was not to be.

So the "customer"... Let's call him Tom... Enters a nationwide big box electronics retail store. Let's call that store "Worst Purchase." Let's also imagine "Worst Purchase" has a tech support center that mocks socially awkward people with computer skills... a so called "Nerd Herd" if you will.... (ok, i'll just use code words from here on out as I'd hope you all get this by now)

So Tom enters Worst Purchase with his laptop bag and goes to their Nerd Herd. As Tom walks into the store, he passes the security people up front and states "Those nerds better know what they are doing, or a bunch of people are going to get hurt."

Now, that is by itself a "curious" statement, I'd even call it weird. SOME would call it "alarming."

Tom, upon approaching the nerds... tells them he is having problems connecting to wifi in various places, including hotels during his travels... Tom states that he wants it fixed no matter what, and it better be, "or else..."

Tom then asks for a manager of the "nerd herd" and gets to speak to one.

Tom states "That computer better be right or he will be very upset, and they better not "screw him" on the fee."

Tom then wanders around the store shopping while the nerds look at his computer. During his walkthough Tom stops another Worst Purchase employee and tells him "If you see me walking out of here angry, you better run out right behind me."

*This employee also contacts management along with the others because Tom is weird.

Tom get's his computer back, and does not have the time, patience, or whatever it is to test it. Tom decides to leave the store.

*(Due to Tom being weird, Worst Purchase has already called me and I am about 3 min away at this point.)

Tom, with his computer, walks to the front doors, to the security guys, and tells them "I better be happy with this computer, I put a bomb in your (car audio) install bay. If this computer doesn't work.... you all better run away as fast as me."

Tom then proceeds to hang out in the parking lot/front area of the store by the doors.

The store of course, having to err on the side of caution, has to evacuate. On Black Friday, the busiest shopping day where stores like this one are packed to capacity... has to evacuate...

So "Tom" has not only disrupted commerce.... He has terrified civilians, including children. He has taken up the time of the Police, Fire Department, EMS (all of which could have been answering actual calls as opposes to bullshit) and then taken up the time of a bomb dog, arson dog....

So putting little Miss Takesitoff under the microscope... She's an idiot and should face the punishment. You simply cannot ASSUME a threat is false, despite how idiotic if may seem. She ran her mouth, let her deal with the consequences... Somehow, i doubt it is a first time experience of hers.



Oh yeah.... "Tom" went to jail for the charge of "Making Terrorist Threats" which is a Class D Felony here. He admitted it all in an interview and his excuse was "I thought it was funny." $30,000 bond. Missed Thanksgiving and Christmas. It was really stupid on his part. I hope he learned something.

I agree.... It is stupid to threaten anyone and doubly stupid to put it in writing (paper or electronic).... and should be against the law. Who's to know if someone has a gun or a bomb or some other weapon until after the fact. Hell, one of the biggest terrorist attacks in this country got very little news coverage because it was done with a car....

And lest we not forget......all the evidence is never put in a press release and the media strives to get the facts wrong.

quote:

When the officer asked why she'd made the posts, she described herself as a great admirer of serial killers and mass murderers.

Make this reason #1001 why I hate the media. In the ALICE instructor course they never even mention the names of these lowlifes when talking about the incidents, instead we learned the names and all about the heroes (including a 6yo boy) who have saved lives in these events.

I'm fine with her getting hooked up for that. As far as threats go, given the subject matter, it was pretty specific. Going to do a mass shooting, planning to get an AR, bar, soon, admires mass murderers.

It isn't like she said "I hate people and wish a bunch would die" or other equally vague statement.

It was also mentioned she didn't even have a gun. Thankfully, there is a movement to stop calling these incidents "mass shootings" or "active shooter" events and call them "violent critical incidents." This is because many times guns are not used (vehicles, knives, bombs), or used in conjunction with other devices. Further, if the scumbag is intercepted before they kill 3 or more people, it doesn't even hit the stats at all even though it would be the best type of incident to study as a "mass-shooting", i.e. one that was successfully stopped!

Her act was a Felony under the law in the state she resides. I spent 13 years as a Crisis Intervention officer. If there was an arrestable offense AND an emergency commitment we almost always went with the criminal offense. With an emergency commitment the mental consumer goes before a screener, who is often a social worker rather than a phd, and if they know what to say will often beat the officer home that night with a referral to a voluntary counseling service. If you charge the criminal offense they committed, even if you know it will be disposed of before trial, that consumer will at least be brought before a judge who can legally compel them to seek treatment as part of any agreement regarding the disposition of charges.


Any law enforcement agency that wouldn't make a physical arrest of a person making public threats to commit a mass shooting would be placing itself in a VERY dangerous position in today's society. The fact that the individual doesn't currently possess a weapon with which to carry out the attack is irrelevant. If you don't take that threat seriously and that person obtains the means to carry out that attack (and it doesn't need to be a firearm) your agency is now on the hook both civilly and in the court of public opinion.

If I were a police administrator I'd MUCH rather have people complaining about my people detaining a person for "just making threats" than complaining about "They didn't do anything and now twenty people were killed."

Those mental health holds are not the magic bullet people seem to think they are. In this case, our state would not have let us take her into custody based on the information in that article (see JLJ's post above). Even if so, that's (supposed to be) a 72-hour observation period where I've NEVER seen a person with a serious mental illness receive effective treatment. Never. They are always right back endangering others as soon as they hit the street.

I understand that people are worried about government overreach.

Reading about this and trying to analyze her intent and capability like we are armchair lawyers has some entertainment value, I get that too.

How many would change their opinion if instead of reading about her here, she actually lived down the street from your kids school, or the mall your wife or daughter goes to often? Would that move the line a bit for you?

The police and courts don't have a magic wand to tell if she is for real or not. Obviously these are not the statements of a rational person that had good impulse control. She lives in a state where she could walk into a store with last night's garter cash or a credit card, and walk out fully equipped to do the damage she spoke about.

None of us want to see serious restrictions on our ability to buy and possess firearms. I'm old enough to remember when a few high profile shootings, close together, set gun rights back for decades. I would be more upset if they didn't take some action against this person.

quote:

Originally posted by 220-9er:
I understand that people are worried about government overreach.

Reading about this and trying to analyze her intent and capability like we are armchair lawyers has some entertainment value, I get that too.

How many would change their opinion if instead of reading about her here, she actually lived down the street from your kids school, or the mall your wife or daughter goes to often? Would that move the line a bit for you?

The police and courts don't have a magic wand to tell if she is for real or not. Obviously these are not the statements of a rational person that had good impulse control. She lives in a state where she could walk into a store with last night's garter cash or a credit card, and walk out fully equipped to do the damage she spoke about.

None of us want to see serious restrictions on our ability to buy and possess firearms. I'm old enough to remember when a few high profile shootings, close together, set gun rights back for decades. I would be more upset if they didn't take some action against this person.

Bingo.

quote:

Originally posted by 220-9er:
I understand that people are worried about government overreach.

Reading about this and trying to analyze her intent and capability like we are armchair lawyers has some entertainment value, I get that too.

How many would change their opinion if instead of reading about her here, she actually lived down the street from your kids school, or the mall your wife or daughter goes to often? Would that move the line a bit for you?

The police and courts don't have a magic wand to tell if she is for real or not. Obviously these are not the statements of a rational person that had good impulse control. She lives in a state where she could walk into a store with last night's garter cash or a credit card, and walk out fully equipped to do the damage she spoke about.

None of us want to see serious restrictions on our ability to buy and possess firearms. I'm old enough to remember when a few high profile shootings, close together, set gun rights back for decades. I would be more upset if they didn't take some action against this person.

A couple responses to your comments. This woman was arrested in Polk county which is not that far from where I live. So this is somewhat in my backyard. Two, I never argued that some action should not flow her way. I simply questioned if this really rose to the level of charging her with a second degree felony. Remember, other than posting some incredibly stupid comments online, she did absolutely nothing to hurt anyone.

I still feel she 'should' have to deal with some recourse for her behavior, but feel a second degree felony arrest is over the top given the circumstances of this particular case.

Bigdeal, as you note, she was arrested on a felony charge. That does not mean that she will be convicted on a felony charge. The arresting officers had enough, given her statements to hit the primary elements of FL Stat. 836.10, which I will quote below. That doesn't mean that she will be convicted or those offenses, but she hits the highpoints, so the arrest is valid under the statute. Note that she was let go on $5k bond. That probably means that the powers that be regard this as more of an idiot move than a true threat.

quote:

836.10 Written threats to kill, do bodily injury, or conduct a mass shooting or an act of terrorism; punishment; exemption from liability.—
(1) Any person who writes or composes and also sends or procures the sending of any letter, inscribed communication, or electronic communication, whether such letter or communication be signed or anonymous, to any person, containing a threat to kill or to do bodily injury to the person to whom such letter or communication is sent, or a threat to kill or do bodily injury to any member of the family of the person to whom such letter or communication is sent, or any person who makes, posts, or transmits a threat in a writing or other record, including an electronic record, to conduct a mass shooting or an act of terrorism, in any manner that would allow another person to view the threat, commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

Can they perhaps use this as a "big stick" to force her to get some help in exchange for reducing the charges to a misdemeanor?

quote:

Originally posted by RichN:
Can they perhaps use this as a "big stick" to force her to get some help in exchange for reducing the charges to a misdemeanor?

I think that was what Artie was alluding to, so that's probably where this is headed.