"Let Me Kidnap Your Daughter and See If You Don't Get Angry" = Punishable Threat Against Judge

From People v. Brown, decided today by the Colorado Court of Appeals, in an opinion by Judge James Casebolt, joined by Judge David Furman (over a dissent by Judge Lino Lipinsky):

When does a statement by an irate and angry respondent parent in a dependency and neglect (D&N) case rise to the level of a "credible threat" that may be punished under section 18-8-615, [Colo. Rev. Stat.] 2021, which proscribes retaliation against a judge?

In this case, Adrian Jeremiah Brown appeals the judgment of conviction entered on a jury verdict finding him guilty of violating that provision when, after being told by the D&N judge that he must undergo a domestic violence evaluation or anger management therapy, he stated, "Let me kidnap your daughter and see if you don't get angry. As a matter of fact, where do you live, Your Honor? Let's see if we can get this all resolved. See if you would be angry."

We conclude that this statement, when coupled with other circumstances detailed below, was not constitutionally protected and constitutes a "true threat" under the recent Colorado Supreme Court case of People in Interest of R.D., 2020 CO 44. We thus affirm Brown's conviction….

The opinions are long and detailed, and can be read here.

Comments

[dwshelf]

Seems he was clearly exhibiting anger management issues, contemptuous behavior, and generally being scary, but his statement doesn't seem clear as a "true threat". It seems he was trying to explain to the judge that anyone in his position would be very angry.

In a very inartful way, as they say.

[DWB]

His point was made precisely and succinctly -- the judge didn't like being challenged and used his government power to punish one who was weaker and less connected than him.

A higher court piled on.

[DaivdBehar]

Nothing in this country is lower in morals than these vile judges. They are feminists. They should have recused themselves.

Where was the immediacy requirement? He asked a question. These scumbag judges, vile feminists, totally biased against the male, to plunder his assets must be impeached by the legislature.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Seems he was clearly exhibiting anger management issues..."

He might well have had good reason to be angry.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Clearly not a true threat. Many first amendment cases involving judges reek of "professional courtesy."

[dwshelf]

He might well have had good reason to be angry.

Perhaps, although having a good reason to be angry does not imply that attempts at intimidation should yield acquiescence to his goals.

[TwelveInchPianist]

No, but it makes anger management therapy kind of pointless. What kind to therapy makes it so you don't get pissed off when they take your daughter?

I mean, did the judge even consider not kidnapping other people's children? I'll bet that would go a long way towards having people not get angry at him.

[Michael P]

"What kind to therapy makes it so you don't get pissed off when they take your daughter?"

I'm pretty sure I read about that therapy in "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest".

[Ak Mike]

You misunderstand. Anger management is not to stop you from getting angry, it's to allow you to manage that anger. This guy obviously needed it. If he blurts out threats to a judge in the highly controlled atmosphere of a courtroom, what would he do in a room with just him and his ex who has just insulted him or otherwise provoked him? It doesn't matter whether anger is justified or not, you have to be able to act with restraint.

[Michael P]

These judges sure taught him a valuable lesson about the importance of anger management courses, huh?

[TwelveInchPianist]

" This guy obviously needed it. If he blurts out threats to a judge in the highly controlled atmosphere of a courtroom, what would he do in a room with just him and his ex who has just insulted him or otherwise provoked him?"

The judge took his daughter. I'd say he was controlling his anger very well. Why would you infer from that that he would do anything to an ex who insulted him?

[DaivdBehar]

He was asking a rhetorical question. They took his kids, how would the judge feel if he put in the same situation. The privilege of these low life scumbag judges and their arrogance knows no bounds. Male rights groups, guys with mullets driving 1989 Camaros, actually since 1989, should visit them with peaceful protests, of course.

[Snorkle]

The only interesting thing I see is that the judge is quite clearly sending a fuck-around-and-find-out message, warning others who may appear before that court to steer well-clear of anything even vaguely threatening. One wonders how they treated other cases involving threats.

Depending on how one is wired to see things, this either illustrates the difference between black letter law and the law as practiced, or simply another example of the behavior of those in a position to privilege their own interests.

[Social Justice is neither]

What will be funny is that by letting it be known that importantly letting out one's ire about rulings will only force such people to bite their tongues, seethe on it and grow more likely to act.

[Social Justice is neither]

Importantly should be impotently. Fn autocorrect.

[nobody 2]

That looks much less like a "true threat" than it does like lese majeste.

[Brett Bellmore]

And a true threat is what they call lese majeste when they punish it.

He wasn't being prudent, given the excessive power judges have, but no sensible person would have thought it a true threat.

[Davy C]

As a matter of fact, where do you live, Your Honor?

I mean... does it count as a threat if the guy is pretty much saying he has no idea where the judge even lives and is thus incapable of carrying it out?

But according to the ruling:

This inquiry conveys that Brown was not speaking hyperbolically or hypothetically because of the phrase “as a matter of fact.”

They can't possibly be serious.

his question shows that he had sufficient chutzpah to demand information from the judge about her personal address

Chutzpah? What does that have to do with anything?

[Nisiiko]

This judge is a piece of shit. I hope he gets a tumor

[DaivdBehar]

Watch that. You may get in trouble, with these scumbags.

[Toranth]

This is obviously a true threat, so you can expect this judge to be sending the police in your direction any minute now.

[John Rohan]

His child was taken away from him by court order.

How often does this happen - child is taken away, parent is naturally upset and angry, the court uses that as a pretext to keep the children away even longer, so the parent gets more irate and frustrated, so parental rights are denied further, so on and so on. Rinse and repeat until parent is in prison, the child is no longer a child anymore, and their relationship is totally severed.

It sounds like this guy has real anger management issues, but unless he has actually killed or assaulted others in the past, that doesn't seem like a credible threat.

[F.D. Wolf]

As others have alluded to, judges seem more likely to find comments addressed to other judges are "true threats" than the same or similar comments addressed to others.

I'll flatly state my belief that if this defendant had made the same comment to a police officer taking away his daughter, these same judges would have found them protected by the First Amendment.

[DWB]

When does a statement by an irate and angry respondent parent in a dependency and neglect (D&N) case rise to the level of a "credible threat" that may be punished...

When one of the king's men want it to be -- this is a garbage ruling.

Funny, EV did not state whether he agreed or not ... interesting.

[Krychek_2]

When I first read this post, I had the same opinion as most of the commenters here -- it was an outrageous over-reaction to the understandable anger of a man who's had his child taken away from him. Then I read the actual opinion.

The defendant is a convicted sex offender whose daughter was born with meth in her system, which is how she ended up in the state's custody to begin with. The judge allowed her courtroom to be used for supervised visitation when court was not in session, during which time the defendant went up to the bench and started poking around, likely in search of personal information. He had made enough angry outbursts in the past -- this was the third hearing -- that at one point the judge had to call courthouse security on him. And, just for good measure, the defendant sent the judge a phony sovereign citizen lien on her house.

Now, taking all that together, could a reasonable jurist find that his statements were a true threat? Yup. Doesn't mean other reasonable minds might have reached a different conclusion. But of the long list of outrageous things the judicial system did today, this is not one of them.

[Kristian H.]

Reading the source documents is not playing cricket here at reason. That is Canadian level rude. You might even get unpersoned by banks.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The defendant is a convicted sex offender whose daughter was born with meth in her system, which is how she ended up in the state's custody to begin with."

How is it the father's fault that she had meth in her system?
And why were there any tests for meth at all? Random screening are notoriously unreliable.

[DaivdBehar]

Meth can be breathed in from the air and could come from the father.

Impeach the judges anyway. The decision is pretextual. All costs from their personal assts.

[Brett Bellmore]

"The defendant is a convicted sex offender whose daughter was born with meth in her system"

Ah, you do know enough biology to realize that's on the mother, not the father, right?

[Krychek_2]

Brett, and 12 inch, you do realize I said "taking all that together", right? I agree that the meth, standing alone, wouldn't have been enough, but when you add it to everything else, it's one more thing that points in the direction of a true threat. And while it's true that the mother is the one who gave it to her, it's also true that that means the household is one in which meth is used.

[wnoise]

> but when you add it to everything else, it's one more thing that points in the direction of a true threat

No, it's really not. There's no direct connection, only association here, and even that association would merely paint the father as one likely to associate with meth users, which is a far cry from being able to paint outbursts of understandable anger as true threats.

[Reallynotbob]

100% this.
As an aside, I wonder how many of the commentariat here would also argue that having someone confront them in a parking lot and yell, "I'm coming to your house to kidnap your daughter!" would justify shooting them? I'll set the over/under at 20%....

[dwshelf]

Now, taking all that together, could a reasonable jurist find that his statements were a true threat?

I read the ruling. This was a scary dude, implicitly a meth user, contemptuous of the court, and otherwise generally a criminal.

That list doesn't make an inartful plea into a true threat.

If he'd have said this to a police officer, you think the case would have ended up different?

[Krychek_2]

If he said that to a police officer after he went poking around looking for the police officer's private information and stuck a phony sovereign citizen lien on the police officer's house, then yes, I think the result might very well have been the same.

[dwshelf]

So how do those things convert a non-true-threat into a true-threat? Can we not know a true threat (or not) on its face?

[Noscitur a sociis]

So how do those things convert a non-true-threat into a true-threat?

I don't mean this impolitely, but are you a fucking idiot? Do you really not understand that a given set of words can and should be interpreted differently in different contexts?

[John F. Carr]

I think it's a legitimate case to send to a jury, but I wouldn't vote to convict on those facts.

[tkamenick]

Based on the headline I was leaning heavily in favor of the defendant, but I think the kicker really comes in the second half of the line. Starting to refer to where the judge lives makes it a lot clearer.

"Let me kidnap your daughter and see if you don't get angry." - This seems fine. Basically the same as "If someone kidnapped your daughter you'd get angry too". But " As a matter of fact, where do you live, Your Honor? Let's see if we can get this all resolved. See if you would be angry", yeah I see that as a true threat.