Florida Student Arrested for Threatening to Shoot Jewish Students

From WFLA (Kaycee Sloan) Monday:

According to documents, Palestinian-American student Seif Asi, 21, approached a table of Jewish students and got into a one to two-minute "heated conversation" during a UCF Office of Student Involvement approved pro-Israel free expression event on Jan. 23….

When UCFPD stopped Asi, he told them that he was Palestinian and had family in Palestine, adding that he was tired of seeing Jewish supporters on campus and complained about a pro-Israel match that occurred last week.

The arrest report shows that Asi told police he saw the same group of students at the march, and it made him upset when he saw them setting up their table on Tuesday. He also told police that he's "tired of seeing students on campus defend the killing of Palestinian people."

The 21-year-old said he was on his way back from working out when his "emotions got the better of him." … The three victims, who are part of a group called "Students Supporting Israel" or SSI, provided sworn verbal and written statements consistent with each other. The students said Asi accused them of supporting the death of his family members back home. Then, all three students allegedly heard Asi say, "You won't be here anymore when I come back and shoot you."

Asi was charged with three counts of intimidation based on display of indicia of religious or ethnic heritage, under Fla. Stat. § 784.0493, which reads:

784.0493 Harassment or intimidation based on religious or ethnic heritage.—

(1) As used in this section, the terms "credible threat" and "harass" have the same meaning as in s. 784.048(1).
(2) A person may not willfully and maliciously harass or intimidate another person based on the person's wearing or displaying of any indicia relating to any religious or ethnic heritage.
(3) A person who violates subsection (2) commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(4) A person who violates subsection (2), and in the course of committing the violation makes a credible threat to the person who is the subject of the harassment or intimidation, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(5) A violation of this section is considered a hate crime for purposes of the reporting requirements of s. 877.19.

Comments

[Flight-ER-Doc]

No federal terrorism charges?

Not with this DoJ, I guess

[Eugene Volokh]

Which federal statute do you think this student likely violated? The federal threatening communications statute (18 U.S.C. § 875) requires transmission in interstate or foreign commerce, so it doesn't apply to ordinary in-person oral threats. The federal conspiracy against rights statute (18 U.S.C. § 241) covers threats, but requires a conspiracy. The federal hate crime statute (18 U.S.C. § 249) requires injury or attempted injury; threats of injury don't seem to suffice, as I read it.

As to "this DoJ," isn't it the same DoJ that is prosecuting the Cornell student who posted online threats to shoot up a dining hall that specializes in kosher meals?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

But other than all that, it was a pretty good comment!

[Dr. Ed 2]

Why doesn't this apply"
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-25/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-11/subpart-D/section-11.402

§ 11.402 Terroristic threats.

A person is guilty of a misdemeanor if he or she threatens to commit any crime of violence with purpose to terrorize another or to cause evacuation of a building, place of assembly or facility of public transportation, or otherwise to cause serious public inconvenience or in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience.

He threatened violence for purpose of terrorizing others. QED...

[David Nieporent]

Wouldn't he need to break some law, relating to terrorism, passed by Congress, in order for there to be "federal terrorism charges"?

[BillyG]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2331
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

This is part of it (and it's an and) but intimidate/coerce/influence portion is so broad that protesting without a permit would count.

[Eugene Volokh]

Doesn't that definition also require a showing that the actions "involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State"?

[Michael Ejercito]

It does appear this is based on plain application of the law.

Now comes the "put up or shut up" phase.

[Dr. Ed 2]

His defense will be that he didn't mean it, that he lost his temper and in the heat of anger said something he didn't intend to.

Where does (could) Mens Rea come in here?

[Commenter_XY]

Three counts of intimidation and harassment, and a credible death threat. What kind of sentence are we talking about here, assuming the little darling Seif Asi is convicted of letting his emotions get the better of him.

I have to ask: Why isn't this just free speech?

[Eugene Volokh]

Because of the true threats exception to the First Amendment, see, e.g., Counterman v. Colorado.

[Commenter_XY]

Justices Barrett and Thomas didn't see that 1A exception (well, they dissented for different reasons). Professor Volokh, did SCOTUS get Counterman right, in your estimation?

Totally fine with punishing the little darling for property damage. The speech part....not so sure about.

[Eugene Volokh]

From Justice Barrett's opinion, joined by Justice Thomas:

True threats do not enjoy First Amendment protection, and nearly every other category of unprotected speech may be restricted using an objective standard. Nonetheless, the Court adopts a subjective standard, though not quite the one advanced by Counterman. The Court holds that speakers must recklessly disregard the threatening nature of their speech to lose constitutional protection. Because this unjustifiably grants true threats preferential treatment, I respectfully dissent.

Justices Barrett and Thomas recognized the true threats exception, but dissented because they would have read it more broadly than the majority did. The Court has consistently recognized the existence of a true threats exception, generally unanimously so (see, e.g., U.S. v. Watts and Virginia v. Black). I think it was quite correct in so doing.

[Commenter_XY]

Professor Volokh...Thank you for the engagement. I thoroughly enjoy reading and learning here. See, this is very helpful to me as I read the back and forth in related free speech cases you write about here at VC. You guys all have a body of knowledge that is assumed in your discussion that I (wistfully) wish I had.

Your responses and the clarifying explanation helped me to understand where one line on free speech has been drawn. Thanks for that.

I hope there is another post when this case concludes. I'd like to see how the 'credible threat' part of this is ultimately addressed and I wonder what surveillance video there might be of this incident. The 1-2 minute 'heated back and forth' that happened before the credible threat...is that aggravating or mitigating in this instance? The questions to me are interesting. Like a puzzle, almost.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Am I not correct that a threat to murder is a crime in and of itself, independent of the hate crime aspect?

I always thought that a hate crime had to be an underlying crime whose sentence was enhanced because of the hate aspect.

[mydisplayname]

On a related note, Israel has 25 days remaining to document the methods by which it reduces killing of innocents. In the interim (on Monday 19 February 2024), public hearings begin in the International Court of Justice regarding Israel's deplorable policies and practices in general: this matter began in August, 2023, prior to any killing and/or hostage-taking by Hamas, the lawful military force of Palestine, and continues the discussion which began with the Nakba (Israel's initial killing of Palestinians and seizure of land rightfully belonging to others).

Hopefully, Israel's deliberate infliction of death and destruction on its allies (including the United States) and perceived enemies (including Palestinians and other land owners in Israel's wrongly claimed territory) can be stopped for all time and by a mechanism short of the complete elimination of the existing Israeli regime: hopefully, the fate of German Nazis will not befall Israeli Ashkenazim.

[Rossami]

Or Israel could rub the ICJ's nose in the fact that they don't have jurisdiction until and unless the charged country consents. (And to preempt Misek's ranting, being a signatory to the UN is not automatic consent to an ICJ proceeding.)

By the way, if you're going to wallow in history, be sure to look up all the bombings, shootings and terrorist attacks and wars against the Israeli population that led to the practices you are so aggrieved over.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I agree that Israel could attempt to stiff-arm the international authorities.

The United States has begun to distance itself from Israel's right-wing belligerents and immoral, disgusting conduct in several ways, however. It seems reasonable, for a number of reasons, to expect that withdrawal of support to intensify.

How Israel could hope or try to survive a loss of America's political, economic, and military support is a far different problem.

I hope Israel changes course quickly and severely, becoming a far better country and actor. If not, I hope America and others provide an opportunity for better Israelis to emigrate to the United States (or elsewhere) before Israel experiences the consequences of losing America's indispensable support.

[Commenter_XY]

Israel will be a far better country when Hamas and their Judeocidal supporters are removed. Come to think it Arthur, the world will be a materially better place without Hamas and their supporters in it, too.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I see little to merit American support with respect to Hamas, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and several other players in that region. It's the world's aging, stinky, no-longer-needed septic tank.

[Commenter_XY]

The problem is hydrocarbons, Arthur. And not even our hydrocarbons. 🙁

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Childish superstition; a seemingly ceaseless exchange of insults, brutality, and killings; more silly fairy tales; enduring grudges; plenty of indolent, selfish assholes; backward, delusional societies; competitive religious kookery; and a few other factors are among the problems that make that part of the world an expensive, volatile sewer trench.

[Frank Drackman]

'killing of innocents' is doing alot of work there

[Michael P]

So is "deplorable", unless one deplores the fact that so many members of Hamas are still alive.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Is all the ",,,indicia of religious or ethnic heritage" stuff really necessary? He clearly threatened to shoot the three students at the table. Why does it matter what religion they were, or what his ethnic heritage is?

[Bored Lawyer]

Sounds like this is a variation on "hate crimes."

Which many misunderstand, but which means that the same crimes committed for racial or religious motivations are treated more harshly than for other motivations.

If he had said, "I am going to shoot you for looking at my girlfriend funny," that would not be this crime, although likely another crime under FL law.

[Old Smokin' Egg]

Indeed. Shouldn't our concern be with the harassment and intimidation, rather than the perpetrator's motives for doing so?

[CJColucci]

The primary concern is with the harassment and intimidation. But many crimes are already punished more severely depending on the perpetrator’s motive: murder for hire, for instance, or various federal crimes that depend on an intention to prevent someone from exercising his or her civil rights, or the right to vote. Nothing unusual about that. So why get one’s knickers in a twist over laws that punish criminal acts more severely if they are motivated by racial or religious hatred? Maybe there is a legitimate argument that such laws don’t make much practical difference, especially when the underlying crime is already severely punished, like homicide; but if they make some put-upon groups happy and don’t violate some important principle — which they don’t — then what’s the problem? And why would one care?

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Okay, fair point. I suppose the defendant's motive for doing something is supported by evidence, in the same way a defendant's actions are.

[Longtobefree]

" . . . had family in Palestine . . . "

Does it matter that there is no "Palestine"?

[Frank Drackman]

Not sure I agree with your Police work there, think they had a pretty bad Chemical spill last year, but didn't involve any race-ist po-lice chemicals beating black chemicals so Sleepy Joe didn't give a fuck.

[SRG2]

Well, it exists as a geographic area, and as a domain for sports participation purposes.

[rloquitur]

Some poor family in Montana has had a child forcibly taken from the family home because she reported that she wanted to be called Leo. The judge issued a gag order forbidding them to speak about the case. They did not resort to threats of violence.

This 21 year old idiot needs to learn to control himself. I hope he doesn't go to jail on the condition that he has truly learned his lesson.

[Gasman]

The difficulty of defining then a 'true' threat.
Is it verbiage designed to intimidate the other party. Like advertising, some speech is clearly puffery (make your teeth the whitest, make your corpse the deadest)
Or bona fide signaling of actual intent that one will follow through with.

If one really intended to follow through, then signaling one's intent, especially in a public and likely recorded space, makes one easily the prime suspect. That the speech seems to be an excited utterance after a back and forth between the subjects, makes it seem more in the puffery category of speech.

[Both Sides]

I don't mean to minimize this serious incident by identifying a likely typo, but is "pro-Israel match" supposed to be "pro-Israel march"? Or something else?

[Carl_N_Brown]

The “pro-Israel match” is found in the linked WFLA article.
“pro-Israel march” makes more sense and "r" is next to "t" on the qwerty keyboard.
But until an editor at WFLA makes an edit, there it is.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And was he expelled?

[Oxford1740]

While I would be pleased to see such student expelled from the school for his conduct I am sympathetic to the circumstances of his indoctrination. His world and culture is steeped in self-pity and the rage of the victimization narrative, fueled by false histories and delusions, ideology and Islam, fantasies of revolution. Someone taught him to believe and behave this way.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Someone taught Bull Connor the same thing....

We don't accept it from White racists, why should we accept it from others?