Arrest for "Hate-Based Threats to Kill News Reporter and Her Family"

From a Nov. 15, 2024 Justice Department press release, a summary of the allegations:

On Friday, November 8, 2024, SUMAN sent messages over Facebook and email threatening a news reporter based in Orange County, New York. "You are a dumb spick, we [are] coming for you," he said. "I will end you and your family." "You better stay in [N]ew [Y]ork." SUMAN also threatened to blow up the victim's residence: "I can blow your house off [its] foundation tread lightly."

His threats appeared motivated by an article the reporter wrote several years ago, which related to SUMAN's arrest for threatening a former roommate with a firearm, resulting in his guns being taken away. He added that all his guns were returned, stating "I have more guns than ever," including "ful[ly] auto[matic]" weapons.

SUMAN's threats also appeared motivated by gender, race, ethnicity, and national origin. "[D]umb fuckin cunt… female journalist what a joke." "[D]umb Mexican," he said, while repeating ethnic slurs against people of Hispanic, Latin American, or Spanish descent. "We are going to deport your family all of them… [u]seless life. Dumb bitch. I would drag you by your legs naked with my horse." "Guess what I have now? More [guns] than you or your family might know. Fucking spicks." …

Suman was "charged with threatening interstate communications, … willfully making a threat involving explosives, … and interstate stalking." The U.S. Attorney, Damian Williams, is quoted as saying,

The charges against the defendant demonstrate our resolve to work at lightning speed to neutralize threats against the press—which serves a vital role in our democracy….

Comments

[Brett Bellmore]

Why would it be necessary for the threat to kill somebody and their family to be "hate based"?

I tend to think the law should concern itself less with why people do things, and more with what they do.

[not guilty]

"I tend to think the law should concern itself less with why people do things, and more with what they do."

None of the statutes charged in this criminal complaint, https://www.justice.gov/d9/2024-11/u.s._v._suman_complaint.pdf , requires the prosecution to prove what motivated the accused's conduct. Indeed, a requirement to any particular prove motive is the exception in criminal law, rather than the rule.

Here, however, the threats, invective and ethnic and gender based slurs attributed to the accused are powerful evidence that he in fact committed the actions and held the culpable mental state which violate the applicable statutes.

[Lee Moore]

Crapola. The last paragraph is an extended non sequitur. The ethnic and gender based slurs have zip to do with the guy's culpable mental state, which is established clearly by the threats themselves.

The "hate" crap from the DA is just routine political grandstanding. I assume he'll be out on Day 1 of the Trump 2 administration, but I hope that the new AG will adopt a policy of sober recital of sober facts, and advise the P to fire anyone else who thinks grandstanding is a proper part of a DA's job.

Which is not to say that I have high hopes on this point. Prosecuting seems to attract precisely the sort of loudmouthed bullies and narcissists who should never be allowed near the prosector's authority.

They're welcome to run for President though 🙂

[MatthewSlyfield]

"The "hate" crap from the DA is just routine political grandstanding."

Federal prosecutors are not DAs, they are US Attorneys or Assistant US Attorneys.

A DA (District Attorney) is a state/county prosecutor.

[David Nieporent]

I tend to think the law should concern itself less with why people do things, and more with what they do.

So you think Kyle Rittenhouse and Daniel Penny should have gone to prison for killing people? (They were each acquitted because of why they did those things.)

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, I DO think self defense is a "what", not so much a "why", but I admit I phrased it badly.

[Randal]

Wonderful. So according to Brett, factors that he thinks should count are "what" factors, and factors that he thinks shouldn't count are "why" factors.

Prosecutor: Why did you kill her, was it a crime of passion, part of a cover-up, self-defense, or just an accident?

Brett: I think you mean "what did I kill her" since the "why" shouldn't matter.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Randal:

Premeditated murder, murder, manslaughter, and justifiable homicide. Very different "whats."

[Randal]

My point is, this is a stupid game. To wit:

Premeditated murder, murder, manslaughter, lynching, and justifiable homicide. Very different "whats."

[Dr. Ed 2]

And which of those five is different from the other? Which one is a type of an other?

[Ciobair]

Nothing in the Complaint makes it "necessary" that it is hate-based. But it is necessary to show that the accused " engage[d} in a course of conduct that placed that person in reasonable fear of the death
of and serious bodily injury to that person and caused, attempted to cause, and would be reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress to that person.

Showing a plausible and strong motive is relevant to establish that the fear of the recipient of the communication was reasonable. As opposed to, say, posting "You look so great that you make us all look bad in comparison, I'm afraid I'll have to kill you" or any other of the many possible uses of "death threats" that a reasonable reader would not take seriously.

[John F. Carr]

The case documents are at https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69475193/united-states-v-suman/

The "hate" angle is not charged in the indictment. It may become relevant at sentencing.

Defendant is represented by Federal Defenders of New York.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

If it isn't something charged and proven in a court, why should it come into play in sentencing?

[santamonica811]

Jason,
I assume that you meant to write, "If it isn't something charged and proven *during the actual trial*, then why should it come into play during sentencing?" I think the short answer is: Because that is the way our legal system works. I'm not trying to be glib here--that's what 250 years of American jurisprudence allows.

And it's not something that inures only to the prosecution's benefit. At a criminal trial, there are lots of fact patterns that don't come close to qualifying for a defense of insanity or the like. But...at sentencing, may be very relevant and will be brought forward by the defense as mitigating factors.

(I think it goes without saying that a judge, during this sentencing phase, will still only factor in things that she finds credible, provable, persuasive, etc.)

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Yes, that is what I meant by my question.

Thank you for your response, and pointing out the defense side of things too.

[SRG2]

I don't agree with specifying crimes as hater crimes but I do regard a motive of hatred as grounds for stiffer sentences on conviction.

[Randal]

What is the practical difference? Compare for example first-degree murder, second-degree murder, manslaughter, etc.

[Lee Moore]

I disagree.

(a) A murders B because B is Christian and A hates Christians
(b) A murders B because B cut him up in traffic
(c) A murders B because B is ahead of him in the pecking order in Auntie Flo's will.

I cannot fathom why (a) would deserve a harsher sentence than (b) or (c). They're all equal on my murderometer.

[M L]

Agreed. And in any event all of those murders count as "hatred" anyway.

[David Nieporent]

I cannot fathom why (a) would deserve a harsher sentence than (b) or (c).

Because (a) terrorizes the whole Christian community. I can avoid being the target of road ragers by driving more carefully, and of jealous heirs by treating my family well. But if someone decides they want to randomly target members of my ethnic group just for being members of that group, there's nothing I can do to avoid that.

[Dr. Ed 2]

David -- seen this? https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/video-shows-man-violently-slamming-woman-to-the-ground-in-attleboro-road-rage-incident/ar-AA1wVDqK

Why not a harsher sentence for Black men?

[David Nieporent]

As always, your questions leave me pondering: what the fuck are you talking about?

I say that it's proper to take motive into account in punishing crime, and your response is, "No, we should take skin color into account instead"?

[MatthewSlyfield]

" and of jealous heirs by treating my family well."
The problem in C is greed, not jealousy. No matter how well you treat your family, that will not protect you from a co-heir who wants a bigger piece of the pie.

[Randal]

I cannot fathom why (a) would deserve a harsher sentence

You can't fathom it, really?

It's pretty easy to fathom, so if you can't fathom it, you might want to consider remedial morality classes. As Nieproent explained, a hate crime is essentially an act of terrorism. Would it be better if we just called it terrorism? For example, when someone shows up randomly at a Synagogue because they're virulently antisemitic and shoots the Rabbi, that terrorizes the entire Jewish community. Murdering your cousin for the inheritance only terrorizes your other cousins.

Can you fathom that?

[santamonica811]

Randal,
Although I agree with your (and David's) underlying points; I think you are being a bit too harsh here. I get Lee's point. I'm not persuaded by it, and I disagree with it. But the approach of, "Hey, focus on the crime, and not the particular victim." isn't entirely crazy.

I think it would be enough of a response to Lee, to tell her/him that you think that approach would make society writ large worse off for the reasons you both articulated. In other words, when someone makes a point that I disagree with but can at least understand the rationale behind it; I try to avoid personal insults.

My two cents, only. 🙂

[Randal]

Oh, they aren't here to learn anything anyway, santamonica. The conversation resets to the same old partisan talking points on each new post.

[Lee Moore]

Not logical. You and Nieporent propose that a murder that puts lots of people in fear of being murdered deserves harsher punishment than a murder that does not.

1. "motivated by hate for a group" is woefully under- and over-inclusive for the "lots of people in fear" shtick. Plenty of hate motives are not going to scare anyone - eg as in this actual case, where the guy may hate "fucking spicks" but his motivating animus is directed at a particular person for perceived personal wrongs. And contrarywise plenty of murders wholly unmotivated by hate are going to scare a lot of people - eg pretty much any terrorist murders motivated by a desire to drive out the invaders or occupiers or effect a change of government. Maybe there's hate there sometimes but there certainly doesn't have to be to have the desired terrorising effect. Or poisoning stuff in the supermarket.

2. The crowd is not going to be terrorized into fearing that the murderer himself is going to unleash a wave of hateful murder. He's going to be in jail, or better still frying tonite. So the crowd is only going to be extra scared if the murderer is part of a gang of like minded haters, bent on murder. ie the terror derives from contemplating people like the murderer who are still at liberty, not the murderer himself. Thus any beneficiary of any will is potentially terrorised by a murder committed to promote onelf up the will pecking order. It doesn't have to be a beneficiary of the same will. This frightening the public business can be extended pretty much as you please. Setting someone on fire on a subway train ? That sounds pretty scary, whatever the murderer's motives.

(And some would argue that the terror of the public is exacerbated by fact that the authorities will ensure that the murderer will not be frying tonite. Or that the authorities are reluctant to detain crazy folk in asylums. The public is easily terrified. Remember Covid ? )

3. Inviting judges to speculate on the crowd psychological effect of different murders, and include their speculations in their sentences, will do nothing to diminish judicial megalomania, a well know cause of terror in the minds of the public.

[Randal]

So you can fathom it, you just don't like the policy.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No Randal, murdering your cousin for the inheritance terrifies all other cousins who might be getting an inheritance.

[M L]

As opposed to what, "love based" threats to kill someone and their family?

[Ciobair]

That can range from assisted dying (where the love can even be directed to the victim) to killing out of jealousy to killing out of love for a third party whom the killer sees threatened by the victim, so why not?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Some folks commenting here resent a practice to take legal note of a bigoted motive for murder.

That resentment is evidence enough, I think, to suggest the law is wise. First, it demonstrates the law works.

Second, the complainers receive a message that those who express that resentment may be in line for extra punishment after they turn violent, if they do. It is only positive if those who choose to express violent bigotry feel chastened against continuing.

Third, the law demonstrates to the targets of violent bigotry that the law is on their side, and against those who threaten them—an assurance necessary to maintain a decent society.

I have said repeatedly on this blog that bigotry by itself is not properly a focus for social opprobrium. I mean that, and say it again now.

There are many bigots aware that an inward tendency to hate is a character defect. Among those, more than a few consider their own bigotry sinful, and struggle to suppress what they cannot totally banish from their hearts. Society should have only praise for that exercise of good character.

The flip side of that, however—insistence on bigotry openly and violently expressed—is not just sin, but public offense. It is among the worst manifestations of racism, a practice far more damaging to society than inward bigotry. A society cannot count itself decent if it ignores the harms inflicted by violent racism, openly expressed.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Again -- longer sentences for Black males. Screw the Constitution, it is the good thing to do...

Right....

[Dr. Ed 2]

"insistence on bigotry openly and violently expressed—is not just sin, but public offense."

So we're now punishing "sin" -- and you don't see a church & state issue in doing so? Furthermore, you are now punishing "thoughtcrime" and Orwell warned about doing that.

And we are punishing people for "Public Offense"? The late Robert Mapplethorpe would clearly have been executed for that....

[Krayt]

Interesting. I've been pointing out certain factions have been adopting the rotten, rotten (but successful) behaviors of religion, things that made religion awful, like "if you are not with us, you are against us" as in the how to be an anti-racist, and cancel culture, of course.

But declaring "sin"? That's a new one.

[Randal]

Are you guys fucking nuts? What's your whole anti-abortion position about? And anti-trans? And anti-gay? And anti-contraception?

What total morons.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Randal. if you believe that 46 chromosomes constitutes human life, then abortion is murder. Trannies are as mentally ill as anorexics, should we heal the mentally ill? And as to gay, I don't want to know who you sleep with.

[Randal]

I noticed you couldn't even come up with a non-religious framing for anti-contraception, not that any of your other ones were remotely plausible anyway. This made me laugh though:

if you believe that 46 chromosomes constitutes human life, then abortion is murder

I mean... wow, what? I haven't heard that one before! There are 46 chromosomes in lots of things: olives, spit, dead skin cells, two sperms, and aborted fetuses. I can just see Ed protesting outside pizza shops against the murder of unborn olives.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Krayt, it's really a religion.

[Peter Kreeft taught me LOGIC, BEWARE !!!!!!!]

You are sounding like Biden. Take a gun away from a guy who would kill children if he had a gun and you still have a man who would kill children. Biden is a fool.
Freedom for hate-based threats makes no sense. It is not free it is based on hate. It is against freedom, it is a threat.
What is being protected if you allow that. I can't think of one thing.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"His threats appeared motivated by an article the reporter wrote several years ago, which related to SUMAN's arrest for threatening a former roommate with a firearm, resulting in his guns being taken away."

That sorta negates the race and sex aspect of this, doesn't it?