We offer the DoJ report on assassination intelligence and threat assessment investigations, cited in the post on "shared traits of potential assassins:" http://jya.com/ncj170612.htm (110K) It's quite surprising in that the recommended policy is to not arrest potential assassins but to attempt to persuade them to give up their plans to attack, to establish trust in the LEAs who are encouraged to listen to grievances, and helpfully arrange for treatment of whatever underlies the menace. It seems that most who threaten assassination do not go through with it, but do enjoy the attention it gets, so the report reassuringly states. Hmm. True, there are some indicators of imminent threat that warrant more severe measures -- such as the subject's acquistion of weapons, participation in militant organizations and persistent stalking of targets. And, yes, a few performance artists want to be killed on TV. It says that most of the tiny number (83 in 50 years) of actual "assassins, attackers and near-lethal approachers" (compared to the far larger number who only talk about it) are deliberate in their planning and highly rational about why the deed is necessary -- even those who are mentally unstable are totally sane in preparing for and executing attacks. All in all, the report says assassination is not a big deal for it doesn't happen all that much, and the task at hand is to prevent rash acts by friendly persuasion and TLC. And brace for the assassins who never give a clue of what's coming. Amazing. So what is going on with CJ and Jim Bell? Scare sense into them, followed by caregiving, or serious jail time? Recall that the Secret Service (which co-authored the report) had a friendly talk with CJ about assassination threats not long before he was arrested by Jeff Gordon. Which fits the report's policy. Is the IRS out of touch with progressive law enforcement? Putting on a show for effect? Or is Washington State truly a murderous nest of mad dog killers? Other than Microsoft.
participants (1)
-
John Young