Monday Night Court · Under the Lights
Manifesto Mailed at Kickoff
United States v. Havelock (2012)
Charge: Mailing threatening communications (six counts) - half an hour before Super Bowl XLII a man posts a manifesto to newspapers and drives his rifle to the stadium car parkCourt: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, en banc (on appeal from the District of Arizona, Silver, C.J.)Docket: Under the Lights
Does mailing a violent manifesto to newspapers and websites, addressed to no individual, amount to the federal crime of mailing a threat to injure 'the person of another'?
The facts
Glendale, Arizona, Super Bowl Sunday, 3 February 2008. Five days earlier Kurt Havelock had bought an AR-15, five spare magazines and ammunition and studied a map of the car parks around the University of Phoenix Stadium. About thirty minutes before kickoff he drove, rifle in the car, to a post office near the stadium and mailed six Priority Mail envelopes to the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Phoenix New Times, the Associated Press and two music websites. Each held a 'media packet': a six-page 'econopolitical' manifesto titled 'Karma Leveller: Bad Thoughts on a Beautiful Day', full of violent, forward-looking language, and a letter apologising to police and directing them to his car near the stadium. He then drove to a car park by the stadium intending, in his words, to wait for an opportunity to shoot people and die by 'suicide by cops'. Minutes later he had a change of heart, rang his fiancee, told his parents he had done something terribly wrong, and drove to Tempe police station to hand over the rifle and copies of the packets. Nobody was hurt. He was indicted under 18 U.S.C. 876(c) for mailing threats to injure 'the person of another', one count per envelope. He argued the packets were addressed to corporations, not persons; that they were a post-mortem explanation, not a threat; that the manifesto was political speech; and that there was no proof he meant to threaten anyone.
You have the facts the court had. Guilty or not guilty? Call it in the game with your friends, then see what the court actually decided. Wrong call, you drink.
Citation: United States v. Havelock, 664 F.3d 1284 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc)
Read more at casemine.com. The source reveals the outcome.