The Supreme Court demanded that a man serve the mandated sentence for threatening law enforcement officers on-line with murder when it reversed down-ward sentencing departures for a man who threatened to kill police officers with a hand grenade, to kill five officers, to hunt and kill cops," to look for the State Trooper who pulled me over," because "they don't call me cop-killer for nothing."
In upholding the law, the Supreme Court reversed the decisions by the district court and the Court of Appeals.
THE CRIME: At 1:00 a.m. on February 4, 2014, a Minnesota State Trooper stopped a vehicle driven by Rund for speeding. It was not the first time that the trooper had stopped Rund. During the stop, Rund and the trooper “had a disagreement.” Ultimately, the trooper searched the trunk of Rund’s vehicle, where he found marijuana that was later seized.
In upholding the law, the Supreme Court reversed the decisions by the district court and the Court of Appeals.
THE CRIME: At 1:00 a.m. on February 4, 2014, a Minnesota State Trooper stopped a vehicle driven by Rund for speeding. It was not the first time that the trooper had stopped Rund. During the stop, Rund and the trooper “had a disagreement.” Ultimately, the trooper searched the trunk of Rund’s vehicle, where he found marijuana that was later seized.
Ruud returned home and began drinking and tweeting. He made five tweets which were deemed to be threats. He threatened to kill five police officers that day, to throw a grenade into a room, to “hunt and kill cops,” to look “for the trooper who pulled me over,” because “they don’t call me cop killer for nothing.” The tweet that referred to the use of a grenade was posted along with a photograph of a group of St. Paul police officers.
Police arrested Ruud that day and charged him with terroristic threats.
THE TRIAL AND APPEAL: Ruud pleaded guilty. The district court sentenced Ruud to365 days in jail, with 245 days stayed, with probation and treatment. The district court indicated that this downward departure from the sentence recommended by the Sentencing Guidelines was justified by Ruud’s remorse, lack of judgement at the time of the crime, amenability to treatment, and amenability to treatment. The district court omitted serious aggravating factors from its sentencing report.
THE TRIAL AND APPEAL: Ruud pleaded guilty. The district court sentenced Ruud to365 days in jail, with 245 days stayed, with probation and treatment. The district court indicated that this downward departure from the sentence recommended by the Sentencing Guidelines was justified by Ruud’s remorse, lack of judgement at the time of the crime, amenability to treatment, and amenability to treatment. The district court omitted serious aggravating factors from its sentencing report.
The Court of Appeals rejected the prosecution’s appeal from the down-ward departure in the sentence. It affirmed the sentence.
THE SUPREME COURT DECISION: The Supreme Court imposed the full sentence on June 7, 2017. See here.
First, the Supreme Court held that "the reasons given by the district court for the downward durational sentencing departure in this case, which involved a conviction of terroristic threats, were improper."
Second, the Supreme Court held that "the district court's record contained insufficient evidence to justify a downward durational departure on the alternative grounds of remorse and the social media context of the terroristic threats. Reversed and remanded."
Third, the Supreme Court noted several aggravating circumstances in this crime which should be considered: number of acts with multiple tweets; multiple targets; use of Twitter’s “mention” function which increased the chance that victims would see the threats; the mention of a crime of violence (murder being the most serious of these threats) and means (grenade); and “as the district court aptly observed in this case, the anonymity that social media often provides can make the threats worse.”
THE SUPREME COURT DECISION: The Supreme Court imposed the full sentence on June 7, 2017. See here.
First, the Supreme Court held that "the reasons given by the district court for the downward durational sentencing departure in this case, which involved a conviction of terroristic threats, were improper."
Second, the Supreme Court held that "the district court's record contained insufficient evidence to justify a downward durational departure on the alternative grounds of remorse and the social media context of the terroristic threats. Reversed and remanded."
Third, the Supreme Court noted several aggravating circumstances in this crime which should be considered: number of acts with multiple tweets; multiple targets; use of Twitter’s “mention” function which increased the chance that victims would see the threats; the mention of a crime of violence (murder being the most serious of these threats) and means (grenade); and “as the district court aptly observed in this case, the anonymity that social media often provides can make the threats worse.”
No comments:
Post a Comment