Sunday, January 19, 2014

Man in Jail After Death Threats to Seattle Socialist City Council Member

A 32-year-old Seattle man accused of threatening Mayor Ed Murray and City Councilmember Kshama Sawant was ordered held on $600,000 bail during a probable-cause hearing Friday, reports the Seattle Times.

Mitchell Munro Taylor was booked into the King County Jail Thursday night, two days after Murray’s staff found more than 20 threatening, anti-gay postings from Taylor’s account on the mayor’s Facebook page, according to court documents. One post said, “Mayor meet Harvey Milk,” a reference to slain San Francisco board of supervisors member Harvey Milk.

Milk, who was openly gay, was murdered in 1978.

Other posts said “death to socialist council member” and “feminists must get raped and die.”

While Sawant wasn’t named directly in the postings, police believe she was the target because she is the only socialist on the council.

Defense attorney Eric Lindell is representing Taylor and has asked that his bail be reduced to $10,000. According to the Herald of Everett, Washington, Lidell attributed his client’s actions to the fact that the man was off his medications.

This guy sounds like a nut job, but it should be kept in mind you are not going to move a society in the direction of liberty by physically attacking the state. Bottom line: They have a lot  more guns.It can only be done by a change in the views of the masses.


  1. BW, I agree that aggression is not the answer. Aggression is also inconsistent with least the non-Beltarian type...

    Also, from the point of view of the non-aggression principle, a threat is meaningless. Of course, murder is the ultimate crime against another. It seems like this is a great example of a non-crime...but back to the "real" world:

    Perhaps someone with a legal background could chime in on this one, but based on the quotes in the article I didn't read any explicit death threats...which one of the statements qualified as a "death threat"?

  2. Not a Libertarian.

    NAP FTW!

  3. What a dumbass, granted most of these people who issue threats are just as statist as the one's they claim to be against.

  4. Education is the key, but I worry about how long we have and even if people are willing to hear the truth. Tom Woods interviewed John Whitehead (an expert on the police state) not long ago and Whitehead said that we probably have about ten years before things really get terrible in this country. Can we convince enough people to hear the truth in only a decade? I'm willing to give it a shot, but I'm skeptical. Better get ready to take off, just in case. If it's already bad enough for Robert Higgs to get ready to go, then perhaps it's time we consider making preparations as well.

  5. Ah, the first puppet has been trotted out for public consumption. Everyone who disagrees with forced collectivism, you are exactly like this! Do not dare defy your masters in any way!

  6. Instead of being a moron and issuing death threats how about just laugh at mindless dumb asses like Kshama Sawant. Just laugh at them. They're pathetic anyway.

  7. Making a death threat against anyone is stupid. To make a death threat against a politician is writing your own death warrant. You are guaranteed to get in deep shit. He must be either crazy or stupid.

  8. What was it that the man said that was an actual death threat? A threat sounds like this: "I'm going to kill person X." As far as I have seen, the man made no such statements. Certainly he made clear that he would approve or enjoy the murder of those politicians, but, legally speaking, are those types of implicative statements construed as threats? I am still curious about this, and I wish someone with a thorough knowledge of the legal system would discuss...

    Also, the NAP requires a clear definition of the word "threat" Most folks would correctly point out that this type of rhetoric is an ineffective strategy for persuasion against socialism. However, that is a purely utilitarian position. What constitutes a "threat" versus an opinion is a crucial component of determining whether or not a particular statement violates the NAP.