Missouri State Senator: I hope Trump is assassinated

  1. ‘I hope Trump is assassinated’: A Missouri lawmaker faces mounting calls to resign after Facebook comment
    A Missouri lawmaker is under mounting pressure to resign after she said on social media she hopes President Trump is assassinated, following his response to violence at a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville.

    Democratic state Sen. Maria Chappelle-Nadal went on her personal Facebook page Thursday morning to vent two days after the president blamed “both sides” for the brutality.

    “I put up a statement saying, ‘I really hate Trump. He’s causing trauma and nightmares.’ That was my original post,” she told the Kansas City Star. The Facebook post received many responses, Chappelle-Nadal said, and to one she replied, “I hope Trump is assassinated!”
    […]
    How should this be classified? Should this be allowed? Or, is this an example of hate speech?

    She later apologized; from the same article:
    […]
    Chappelle-Nadal later explained that she didn't actually wish harm to come to Trump but wrote it out of frustration.

    “I didn’t mean what I put up. Absolutely not,” Chappelle-Nadal told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. “It was in response to the concerns that I am hearing from residents of St. Louis.”
    […]
    Considering her apology, should she resign?
    •  
  2. 23 Comments

  3. by   herring_RN
    There have been multiple threats to the life of every president in my lifetime. They are investigated. Many are punished without making the national news.
    There were an average of thirty such threats a day against President Obama.
    There were threats to rape his daughters. I heard on the radio about a man arrested for threatening to rape Melania, our First Lady.

    I wouldn't vote for a person who made death threats.
    I did not vote for the candidate who threatened to "Take Out" innocent family members of Islamic terrorists.
    Elected officials often lose their job.
    Missouri Senate Expel Lawmaker Threatened Tru | The Daily Caller
    ... Federal law makes it a felony offense to knowingly and willfully convey communication that contains "any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States" and any successors to the presidency. Typically, committing such an act can lead to fines and/or up to five years in prison.
    Generally speaking, whether something is deemed a threat is entirely subjective, and would require the threatened subject to reasonably fear actual harm.
    However, when it comes to making threats to the President, this isn't required. Making the threat itself -- by tweeting it or writing it elsewhere -- is enough to make it illegal...
    Criminal Penalties for Murder Threats - FindLaw Blotter
    Last edit by herring_RN on Aug 21 : Reason: typo
  4. by   azhiker96
    I am frustrated with the drive by mentality found on the internet. People will say outrageous things and threaten violence thinking they are either untraceable or that they can back out later by saying they didn't really mean it. I don't agree with giving them a pass. Words matter.

    It seems the Democratic party in Missouri also thinks she should resign.

    ‘I hope Trump is assassinated,’ Missouri lawmaker writes | The Kansas City Star
  5. by   BCgradnurse
    That's not ok. Even if it was said off the cuff or flippantly, it is still not right.
  6. by   Lil Nel
    Interesting that some folks on this thread are bothered by this example of free speech. Words matter? Really? In another thread the same folks were demanding free speech rights for people who routinely call for the extermination of Jews, Gays, Blacks, etc. Yep, just all upset about the free speech rights of some being trampled.

    What's the difference? Isn't it all free speech?

    If free speech rights prevail in the other examples, then it must prevail here. According to your examples you don't get to pick and choose.
  7. by   nursej22
    I think it was wrong of that government official to say what she did. And even if others have done it, it is still wrong, and she should resign.

    This isn't about free speech, which concerns the government making laws restricting it. This is about ethics.
  8. by   GrumpyRN
    Nothing really to do with me but does America not have a specific law regarding threatening the life of a president?

    Sure I have seen this in the past.
  9. by   chare
    Quote from Lil Nel
    Interesting that some folks on this thread are bothered by this example of free speech. Words matter? Really? In another thread the same folks were demanding free speech rights for people who routinely call for the extermination of Jews, Gays, Blacks, etc. Yep, just all upset about the free speech rights of some being trampled.
    […]
    Since you used “folks,” plural, without further identification, I’m not sure whether this was directed towards me. However, I will comment. If you took my post to mean I am “picking and choosing” whose speech should be protected, I apologize as that wasn’t my intent. Everyone, with very limited exception, has the right to speak whatever is on her or his mind, regardless of how disgusting we might personally find it.
    Quote from Lil Nel
    […]
    What's the difference? Isn't it all free speech?
    […]
    With limited exception (e.g., not being allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater), yes. This doesn’t mean that we can do so without repercussion. For example, in the case of Ms. Chappelle-Nadal, if her constituents feel strongly enough about what she wrote, then they are free to not vote for her if she sits for reelection at the end of her term.
    Quote from Lil Nel
    […]
    If free speech rights prevail in the other examples, then it must prevail here. According to your examples you don't get to pick and choose.
    Again, I didn’t post this in support of restricting Ms. Chappelle-Nadal, or anyone else’s right to free speech. I fully support everyone’s right to peaceful free speech; regardless of whether or not I agree. Supporting speech that one agrees with is easy. It’s when we disagree that it gets hard. And the more we disagree, the harder it gets. This includes the right to disagree with, and speak out against that with which one disagrees. What I don’t support, is the use of violence or intimidation, by any person or group, to limit the free speech rights of others.
  10. by   Ted
    Impulse Control. What this State Senator Maria Chapelle-Napal should have exercised was Impulse Control. It ain't easy, given who we have as President. Her anger and frustrations towards President Trump are JUSTIFIED, as he, his chosen Cabinet, and the political party that got him elected, take OUR country down a dark and dangerous road. Ms. Chapelle-Napal was acting on a moment's passion rather than THINK and exercise Impulse Control when, as an elected official, she wished Trump's assassination. That is a significant mistake that can not be ignored. I don't know her at all. This is the first time that I've ever seen her name. Still, I bet you any amount of money that she holds better values, and makes better decisions than the person currently acting as President. Hope she learns from her mistake. Quite frankly, I hope Trump also learns that practicing Impulse Control. . . . something he miserably FAILS to do time and time again. . . is beneficial in many, many ways.

    President Obama received COUNTLESS threats of harm and death to him and to his family during his term in office. Any cries of foul-play from ANYONE regarding this Ms. Chappell-Napal, and REMAINED SILENT while President Obama's welfare was threatened, are shrilled cries of hypocrisy.
    Last edit by Ted on Aug 22
  11. by   herring_RN
    Quote from GrumpyRN
    Nothing really to do with me but does America not have a specific law regarding threatening the life of a president?

    Sure I have seen this in the past.
    18 U.S.C. § 871 - U.S. Code - Unannotated Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 871. Threats against President and successors to the Presidency
    Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both...
    18 U.S.C. SS 871 - U.S. Code Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure SS 871 | FindLaw
  12. by   Lil Nel
    I think the bottom line is that there is no such thing as "free" speech.

    Yes, just as nobody is allowed to scream "fire" in a crowded movie theatre due to the risk of bodily harm to the innocent public, nobody should expect that they are able to utter violent, hate-filled, threatening words without ramifications of some kind. Whether that is being met by an angry group of counter-protesters, or being censured in the US Congress or voted out of office.

    Ted is absolutely right when he states that impulse control is what is needed. But we have witnessed NO impulse control from DJT, and so I think that fuels the flames of others mimicking his behavior, which is akin to a 12-year-old with ADHD. I'm not giving anybody a free pass here, but let's be real and admit that he has lowered the bar on public discourse in a way this nation has never seen before.

    Ah, but his supporters enjoy the fact that he is "disruptive." Well, the disruption cuts many ways, and branches out into directions that sometimes can't be foreseen.

    I believe our Founders intended the notion of free speech to largely apply to talk directed at the government. I don't believe they could have possessed the foresight to think it would be applied to large, angry groups calling for the death of Jews, Blacks, Gays, Arabs, Catholics, etc.
  13. by   herring_RN
    I think it was wrong for her to post that
    But doubt it will be considered a threat because she said, "I hope Trump is assassinated."
    A threat would be, "I will assassinate him." OR I think I'll assassinate him, OR "I'm gonna assassinate him."

    A wish is not a threat. I would not vote for her.

    US lawmaker Chappelle-Nadal's Trump assassination post investigated - BBC News
  14. by   toomuchbaloney
    Frankly, that sort of ridiculous rhetoric has been normalized over the past 10 years or so. It's no more ridiculous now than it was then.

Must Read Topics


close