A Florida man has pleaded guilty in connection with threatening to kill a Supreme Court justice.

The guilty plea from 43-year-old Neal Brij Sidhwaney of Fernandina Beach stemmed from a call he made to a Supreme Court justice in July, the Justice Department said in a news release Monday.

He faces up to five years in federal prison on one count of transmitting an interstate threat. A sentencing date has not yet been set.

Prosecutors said that Sidhwaney identified himself by name in an expletive-infused voicemail and repeatedly threatened to kill the Supreme Court justice, who is not named in court documents.

Sidhwaney warned that if the justice alerted deputy U.S. Marshals, he would talk to them and “come kill you anyway,” according to court documents, which did not indicate what prompted Sidhwaney to make the threat.

  • treefrog@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    At some point it becomes self defense.

    Maybe guys wife died because she was refused health care.

    • naught
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      11 months ago

      What? Do you really think that? Where does this end? Can he kill a doctor if his wife died in childbirth due to the doctor’s negligence? Can he kill his local mayor who slashed fire & rescue budgets if his wife dies in a fire? You’re describing revenge, retribution. It’s toxic. It’s insane. Imagine a Trumper making this argument about immigrants or something stupid like that.

      • treefrog@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        Negligence is different than wilfully using the law to deny a woman life saving medical care. Or willfully taking bribes from oil and gas barons while the world burns.

        At some point standing up against oppression may require violence. This is a lesson learned from history. Calling self defense revenge, murder, toxic, etc. is exactly what keeps sociopaths feeling safe in their ivory towers while the world burns.

        • naught
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          No, it’s really not. People are harmed or even die either way. Who draws the line and where? Should we publicly execute all tobacco execs right now? Is that something you would agree with? What about automotive execs who purposefully lied about emissions standards for profit? They are killing real people. Do you extend your quest for blood to the peons who lied on the tests? The engineers that implemented them? Say a conservative starts bombing clinics that do abortions - are they justified? They see abortion as murder – are they not nobly preventing further murders for the greater good? Tell me who decides and where the line is drawn and you may have your pound of flesh.

          Only a sociopath sees violence as necessary for progress in a democracy. If violence becomes necessary it should be mourned, lamented. We are absolutely not there yet. This is extreme and irresponsible rhetoric.

          • treefrog@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            That you can’t understand the difference between intent and negligence told me enough. So, I didn’t bother reading the rest.

            Take care and enjoy your moral high ground.

            • naught
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              I’m sure it is challenging for you to read more than a few sentences. I provided you with examples of malicious intent and you closed your eyes and plugged your ears. You can do better.

              • treefrog@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                Cool, so now you’re resorting to personal attacks.

                Again, enjoy your moral high ground.

                • naught
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  I replied specifically and directly to your points with new examples. You in turn replied by saying you wouldn’t read them. Either way, thank you for ceding the high ground – the view is nice from up here :)