Feds: Man threatened to kill CNN employees - Sensationalist Headlines

[url=http://www.cbs46.com/story/37323169/feds-man-threatened-to-kill-cnn-employees]Source[/url] [QUOTE]A Michigan man was arrested after an FBI investigation, accused of threatening to travel to Atlanta to commit mass murder at CNN headquarters. According to federal court documents obtained by CBS46 Monday, 19 year-old Brandon Griesemer made 22 calls to CNN earlier this month. It began with claims of "fake news" and ended with threats of violence. Griesemer told a CNN operator, among other things, "Fake news. I'm coming to gun you all down." He then called again, saying "I'm smarter than you. More powerful than you. I have more guns than you. More manpower. Your cast is about to get gunned down in a matter of hours." Griesemer continued, "I am coming to Georgia right now to go to the CNN headquarters to f---ing gun every single last one of you." Investigators were able to trace the caller and stop him before he was able to carry out any of his violent desires. He's now jailed on a $10,000 unsecured bond. Griesemer is also accused of making derogatory and racially motivated comments regarding blacks and Muslims in the calls. In response to our story, a number of CNN anchors and reporters responded on social media, expressing concerns that the unfounded accusations of "Fake News" are leading to threats of violence by the unstable. [/QUOTE]

This is the dumb kinda shit the Trump administration is enabling. Twat. Good thing the FBI was on him.

FBI wasting resources on Americans instead of stopping the Muslim terrorists. Many such cases. Sad!

Its surprising how easy it is to brainwash idiots into doing stupid shit through twitter.

More info from a local station: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qh-q7q1N8hU[/media] This isn’t his first time calling in threats, as he also did it to a local mosque.

[quote] It began with claims of "fake news" and ended with threats of violence. Griesemer told a CNN operator, among other things, "Fake news. I'm coming to gun you all down." [/quote] Of course this means Trump is gonna stop using that phrase, now that it almost got a bunch of people killed, right? Yeah, around the same time we discover unicorns are real. Fuck Trump and anyone who supports him.

[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;53074836]Of course this means Trump is gonna stop using that phrase, now that it almost got a bunch of people killed, right? Yeah, around the same time we discover unicorns are real. Fuck Trump and anyone who supports him.[/QUOTE] Right, just like democrats stopped talking about BLM after those people murdered cops, right? (To clarify, I don't blame the democratic politicians who supported BLM for these murders.) Trump is so overdone and ridiculous on the whole "fake news" thing, but to blame him for death threats from someone who almost certainly has mental problems, or is taking 4chan-esque trolling into the real world (There wasn't any mention of actual intent to attack CNN in the report. He's only being convicted of making threats over the phone.), is hypocritical at best.

[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;53074836]Of course this means Trump is gonna stop using that phrase, now that it almost got a bunch of people killed, right? Yeah, around the same time we discover unicorns are real. Fuck Trump and anyone who supports him.[/QUOTE] Trump will probably want him pardoned.

[QUOTE=sgman91;53074851]Right, just like democrats stopped talking about BLM after those people murdered cops, right? (To clarify, I don't blame the democratic politicians who supported BLM for these murders.) Trump is so overdone and ridiculous on the whole "fake news" thing, but to blame him for death threats from someone who almost certainly has mental problems, or is taking 4chan-esque trolling into the real world (There wasn't any mention of actual intent to attack CNN in the report. He's only being convicted of making threats over the phone.), is hypocritical at best.[/QUOTE] You really must be blind if you cannot see the correlation between Trump's branding of fake news and this man's justification of wanting to commit violence by using Trump's words.

Hey, what a surprise! It's almost like he's a complete fucking twat who's disconnected from the real world or something. [media]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/955764970590961665[/media]

[QUOTE=joshuadim;53074899]You really must be blind if you cannot see the correlation between Trump's branding of fake news and this man's justification of wanting to commit violence by using Trump's words.[/QUOTE] You must be blind if you cannot see the correlation between the democrats branding of cops as oppressors and this man's justification of wanting to commit violence by using BLM words. This ridiculous line of argumentation can apply to almost anything. People taking your criticisms way too far are not your fault.

[quote]He then called again, saying "[B]I'm smarter than you.[/B] More powerful than you. I have more guns than you. More manpower. Your cast is about to get gunned down in a matter of hours." [/quote] Clearly not :v

[QUOTE=sgman91;53074907]You must be blind if you cannot see the correlation between the democrats branding of cops as oppressors and this man's justification of wanting to commit violence by using BLM words.[/QUOTE] There's a saying that you can't argue with the insane. So I'm gonna stop trying with you now.

[QUOTE=ultra_bright;53074822]Its surprising how easy it is to brainwash idiots into doing stupid shit through twitter.[/QUOTE] He was obviously already on the edge before Trump and the gang came in with their new rethorics. But now you have an authoritative figure, literally the President having ideas that aligns with his. That must have given him quite a lot of boost to push him over the edge.

[QUOTE=joshuadim;53074915]There's a saying that you can't argue with the insane. So I'm gonna stop trying with you now.[/QUOTE] Then explain why this line of reasoning only works one way, but not the other.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53074928]Then explain why this line of reasoning only works one way, but not the other.[/QUOTE] Because BLM has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion here. It's whataboutism at work here. (BUT WHAT ABOUT BLM?? as if that has anything to do with this)

[QUOTE=sgman91;53074851]Right, just like democrats stopped talking about BLM after those people murdered cops, right? (To clarify, I don't blame the democratic politicians who supported BLM for these murders.) Trump is so overdone and ridiculous on the whole "fake news" thing, but to blame him for death threats from someone who almost certainly has mental problems, or is taking 4chan-esque trolling into the real world (There wasn't any mention of actual intent to attack CNN in the report. He's only being convicted of making threats over the phone.), is hypocritical at best.[/QUOTE] I know you like to plays devils advocate, but you need to choose your battles better.

[QUOTE=joshuadim;53074936]Because BLM has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion here. It's whataboutism at work here. (BUT WHAT ABOUT BLM?? as if that has anything to do with this)[/QUOTE] Demonstrating a flaw in an argument by showing that you aren't applying it consistently isn't whataboutism. I swear, that's the new hip word that people don't actually understand. It's thrown around every time people want to make inconsistent arguments and not defend them.

[QUOTE=joshuadim;53074936]Because BLM has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion here. It's whataboutism at work here. (BUT WHAT ABOUT BLM?? as if that has anything to do with this)[/QUOTE] It's not whataboutism. It's showing a flaw in logic. People want to blame this on Trump due to rhetoric he uses, but would be saying that BLM and democratic senators' rhetoric had nothing to do with the guy that shot the cops doing what he did. It's a clear double standard. It's not saying we shouldn't do anything because of *insert other problem here*, it's saying "hey, you shot down this logic before. Why are you trying to use it now?"

[QUOTE=sgman91;53074947]Demonstrating a flaw in an argument by showing that you aren't applying it consistently isn't whataboutism. I swear, that's the new hip word that people don't actually understand. It's thrown around every time people want to make inconsistent arguments and not defend them.[/QUOTE] You brought up a topic that has nothing to do with the conversation that has now (successfully) derailed the conversation from the original topic. That's... Uh... whataboutism [editline]23rd January 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53074949]It's not whataboutism. It's showing a flaw in logic. People want to blame this on Trump due to rhetoric he uses, but would be saying that BLM and democratic senators' rhetoric had nothing to do with the guy that shot the cops doing what he did. It's a clear double standard. It's not saying we shouldn't do anything because of *insert other problem here*, it's saying "hey, you shot down this logic before. Why are you trying to use it now?"[/QUOTE] Trump brands CNN as "fake news" Guy wants to commit a massacre because they're "fake news" It's really easy to see the influence on the man.

[QUOTE=sgman91;53074947]Demonstrating a flaw in an argument by showing that you aren't applying it consistently isn't whataboutism. I swear, that's the new hip word that people don't actually understand. It's thrown around every time people want to make inconsistent arguments and not defend them.[/QUOTE] Trump has been directly accused of inciting violence against the press, he himself fosters a hostile attitude toward the press. He has called the press an enemy of the american people. Democrat politicans sympathetic to BLM do not support the violent minority in BLM, the Democrat politicians who support BLM speak out against violence. You have a president who incites violence against the press, calling them an enemy and one of his loony supporters is now making death threats against the press. How can you be so damn blind/dumb/ignorant. This is why nobody takes you serious, this attitude you have is the reason people treat you the way you complain about being treated in the forum discussion thread.

I hope journalists ask the Press Sec. if Trump plans on making a statement about this.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;53074960]Trump has been directly accused of inciting violence against the press, he himself fosters a hostile attitude toward the press. He has called the press an enemy of the american people. Democrat politicans sympathetic to BLM do not support the violent minority in BLM, the Democrat politicians who support BLM speak out against violence. You have a president who incites violence against the press, calling them an enemy and one of his loony supporters is now making death threats against the press. How can you be so damn blind/dumb/ignorant. This is why nobody takes you serious, this attitude you have is the reason people treat you the way you complain about being treated in the forum discussion thread.[/QUOTE] You're using strong language without actually saying anything new. Strong criticism simply isn't anywhere equivalent to "inciting violence." Obama's administration called Fox News the "opposition" and "illegitimate news." Could a person with issues take those statements and use violence against Fox? Of course they could, would it be Obama's fault? No, of course not. (Source for statements: [URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/12/business/media/12fox.html[/URL]) [editline]23rd January 2018[/editline] Hell, you even pulled a Trump with that first sentence: "Trust me, people have said that Trump is inciting violence. People have made that accusation." I don't care what accusations people make. If you want to argue that Trump is inciting violence, then quote the man inciting violence.

tbh I'm surprised it's taken this long for something like this to happen considering Trump's "enemy of the people" statement.

[QUOTE=sgman91;53074992]You're using strong language without actually saying anything new. Strong criticism simply isn't anywhere equivalent to "inciting violence." Obama's administration called Fox News the "opposition" and "illegitimate news." Could a person with issues take those statements and use violence against Fox? Of course they could, would it be Obama's fault? No, of course not. (Source for statements: [URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/12/business/media/12fox.html[/URL]) [editline]23rd January 2018[/editline] Hell, you even pulled a Trump with that first sentence: "Trust me, people have said that Trump is inciting violence. People have made that accusation." I don't care what accusations people make. If you want to argue that Trump is inciting violence, then quote the man inciting violence.[/QUOTE] I hope you are aware of the differences between what the current administration is doing, to the statement by the previous administration. [QUOTE][B]“We’re going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent ... As they are undertaking a war against Barack Obama and the White House, we don’t need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave.”[/B][/QUOTE] [editline]23rd January 2018[/editline] Compare [IMG]http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/07/02/14/41F6C75100000578-0-image-a-2_1499003108020.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://www.nicolematejic.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Trump-attacks-media-tweet-again.png[/IMG] [editline]23rd January 2018[/editline] [IMG]http://cdn.newsday.com/polopoly_fs/1.13127115.1487204375!/httpImage/image.png_gen/derivatives/display_960/image.png[/IMG] [editline]23rd January 2018[/editline] [IMG]https://cdn2.benzinga.com/files/images/2016/August/15/dtrump.png[/IMG] [editline]23rd January 2018[/editline] [IMG]http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/kbia/files/styles/medium/public/201611/TrumpTweet.JPG[/IMG]

Did I say they were equivalent? No, I did not. My point is that strong criticism doesn't equate to incitement of violence. I don't like Trump's attacks. They're childish, but that doesn't somehow make them incitement to violence.

[QUOTE=sgman91;53075023]Did I say they were equivalent? No, I did not. My point is that strong criticism doesn't equate to incitement of violence. I don't like Trump's attacks. They're childish, but that doesn't somehow make them incitement to violence.[/QUOTE] they explicitly outline the media as a danger to the country and enemies of the people i'm glad everyone's seeing through your pedantry

[QUOTE=sgman91;53075023]Did I say they were equivalent? No, I did not. My point is that strong criticism doesn't equate to incitement of violence. I don't like Trump's attacks. They're childish, but that doesn't somehow make them incitement to violence.[/QUOTE] [URL]http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jul/05/sarah-huckabee-sanders/has-donald-trump-never-promoted-or-encouraged-viol/[/URL] maybe thats because he's incited and encouraged it more than enough times :thinking: edit: I should clarify that while his statements might not meet the legal threshold as mandated in the Brandenburg v. Ohio case, but it [i]does[/i] show that he at least favors violence.

Trump is absolutely at fault here, if he wasn't constantly pushing his 'fake news' bullshit this would have never happened.

[QUOTE=sgman91;53074992] If you want to argue that Trump is inciting violence, then quote the man inciting violence.[/QUOTE] Let me give you just one single quote from a speech of his: [quote]By the way, and if she gets to pick --if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. [I]Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know.[/I] But I'll tell you what, that will be a horrible day, if -- if -- Hillary gets to put her judges in.[/quote] Italics for the vital bit there. Hmm, it's almost as if there's literally no way to interpret that statement as if it isn't inciting violence. If you want more it's not too hard to find either, newer or older, Trump's said plenty of things along these lines. Just because he didn't outright say "form up the lynching squads and prepare the oak trees" doesn't mean he hasn't said shit to try and incite violent behavior.