LEO perspective on "threats" claim by gun banner

[Pat McGarrity]

Since gun banner, Bartlett Alderman, Emily Elliot, claimed she had been threatened by Carry Permit Holders, she has admitted that the threats were merely to vote her out of office:

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/20 ... n-caps-02/

That was not what her tone implied when she made the claim.

Elliot's attitude that constituents', offended by her attempt to violate their civil rights, expression of using the political process to put a supporter of the Constitution in her office, was something they should not be saying, is consistent with her belief that she has a right to deny citizens their right to defend themselves. Her arrogance will not be forgotten during the next election.


From TFA Member & Veteran MPD Detective, Jim Williams (Ret):


"What she is alluding to amounts to Extortion, which is threatening to do harm to someone
if they do not comply with your demands. An example in THIS context would be threatening
to commit a personal assault / murder, arson, vandalism, or other act of damage or
direct violence IF the victim did not (in this case) vote against guns in Bartlett parks.
That is Extortion and I have arrested many people for it; it is a relatively easy crime to
prosecute due to written letters, recordable phone calls, and personal visits to stalk
as part of the threat or the achievement of success from the threats (such as a payoff).

This woman would view "threats" as being the support of an opponent in the next election
as punishment for voting in an undesired manner. This is called the election process, and
we have the right to inform any candidate or office holder that their continued re-elections
will be opposed if they fail to respect the expressed lawful views of a voter or group.

You see, she believes she has the right to her elected office until she dies, sort of
like a US Supreme Court Justice having a lifetime appointment. To her, suggesting
otherwise is an act of treason which she calls threats (to support a future opponent).
She KNOWS she is deliberately misusing the term "threat" to gain power and support.

Jim"