If the fact pattern were the same, except the nutjob had threatened a Republican president/candidate, I would like to think that my reaction is the same. I try to be consistent about all people enjoying constitutional protection of rights.Okay, upon further reflection maybe I am thinking about this one wrong.
I just can't help but shake the feeling that if the FBI had done this to one of the many nutjobs threatening to kill Donald Trump during his presidency, the general conservative consensus would be to cheer for the FBI and say the nutjob got what he deserved. And maybe it was that thought that made be have a knee-jerk reaction to thinking the way I did.
Fair. But what evidence is there that these threats were credible and/or actionable? Should all such threats be investigated, and treated as credible until otherwise determined through investigation? Absolutely.I do see your point about no-knock raids, though.
On the other hand, I also find myself often disagreeing with the way many people seem to poo-poo death threats and the like because they're "just words." I tend to hold the unpopular opinion that when someone threatens to kill another person, they should be taken at their word, and no one should be required to risk their life finding out if the threat was made in earnest, or was just "bloviating."
But this action wasn't investigation.
Further, based on what little we know, again, it is dubious that his threats were credible. And given that POTUS was (to my knowledge?) not even in Utah at the time of the FBI raid, his threats were, by definition, not imminent.
Is there some gray area? Sure. That's going to happen in these sorts of situations. I think the FBI's actions here were well on the wrong side of any such gray area, though.That notwithstanding, I do think I agree with you in general about no-knock raids. I guess I'm finding myself with with contradicting principles regarding this whole situation, and I'm not quite sure now what I think the correct answer is.