Dumont (IA) man faces charge of terrorism (you're not gonna believe this)

[leQ]

HAMPTON — A Dumont man was arrested early Monday evening outside a rural Hampton residence after being pursued for several minutes by sheriff's officers, police, the Iowa State Patrol, an Iowa National Air Guard helicopter, Belmond Reserve private plane and Iowa Falls K-9 unit.

Jeffrey Allen Bertram, 38, of Dumont was charged with terrorism, third-degree burglary, assault on a peace officer, two counts of armed with intent, interference with official acts, intimidation with a firearm and three counts of criminal mischief, the Franklin County Sheriff's Department reported.

The pursuit and arrest followed a report from the 1600 block of Franklin Avenue of someone shooting the power meter on an outside light pole and driving away in a red pickup.

Mason City Globe Gazette
hampton always was the texas of iowa.

[UpInArms]

1. "Terrorism" charges brought to you by your "friendly" USA PATRIOT Act

:banghead:

So when are we going to find all those "dirty bombers" and al-CIA-da cells?

[htuttle]

2. I know one person who was charged with terrorism...

...for yelling at a cop while drunk (and entirely unarmed).

They seem to use the 'terrorism' charge nowdays where they used to use 'verbal assault'. (This happened in Georgia). Apparently any threat of violence can be considered 'terrorism' in some states.

To be fair, the DA did drop the terrorism charge before it went to trial.

So I'm not terribly surprised by this story.

[Lori Price CLG]

3. The Nat'l Guard? And to think Bush continued to read 'My Pet...

Goat' when America was under attack on 9/11 (by his freelancers).

Lori Price

[Kelvin Mace]

4. I would be interested to know

how many people are being charged as "terrorists".

[genieroze]

11. My son was. He was at school and this psycho teacher heard that

he told another student that he said she is a bitch (which she is) and had him charged with making terroristic threats. It was thrown out of court but not until it cost me big $$$ in legal fees.

[phaseolus]

5. I think they do this routinely when people attack infrastructure

...like last year near the Milwaukee airport when some clown removed all the bolts at the base of a high voltage power transmission tower.

[Cerridwen]

6. Just taking that good old "terrorist" label out for a test drive.

"They're" gonna see how much mileage they can get with it using it against "petty" criminals before they can use it against you and me for posting at a "subversive" web site, or protesting in an "unpatriotic" manner against the current regime.

But don't worry, nothing in the "Patriot Act(s)" will be used against regular Americans. :sarcasm:

[July]

7. Also beefing up their "terrorists caught" numbers. nt

[BiggJawn]

8. "Ooooh! Terrorism! We got a new Toy-uh-TOOL to use!"

Yeah, charge 'em with terra-ism....
Ten charges. Yeah, the cops were PISSED at the guy.

[jwirr]

9. Hopefully, some intelligent Iowa judge

will throw most of those charges out and teach the prosecutors a lesson in semantics. This is misuse of the law no matter how you paint it.

[skygazer]

10. When the Patriot act first went through

I was bitching about it to my (hangs head in shame) Repuke daughter, saying that it would be mis-used to bring a lot of ridiculous charges against people, like the one in this article. She, wide eyed, assured me the government would never do something like that, that it would only be used to stop bona fide, nasty, America-hating terrorists from doing their dirty work. I just handed her a copy of "1984" and walked away. I don't know how such a smart, shrewd girl became so naive. ~sigh~

[patcox2]

12. "Terroristic Threats" is an old crime, nothing to do with terrorism.

Its just an old legal expression that means threatening someone with bodily harm. Its not a "terrorism" charge.

Relax.

[patcox2]

13. Nope, I was wrong, here is the statute

3. "Terrorism" means an act intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, or to influence the policy of a unit of government by intimidation or coercion, or to affect the conduct of a unit of government, by shooting, throwing, launching, discharging, or otherwise using a dangerous weapon at, into, or in a building, vehicle, airplane, railroad engine, railroad car, or boat, occupied by another person, or within an assembly of people. The terms "intimidate" , "coerce" , "intimidation" , and "coercion" , as used in this definition, are not to be construed to prohibit picketing, public demonstrations, and similar forms of expressing ideas or views regarding legitimate matters of public interest protected by the United States and Iowa constitutions.
2002 Acts, ch 1075, §2

It still doesn't sound abusive or evidence that Iowa is a police state. The guy deserved to be followed by helicopters and dogs, he shot a gun at a police officer. That is what happens when you decide you are going to shoot at a police officer. The police rightly conclude that you are an out-of-control maniac and a danger to yourself and others, and they do everything possible to capture you.

As to "over-charging," there is nothing new there, cops always charge as much as conceivably possible, its the courts job to determine whether the charges are warranted.

[WeRQ4U]

14. Terrorism here is not the same as "Terrorism" as you understand it.

"Terrorizing" and "Acts of Terrorizing" et al, are simply a way to state that the Defendant has threatened someone with harm.

People are charged with "Terrorizing" when they get into a fight and yell "I'm going to kill you and your family". That is probably what they are talking about here.

No offense, but the Tin Foil hats are a tad tight today. lol

Even if they are talking about "Terrorism" in the other sense, the paper may have gotten it wrong. Either way, I don't see a guy being convicted of "Terrorism" for what he's done.

EDIT: After reading the statute above, I REALLY doubt that he'd be convicted. And as said, it doesn't smack of police state or power run amuck.