Neal Brij Sidhwaney faces up to five years in federal prison on one count of transmitting an interstate threat. The Supreme Court justice was not named in court documents.

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.

  • alienanimals@lemmy.world
    42·
    11 months ago

    That’s Godwin’s law. It’s not a fallacy, but good try.

    Your logic was that it’s never acceptable for a public servant to be threatened. I provided you with an example that showed your logic was faulty. You’re unable to admit to your fault. You might want to re-examine your logic and look inward to see why you can’t see when you’re wrong.

    Anyway, that’s all the time I’m going to spend today to educate you. You’ll probably just end up with the same mindset, “Hurr durr I’m always right!”

    • naught@sh.itjust.works
      24·
      11 months ago

      I said nothing about specific fallacies, only that your argument is fallacious and you are appealing to the classic Hitler boogeyman. If you want specifics, you’re currently using a straw man. The situation in Nazi Germany is incomparable to the present day United States. You are completely ignoring all of the context surrounding Hitler, particularly the fact that he wasn’t just a “public servant” so much as he was a fascist dictator. The fact that he advocated for the eradication of an entire people. If a justice was a fascist dictator then I would absolutely support their timely death.

      I engaged here specifically to keep an open mind and to challenge what I think. On this particular issue, I have yet to hear a convincing argument that the unwell individual making death threats to SCOTUS was justified. My point was and is that the actions this person took were wrong and unethical. I mean, this is further bolstered by the fact that the man clearly had a psychotic break. Am I correct in my understanding of your position?:

      • The death threat phone calls were justified and morally correct
      • Future death threats are justified
      • Future political violence in our current system is justified
      • alienanimals@lemmy.world
        42·
        11 months ago

        You did the typical internet fallacy

        I said nothing about specific fallacies

        Lol. You’re not even intelligent enough to remember what you’ve written.

        You also have 0 ability to admit to your mistakes. It’s no wonder you’re butthurt when someone shows you that your argument lacks any logic.

        • naught@sh.itjust.works
          24·
          11 months ago

          You know that “fallacy” doesn’t have to refer to a specific, logical fallacy, right? Now you’re insulting my intelligence when I’m replying in earnest? You neglected to read past the first sentence of my comment, invoked Hitler, and are still defending the actions of a crazed individual who is calling in death threats to SCOTUS. Not only that, but you have laser focused on specific words in my comments, insulted me, and never even addressed the actual point. Ironic considering you’re touting yourself to be the fallacy expert. Have a nice day and try not to call in any perfectly justified death threats!