Thursday, December 1, 2011

Supervisor Spellman claims threats made

Update 1349 12-1-11
Supervisor Spellman informed the Copper Gazette that a judge has signed a restraining order against Bill Crane. Spellman will pick it up today.

According to District 5 Supervisor Darren Spellman threats were made to his person at the Calaveras County Elections Office the evening of November 28, 2011 while awaiting the recall signature papers. Spellman states that Bill Crane, husband of Marti Crane a hopeful for District 5 Supervisor if the recall had come to fruition, confronted him and threatened him publicly with bodily harm.

Spellman has penned a letter to District Attorney Barbara Yook requesting that "the law be followed under California Penal Code 76." (California Penal Code 76  / Threatening public officials or their immediate families.)

The code states that:
(a) Every person who knowingly and willingly threatens the life of, or threatens serious bodily harm to, any elected public official, county public defender, county clerk, exempt appointee of the Governor, judge, or Deputy Commissioner of the Board of Prison Terms, or the staff, immediate family, or immediate family of the staff of any elected public official, county public defender, county clerk, exempt appointee of the Governor, judge, or Deputy Commissioner of the Board of Prison Terms, with the specific intent that the statement is to be taken as a threat, and the apparent ability to carry out that threat by any means, is guilty of a public offense, punishable as follows:

(1) Upon a first conviction, the offense is punishable by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars ($5,000), or by imprisonment in the state prison, or in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
(2) If the person has been convicted previously of violating this section, the previous conviction shall be charged in the accusatory pleading, and if the previous conviction is found to be true by the jury upon a jury trial, or by the court upon a court trial, or is admitted by the defendant, the offense is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison.
(b) Any law enforcement agency that has knowledge of a violation of this section involving a constitutional officer of the state, a Member of the Legislature, or a member of the judiciary shall immediately report that information to the Department of the California Highway Patrol.
(c) For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:
(1) “Apparent ability to carry out that threat” includes the ability to fulfill the threat at some future date when the person making the threat is an incarcerated prisoner with a stated release date.
(2) “Serious bodily harm” includes serious physical injury or serious traumatic condition.
(3) “Immediate family” means a spouse, parent, or child, or anyone who has regularly resided in the household for the past six months.
(4) “Staff of a judge” means court officers and employees, including commissioners, referees, and retired judges sitting on assignment.
(5) “Threat” means a verbal or written threat or a threat implied by a pattern of conduct or a combination of verbal or written statements and conduct made with the intent and the apparent ability to carry out the threat so as to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her immediate family.
(d) As for threats against staff or immediate family of staff, the threat must relate directly to the official duties of the staff of the elected public official, county public defender, county clerk, exempt appointee of the Governor, judge, or Deputy Commissioner of the Board of Prison Terms in order to constitute a public offense under this section.
(e) A threat must relate directly to the official duties of a Deputy Commissioner of the Board of Prison Terms in order to constitute a public offense under this section.

2 comments:

  1. If Spellman wasn't such an egotistical and wise-mouth liar there probably wouldn't have been an issue.
    Dave Lander

    ReplyDelete
  2. Bottom line is that the law is the law. And if you are saying it is ok to physically assault anyone simply because they are egotistical or a wise mouth or a liar....well then most politicians and especially candidates are at huge risk. Resorting to physical violence simply means you have run out of intelligent argument.

    ReplyDelete