Florida cop who jokingly threatened Obama retires early
By The Christian Science Monitor
Published: Saturday, Nov. 24, 2012, 7:28 p.m.
A Jacksonville, Fla., police officer who told colleagues that he would volunteer to assassinate President Obama quit last week.
While the Secret Service ultimately agreed that Detective Sam Koivisto was kidding when he suggested to fellow cops that if an order came to kill Obama, he “wouldn't mind being the guy,”the loose talk led the 26-year veteran to retire six months earlier than planned, saying that “it's best for everybody.”
The political polarization of the country, together with rising use of the Internet to make “general” threats against the president, has led to heightened anxiety in some quarters.
“With all the super-heated emotions” around the election, all “this kind of talk just fans the flames of these sorts of emotions — that's my concern,” a law enforcement official told Homeland Security Today.
In the final weeks of Election 2012, a whirlwind of anonymous online threats emerged against President Obama and GOP candidate Mitt Romney. But Koivisto's early retirement marks at least the third time in the past six months that the Secret Service looked into police officers making threats against the president.
The threats did not meet the legal standard of a “true threat,” and no charges were filed. But in all three, the comments led to employment termination.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Changes to Medicare drug coverage scrapped
- Deaths from heroin, pain pills called ‘urgent,’ growing’ crisis
- White House advises teaching students about money
- General’s court-martial is thrown into jeopardy
- Senate OKs bill scrapping ‘good soldier defense’
- Fannie, Freddie profits surprise
- Poll: Uninsured rate drops, but Hispanics lag in sign-ups
- Snowden captivates tech crowd
- NRA seeks to block gun magazine ban
- D.C. mayor denies he knew of illegal ‘shadow campaign’
- Depth, distance reduce impact of quake off California’s northern coast