Thread: Oregon man arrested after allegedly harassing families of Aurora shooting victims

Oregon man arrested after allegedly harassing families of Aurora shooting victims

Published April 11, 2013
Associated Press

• 
  Across the street from the movie theater is a memorial for the victims of the shootings in Aurora, Colorado. (Fox News)

PORTLAND, Ore. – Police say they have arrested a Portland man for harassing the families of victims of the mass shooting in Aurora, Colo., last July.
Kevin Purfield is accused of emailing, calling and using social media to contact the victims' relatives. Investigators say the communications weren't threatening, but were annoying and included "vile language."
Aurora police contacted Portland officers in late February and asked them to help with the investigation of the 45-year-old.
Portland police said Wednesday they arrested him without incident. He was booked into the Multnomah County Jail for investigation of telephonic harassment and stalking, both misdemeanors.
Bail was set at $10,000. Purfield is due to be arraigned Thursday. It was not immediately clear if he had a lawyer.
The movie-theater shooting left 12 people dead and 70 injured.



http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/04/11...#ixzz2Q7zzavMc

What this guy did was in very poor taste, but since when did America have a law that it was illegal to be annoying or use foul language?

If that is the new legal standard, Ive got a few hundred illegal alien supporters in my email box that we can line up for arrest right now!

W

The charges are: "telephonic harassment and stalking," both misdemeanors. 47 U.S.Code § 223 - Obscene or harassing telephone calls in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign communications


USCPrelim is a preliminary release and may be subject to further revision before it is released again as a final version.
Current through Pub. L. 112-238. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

(a) Prohibited acts generally Whoever—
(1) in interstate or foreign communications— (A) by means of a telecommunications device knowingly— (i) makes, creates, or solicits, and
(ii) initiates the transmission of,
any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene or child pornography, with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person;

(B) by means of a telecommunications device knowingly— (i) makes, creates, or solicits, and
(ii) initiates the transmission of,
any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene or child pornography, knowing that the recipient of the communication is under 18 years of age, regardless of whether the maker of such communication placed the call or initiated the communication;

(C) makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications device, whether or not conversation or communication ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called number or who receives the communications;
(D) makes or causes the telephone of another repeatedly or continuously to ring, with intent to harass any person at the called number; or
(E) makes repeated telephone calls or repeatedly initiates communication with a telecommunications device, during which conversation or communication ensues, solely to harass any person at the called number or who receives the communication; or

(2) knowingly permits any telecommunications facility under his control to be used for any activity prohibited by paragraph (1) with the intent that it be used for such activity,
shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

(b) Prohibited acts for commercial purposes; defense to prosecution (1) Whoever knowingly— (A) within the United States, by means of telephone, makes (directly or by recording device) any obscene communication for commercial purposes to any person, regardless of whether the maker of such communication placed the call; or
(B) permits any telephone facility under such person’s control to be used for an activity prohibited by subparagraph (A),
shall be fined in accordance with title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

(2) Whoever knowingly— (A) within the United States, by means of telephone, makes (directly or by recording device) any indecent communication for commercial purposes which is available to any person under 18 years of age or to any other person without that person’s consent, regardless of whether the maker of such communication placed the call; or
(B) permits any telephone facility under such person’s control to be used for an activity prohibited by subparagraph (A), shall be fined not more than $50,000 or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

(3) It is a defense to prosecution under paragraph (2) of this subsection that the defendant restricted access to the prohibited communication to persons 18 years of age or older in accordance with subsection (c) of this section and with such procedures as the Commission may prescribe by regulation.
(4) In addition to the penalties under paragraph (1), whoever, within the United States, intentionally violates paragraph (1) or (2) shall be subject to a fine of not more than $50,000 for each violation. For purposes of this paragraph, each day of violation shall constitute a separate violation.
(5) (A) In addition to the penalties under paragraphs (1), (2), and (5), whoever, within the United States, violates paragraph (1) or (2) shall be subject to a civil fine of not more than $50,000 for each violation. For purposes of this paragraph, each day of violation shall constitute a separate violation.
(B) A fine under this paragraph may be assessed either— (i) by a court, pursuant to civil action by the Commission or any attorney employed by the Commission who is designated by the Commission for such purposes, or
(ii) by the Commission after appropriate administrative proceedings.


(6) The Attorney General may bring a suit in the appropriate district court of the United States to enjoin any act or practice which violates paragraph (1) or (2). An injunction may be granted in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

(c) Restriction on access to subscribers by common carriers; judicial remedies respecting restrictions (1) A common carrier within the District of Columbia or within any State, or in interstate or foreign commerce, shall not, to the extent technically feasible, provide access to a communication specified in subsection (b) of this section from the telephone of any subscriber who has not previously requested in writing the carrier to provide access to such communication if the carrier collects from subscribers an identifiable charge for such communication that the carrier remits, in whole or in part, to the provider of such communication.
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (3), no cause of action may be brought in any court or administrative agency against any common carrier, or any of its affiliates, including their officers, directors, employees, agents, or authorized representatives on account of— (A) any action which the carrier demonstrates was taken in good faith to restrict access pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subsection; or
(B) any access permitted— (i) in good faith reliance upon the lack of any representation by a provider of communications that communications provided by that provider are communications specified in subsection (b) of this section, or
(ii) because a specific representation by the provider did not allow the carrier, acting in good faith, a sufficient period to restrict access to restrict access to communications described in subsection (b) of this section.


(3) Notwithstanding paragraph (2) of this subsection, a provider of communications services to which subscribers are denied access pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subsection may bring an action for a declaratory judgment or similar action in a court. Any such action shall be limited to the question of whether the communications which the provider seeks to provide fall within the category of communications to which the carrier will provide access only to subscribers who have previously requested such access.

(d) Sending or displaying offensive material to persons under 18 Whoever—
(1) in interstate or foreign communications knowingly— (A) uses an interactive computer service to send to a specific person or persons under 18 years of age, or
(B) uses any interactive computer service to display in a manner available to a person under 18 years of age,
any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication that is obscene or child pornography, regardless of whether the user of such service placed the call or initiated the communication; or

(2) knowingly permits any telecommunications facility under such person’s control to be used for an activity prohibited by paragraph (1) with the intent that it be used for such activity,
shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

(e) Defenses In addition to any other defenses available by law:
(1) No person shall be held to have violated subsection (a) or (d) of this section solely for providing access or connection to or from a facility, system, or network not under that person’s control, including transmission, downloading, intermediate storage, access software, or other related capabilities that are incidental to providing such access or connection that does not include the creation of the content of the communication.
(2) The defenses provided by paragraph (1) of this subsection shall not be applicable to a person who is a conspirator with an entity actively involved in the creation or knowing distribution of communications that violate this section, or who knowingly advertises the availability of such communications.
(3) The defenses provided in paragraph (1) of this subsection shall not be applicable to a person who provides access or connection to a facility, system, or network engaged in the violation of this section that is owned or controlled by such person.
(4) No employer shall be held liable under this section for the actions of an employee or agent unless the employee’s or agent’s conduct is within the scope of his or her employment or agency and the employer (A) having knowledge of such conduct, authorizes or ratifies such conduct, or
(B) recklessly disregards such conduct.

(5) It is a defense to a prosecution under subsection (a)(1)(B) or (d) of this section, or under subsection (a)(2) of this section with respect to the use of a facility for an activity under subsection (a)(1)(B) of this section that a person— (A) has taken, in good faith, reasonable, effective, and appropriate actions under the circumstances to restrict or prevent access by minors to a communication specified in such subsections, which may involve any appropriate measures to restrict minors from such communications, including any method which is feasible under available technology; or
(B) has restricted access to such communication by requiring use of a verified credit card, debit account, adult access code, or adult personal identification number.

(6) The Commission may describe measures which are reasonable, effective, and appropriate to restrict access to prohibited communications under subsection (d) of this section. Nothing in this section authorizes the Commission to enforce, or is intended to provide the Commission with the authority to approve, sanction, or permit, the use of such measures. The Commission shall have no enforcement authority over the failure to utilize such measures. The Commission shall not endorse specific products relating to such measures. The use of such measures shall be admitted as evidence of good faith efforts for purposes of paragraph (5) in any action arising under subsection (d) of this section. Nothing in this section shall be construed to treat interactive computer services as common carriers or telecommunications carriers.

(f) Violations of law required; commercial entities, nonprofit libraries, or institutions of higher education (1) No cause of action may be brought in any court or administrative agency against any person on account of any activity that is not in violation of any law punishable by criminal or civil penalty, and that the person has taken in good faith to implement a defense authorized under this section or otherwise to restrict or prevent the transmission of, or access to, a communication specified in this section.
(2) No State or local government may impose any liability for commercial activities or actions by commercial entities, nonprofit libraries, or institutions of higher education in connection with an activity or action described in subsection (a)(2) or (d) of this section that is inconsistent with the treatment of those activities or actions under this section: Provided, however, That nothing herein shall preclude any State or local government from enacting and enforcing complementary oversight, liability, and regulatory systems, procedures, and requirements, so long as such systems, procedures, and requirements govern only intrastate services and do not result in the imposition of inconsistent rights, duties or obligations on the provision of interstate services. Nothing in this subsection shall preclude any State or local government from governing conduct not covered by this section.

(g) Application and enforcement of other Federal law Nothing in subsection (a), (d), (e), or (f) of this section or in the defenses to prosecution under subsection (a) or (d) of this section shall be construed to affect or limit the application or enforcement of any other Federal law.

(h) Definitions For purposes of this section—
(1) The use of the term “telecommunications device” in this section— (A) shall not impose new obligations on broadcasting station licensees and cable operators covered by obscenity and indecency provisions elsewhere in this chapter;
(B) does not include an interactive computer service; and
(C) in the case of subparagraph (C) of subsection (a)(1) of this section, includes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet (as such term is defined in section 1104 ^[1] of the Internet Tax Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 151 note)).

(2) The term “interactive computer service” has the meaning provided in section 230 (f)(2) of this title.
(3) The term “access software” means software (including client or server software) or enabling tools that do not create or provide the content of the communication but that allow a user to do any one or more of the following: (A) filter, screen, allow, or disallow content;
(B) pick, choose, analyze, or digest content; or
(C) transmit, receive, display, forward, cache, search, subset, organize, reorganize, or translate content.

(4) The term “institution of higher education” has the meaning provided in section 1001 of title 20.
(5) The term “library” means a library eligible for participation in State-based plans for funds under title III of the Library Services and Construction Act (20 U.S.C. 355e et seq.).

Federal Legislation
In 1992, the U.S. Congress passed legislation which charged the U.S. Attorney General -- through the National Institute of Justice, which is the research branch of the Justice Department -- with developing and distributing a "constitutional and enforceable" anti-stalking law to serve as a model for the states. The model was to be designed to assist the states in crafting and adopting stalking laws that are "not so broad as to be unconstitutional nor so narrow as to be virtually meaningless" (Statement of U.S. Senator William Cohen [Maine], Proposed Federal Stalking Statute: Hearing Before the Senate Committee of the Judiciary, 103rd Congress, 1st Session, 1993). The National Center for Victims of Crime consulted on the drafting of this model law. The published result of this legislated initiative, Project to Develop a Model Anti-Stalking Code for States, Final Summary Report, was presented in October 1993.
The model code encourages state legislators "to make stalking a felony offense; to establish penalties for stalking that reflect and are commensurate with the seriousness of the crime; and to provide criminal justice officials with the authority and legal tools to arrest, prosecute, and sentence stalkers" (National Institute of Justice, 1993, p. 43).
The model prohibits stalkers from engaging in "a course of conduct" that would cause a reasonable person fear. It encourages the use of a continuum of charges that could be used by law enforcement officials to intervene at various stages -- because stalkers' behavior is often characterized by a series of increasingly serious acts -- and the creation of a felony classification for stalking (National Institute of Justice, 1993).
In the fall of 1994, Congress passed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. A part of this crime bill, the Violence Against Women Act, encompassed a provision which makes it a federal crime to cross a state line (or to enter or leave Indian country) "with the intent to injure, harass, or intimidate that person's spouse or intimate partner" or to cause a spouse or intimate partner to cross a state line (or to enter or leave Indian country) by "force, coercion, duress, or fraud," which then results in bodily injury to that person. This provision also makes it a federal crime to cross a state line (or to enter or leave Indian country) with the intent to do anything that violates the "portion of a protection order that involves protection against credible threats of violence, repeated harassment, or bodily injury" and then engages in such conduct (Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Public Law 103-322, Title IV, Subtitle B, Chapter 110A, 2261-2266). In 1996, Congress enacted a law prohibiting interstate stalking and stalking on federal property and other places within federal jurisdiction. The law also expanded the above-described Violence Against Women provisions to include all victims, not just the spouses and intimate partners of offenders. (Passed as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997, Public Law 104-201, § 1069, codified at 18 U.S.C. 2261, 2261A, and 2262.)
In addition to becoming familiar with current stalking laws, victims of stalking should become informed about the local, state and national resources and procedural precautions available to assist and protect them. Please refer to the FYI bulletin, Helpful Guide for Stalking Victims, as well as the other resources listed below.
　

　
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/223

Oregon man charged with harassing theater shooting victims' families

By Teresa Carson | Reuters – 13 hrs ago






View Photo
Reuters/Reuters - A mother and daughter cast shadows on one of many signboards placed at a memorial to those killed in the July 20 theater shootings in Aurora, Colorado July 29, 2012. REUTERS/Rick Wilking


By Teresa Carson
PORTLAND, Oregon (Reuters) - An Oregon man with a history of mental distress was arrested on Wednesday on suspicion of harassing family members of some of the 12 people slain by a gunman who opened fire on moviegoers inside a Colorado, theater last summer, police said.
Kevin Michael Purfield, 45, of Oregon, is accused of contacting relatives of the Aurora, Colorado, victims through telephone calls, email and social media networks, police in Portland and Aurora said.
Portland Police Bureau Sergeant Pete Simpson said he had little information about Purfield's background aside from the fact that law enforcement had previous contact with the suspect, including at least one "mental health call."
A spokesman for the Aurora police, Frank Fania, said Purfield's contacts with victims' families numbered in the dozens, and started with the suspect offering unfounded conspiracies about the massacre.
"In the beginning it was this conspiracy theory stuff," Fania said, "then it went away from the conspiracy theory into personally attacking the families, calling them names and hoping bad things would happen to them."
A Facebook page and blog identified as belonging to Purfield stated, for example, that some coffins of the Aurora victims were empty. There were also discussions of the September 11, 2001, attacks on America and the December 2012 mass shooting that left 20 children and six adults slain at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.
The suspect in the Aurora shooting rampage, James Holmes, 25, is charged with multiple counts of first-degree murder and attempted murder, and prosecutors announced last week that they would seek the death penalty if he were convicted.
The July 20 shooting spree, unleashed during a midnight showing of the Batman film "The Dark Knight Rises," also left 58 people wounded and ranks with the Sandy Hook killings as one of the deadliest bursts of U.S. gun violence ever.
Aurora police contacted the Portland Police Bureau in February, seeking assistance in an investigation into the harassment reported by victims' families.
Purfield was arrested without incident and booked on five misdemeanor charges of telephonic harassment and one count of stalking, police said.
Prosecutors in the Holmes case recently raised the issue in connection with arguments over newly unsealed court records, citing "ongoing harassment" of victims and witnesses and "potential intimidation by individuals who have no relationship to the case."
Victims' identities were made public in some case documents, and the names of the dead, their families and survivors of the shooting have appeared in numerous media accounts of the tragedy and its aftermath.
Purfield was jailed in lieu of $10,000 bond and was slated to be arraigned in Multnomah County Court on April 11. The case would be tried in Portland.
http://news.yahoo.com/oregon-man-charged-harassing-theater-shooting-victims-families-032025757.html

Wow! Sounds like they better check to see if Kevin Michael Purfield is an FBI informant. I have not heard this smelly of a string of misinformation about important topics since...umm what was that online talk radio show guy that did all that stuff on important topics that was disinfo??

Oh yea, Kevin Michael Purfield reminds me of Hal Turner, the guy that spit out all that conspiracy stuff trying to muddy the waters around illegal immigration and the North American Union and the Amero and they finally arrested him for threat and turns out that sucker was a "lightning rod" informant for the FBI!

W

Thursday, Apr 11, 2013 06:25 AM PDT Aurora Truther arrested for harassing families

A man in Oregon is charged with menacing the families of the victims of July's shooting spree

By Alex Seitz-Wald Enlarge
Police in Portland, Oregon arrested a native of the state yesterday on charges that he has been harassing family members of some of those killed in the Aurora, Colorado shooting. “In the beginning it was this conspiracy theory stuff,” Aurora police spokesman Frank Fania said, “then it went away from the conspiracy theory into personally attacking the families, calling them names and hoping bad things would happen to them.”
As with the Sandy Hook shooting, the Aurora massacare has attracted a host of conspiracy theories, and harassment of victims has gotten so bad that prosecutors there asked the judge to redact the names of victims in court documents to spare them the “relentless contacts by proponents of purported ‘conspiracies.’”
Kevin Michael Purfield, the 45-year-old man arrested in Portland, also posted messages on his Facebook page and blog that seemed to endorse conspiracy theories about 9/11 and the Sandy Hook shooting. Purfield was jailed in lieu of $10,000 bond and will be arraigned in court today.
Jordan Ghawi, whose sister was killed in the Aurora shooting, told Salon last month that he had received death threats and constant harassment from conspiracy theorists. “Some of these people are incessant. They don’t stop,” he said.
Even some presumably credible people, like Gun Owners of America head Larry Pratt, have given credence to Aurora conspiracy theories. “We have to admit that this is something that maybe our government is capable of,” Pratt told conspiracy journalist Alex Jones of the notion that government agents carried out the shooting as part of a “false flag” operation. “This was only 12 people murdered [in Colorado], they were good for 400 in Fast and Furious.”
In Newtown, theorists have stalked the town and visited the homes of those who helped victims of the shooting.


Alex Seitz-Wald is Salon's political reporter. Email him at aseitz-wald@salon.com, and follow him on Twitter @aseitzwald.
　
　
　
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/11/us-markets-stocks-idUSBRE93006T20130411

RELATED http://www.alipac.us/f9/portland-man...7/#post1348136

RELATED http://www.alipac.us/f9/theater-shoo...ternet-280372/