(Photo
by
Chip
Somodevilla/Getty
Images)
The
legal
academy’s
comic
relief,
Jonathan
Turley,
just
informed
his
audience
that
the
Department
of
Justice
has
indicted
the
people
responsible
for
calling
in
a
fake
serious
police
emergency
at
his
location
—
a
practice
known
as
“swatting”
—
which
can
have
deadly
results
as
law
enforcement
can
descend
on
these
calls
with
a
“shoot
first”
urgency.
Thankfully,
the
attack
on
Turley
did
not
result
in
any
injuries.
At
the
time,
Turley
blamed
the
“age
of
rage”
so
he
could
use
the
crime
to
generate
some
synergy
to
juice
sales
of
his
book
by
the
same
name.
Everyday
he’s
hustling!
So
how
did
that
theory
turn
out?
The
indictment
below
charges
two
foreign
nationals:
Thomasz
Szabo,
26,
of
Romania,
and
Nemanja
Radovanovic,
21,
of
Serbia.
…
The
indictment
alleges
that
their
crimes
encompassed
40
private
victims
and
61
official
victims,
including
members
of
Congress,
cabinet-level
executive
branch
officials,
and
senior
federal
law
enforcement
officials.
It
also
included
four
businesses,
four
religious
institutions,
and
one
victim
university.
His
“age
of
rage”
theory
implied
that
a
cabal
of
domestic
liberals
were
out
to
do
him
physical
harm
when
in
reality
they
just
laugh
at
his
buffoonery.
Instead,
it
seems
to
be
a
pair
of
foreign
nationals
engaged
in
a
broad-based
attack
on
public
figures
in
the
United
States.
Swing
and
a
miss,
Jon!
But
it
probably
feels
better
to
imagine
oneself
as
a
heroic
figure
speaking
truth
to
power
at
the
risk
of
political
violence
than
confront
just
being
a
punchline
for
Above
the
Law.
Note
how
he
carefully
describes
his
co-victims
as
“cabinet-level
executive
branch
officials”
rather
than
“Biden
administration
cabinet-level
executive
branch
officials,”
a
more
accurate
description
for
such
victims
in
December
2023
when
this
all
took
place.
So
the
attacks
did
include
Democrats despite
the
efforts
of
his
friends
at
Fox
News
to
milk
the
attacks
by
claiming
that
they
targeted
“3
GOP
lawmakers
since
Christmas”
in
an
article
Turley
participated
in.
Turley
conspicuously
avoids
the
phrase
“age
of
rage”
in
this
article
now
that
reality
has
thrown
water
on
his
previous
theory.
Speaking
of
Above
the
Law,
rather
than
address
the
fact
that
his
whole
theory
of
the
case
turned
out
to
be
utter
bullshit,
Turley
used
the
indictment
to
throw
a
random
stray
our
direction.
Specifically,
Turley
called
out
our
earlier
coverage
of
the
attack
when
we
lamented,
regardless
of
the
motive
behind
it,
that
the
stakes
of
swatting
have
grown
more
and
more
dangerous
because
“Swatting
is
a
byproduct
of
a
nation
awash
in
more
and
more
powerful
weapons
and
more
and
more
edgy
cops.”
As
it
happens,
this
claim
enjoys
empirical
support!
One
study
looking
at
the
impact
of
gun
laws
on
law
enforcement
reviewed
the
numbers
of
police
killed
over
a
14-year
period
in
two
groups
of
states
chosen
to
control
for
the
number
of
police
officers
in
each.
The
study
found
that
police
were
three
times
more
likely
to
be
killed
in
the
line
of
duty
in
the
cohort
of
gun-friendly
states
compared
to
the
states
with
fewer
guns.
That
officers
respond
accordingly
in
light
of
the
heightened
risk
isn’t
rocket
science.
Does
Turley
have
a
countervailing
data-driven
response?
For
some,
these
stories
become
irresistible
opportunities
to
vent
against
the
victims
or
even
bizarre
attacks
on
conservative
legal
theory.
The
liberal
gotcha
site,
Above
the
Law,
covered
my
swatting
with
the
usual
ad
hominem
attacks
while
adding
a
truly
unhinged
spin
to
the
story.
Senior
Editor
Joe
Patrice
(who
has
defended
“predominantly
liberal
faculties”
and
not
hiring
conservative
or
libertarian
law
professors)
insisted
that
swatting
is
somehow
the
fault
of
gun
owners,
Second
Amendment
advocates,
and
“edgy”
police….Prosecutors
notably
did
not
include
the
conservative
justices
as
co-conspirators
with
Szabo
and
Radovanovic.
Friends,
he
does
not.
This
barely
even
qualifies
as
handwaving.
The
man
has
had
almost
a
year
to
formulate
a
response
to
my
article
and
this
is
all
he
could
come
up
with?
No
one
—
least
of
all
me
—
advocated
for
holding
the
Supreme
Court
and
other
politicians
criminally
liable
just
because
their
policy
choices
have
heightened
the
inherent
risk
of
these
incidents.
Even
a
cursory
review
of
the
original
Above
the
Law
article
would
confirm
that
its
argument
is
not
that
lax
gun
laws
directly
cause
swatting,
but
that
lax
gun
laws
have
increased
the
likelihood
that
police
response
ends
in
tragedy.
This
has,
unfortunately,
provided
criminal
actors
a
more
dangerous
attack
to
exploit.
Turley
avoids
engaging
with
the
substance
of
this
claim
because
he’s
entered
an
intellectual
battle
armed
with
a
pool
noodle.
The
“usual
ad
hominem
attacks”
line
is
reminiscent
of
the
recent
embarrassing
display
put
on
by
Judge
Edith
Jones.
Like
Jones
in
her
rant
against
Professor
Vladeck,
it’s
actually
Turley
committing
the
ad
hominem
fallacy
of
replacing
logical,
evidence-based
engagement
for
jabs.
“Vent,”
“bizarre
attacks,”
“liberal
gotcha
site”
are
all
attempts
to
“poison
the
well”
so
he
could
avoid
actually
addressing
the
substance.
There’s
nothing
wrong
with
dismissive
language
if
you’re
willing
to
back
it
up.
Turley,
it
seems,
is
not.
That
might
be
because
he
concludes
his
piece
adopting
one
of
my
core
arguments!
As
more
such
cases
are
prosecuted,
it
will
hopefully
shatter
the
sense
of
anonymity
and
impunity
of
such
culprits.
The
original
article
criticized
Turley’s
assertion
that
swatting
was
a
product
of
weak
deterrence
because
Virginia
state
law
only
categorized
it
as
a
misdemeanor
as
opposed
to
a
felony.
I
argued
then
that
it
was
not
the
lack
of
severity
of
the
potential
punishment
but
that
“People
think
they
can
call
in
reports
anonymously
and
never
be
found.”
I’m
heartened
that
he
at
least
read
enough
of
the
article
to
be
persuaded
by
my
conclusion!
Also,
back
to
the
subject
of
ad
hominem, what’s
with
his
parenthetical
“(who
has
defended
‘predominantly
liberal
faculties’
and
not
hiring
conservative
or
libertarian
law
professors)”?
That’s
an
observation
apropos
of
absolutely
nothing
except
whipping
up
his
mouth-breathing
audience
to
a
priori
reject
my
warranted
arguments.
But
ultimately
it
carries
some
unintentional
relevance.
Because
Turley’s
attempt
at
an
argument
here
makes
a
pretty
compelling
case
that
law
schools
make
the
proper,
merit-based
decision
in
not
hiring
more
conservative
or
libertarian
law
professors.
Justice
Department
Indicts
Alleged
Swatters
of
Turley,
Members
of
Congress,
and
Others
[JonathanTurley.org]
Earlier:
Jonathan
Turley
Says
He
Was
Swatted,
Offers
Thoughts
And
Prayers
For
Himself
Unhinged
Federal
Judge
Thinks
Criticizing
Judge
Shopping
Causes
Death
Threats
Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or
Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a
Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.