Death Threats Against Public Officials (DOJ)? The implications

Recently we have had death threats against public officials of all types that include politicians, judges, law enforcement and others (Notice intentional fear creation and risk of violence. Its important for categorization reasons). That anger is directed against the FBI among groups of what appears to be far right extremism. See FBI agents, Garland and Wray see increased death threats after Trump Mar-a-Lago raid: sources. What happens next is going to be interesting and the way in which we step will be an important one.

The threats indicate increased online chatter and with a background of paramilitary sacking of our Capital we should probably start taking domestic extremism/terrorism seriously. (Notice how domestic threats follow similar patterns. One could analyze that chatter and the people involved to ensure they are actual people/profiles and what other associations they may have with each other and other outside entities. None of this is new. Contingency planning for various scenarios and situations is important.)

For example, when groups begin to chatter about violence, group norms seem to indicate a level of heightened aggression and some of the groups have the potential to create violence we should be concerned. Its the same on a national level as it is on a local level and one often filters to the other. 

The same social mechanics of socialization, normalization and radicalization seem to occur in the online and offline world. Any ideology can be twisted for political gain. The key is how social connections spread information and who it reaches and how those groups form their identities. Depending on their chatter it could easily lead to violence as individual responsibility is minimized in the group's head.

What we will want to see is if there are questions about why a raid has occurred that we trust in a process and people will review that process to ensure accuracy/purpose. Such process can create more insight into behaviors such as innocence or guilt (For example, both sides many benefit by whatever the truth is and lead to increased transparency of government in general.). They are not yet a determination but only an investigation.

In this country everyone is innocent until proven guilty (That is everyone!). Furthermore, we should hope our politicians will support processes, change if they don't like, but work within the system. As soon as members of governance split to work outside the system, we might see a second round of problems. 

In the end, our central American values will win out because it is the best and most prosperous way forward. It could be a constructive lesson on who we are supporting (not party specific) and the danger of hyper politics (not party specific). Freedom isn't free and talk should have purpose and meaning. There should be limits to some types of behaviors.

My side is always with the Constitution, the needs of the whole society, my own moral conscious (perspective of God) and working through problems such as these to improve the entire democratic system. Dealing with the sleeping monster under our beds in a thoughtful national renewal that seeks to find bi-partisan solutions and clearer definition of the core values that make one an American/"American" (i.e. build our collective consciousness around key values we all share).

Let where everyone starts walking. Me, I'm going straight forward and encouraging people to think wisely about politics, people, and our futures as a system. We shall overcome and be better for it!