Michigan College Terrorism: A Tale of Two Prosecutors

[XLFD]

Upper Peninsula:  No Prosecution for Hate-Inspired, Violent Terroristic Threat

[EDITOR's NOTE:  The police, MTU, and the regular media totally reported the facts behind this story falsely, as later pointed out in a lawsuit filed by Matthew Schultz and related later in the Torch article Michigan Technological Foul] 

Third year Michigan Tech University mechanical engineering student Matthew Schultz (above) was arraigned on November 16, 2015 at the Houghton County Courthouse after making what many people would call a 'terrorist threat' on Yik Yak.  Yik Yak is a social media smartphone application that allows people to anonymously create and view discussion threads among those within a 5-mile radius.  The threat Mr. Schultz allegedly made was "Gonna shoot all black people".

The 21 year old from Norway, Michigan, a city where there may be no black people (0.2% are 'other race or mixed') was charged with "disturbing the peace" (a 90 day misdemeanor) rather than the more serious charge of making a terrorist threat (a 20 year felony), because the prosecutor decided that the existing evidence did not support it, and left it open to either amend the charge or drop the charge altogether, depending on what was found with then-unfinished forensics of the student's tech devices.

Shortly thereafter, the prosecutor issued a statement, declaring that the student's effects were searched and there appeared to be no "obvious evidence of motive or intent".  He noted the Michigan Anti-Terrorism Statute (MATS) contains a definition of terrorist act which requires more than a threat of violence, it has an intent or motive element.  Because of the lack of intent or motive, Schultz would not be charged under MATS unless more was found in his computers under forensic examination that showed otherwise.

He added his final determination would not be based on emotion, but based solely on law and facts.  Many vocal students had marched in protest over the lenient misdemeanor charge before Thanksgiving.

On December 7, Prosecutor Michael Makinen decided to drop all charges against Schultz, claiming that while authorities take the situation very seriously, the action did not merit a terrorism charge,  nor did the evidence suggest the lesser misdemeanor.  He noted the case remains under investigation and Schultz may be recharged if further evidence of wrongdoing is discovered.

The prosecutor and the media did not explicitly say so, but there appears to be little dispute as to Schultz's authorship of the Yik Yak post that said he was going to shoot all black people. 

Lower Peninsula:  Prosecution for Not-so Violent Terrorist Threat

At another Michigan university in the lower peninsula, Michigan State University (MSU), a packaging major was alleged to have wrote something on a women's bathroom stall about a week after Matthew Schultz was arraigned for his misdemeanor.  The message she witnessed and transmitted on social media was a bit cryptic

Frankly, it appears that she was reporting what she saw, as any good citizen should be doing in this age of terrorism.  But since this same woman had reported another unspecific threatening bathroom stall message in April, they considered her as a prime suspect for both.  After two rounds each of interrogation by the MSU Police and the FBI, they believe she wrote the message, and they believed it was threatening an act of terrorism.  Read more here about the perils of MSU Packaging Major Sydney Gort.

The Ingham County Prosecutor has decided that Ms. Gort is guilty of making terrorist threats, and decided to charge her for both April and November incidences for the felony, which could mean 40 years for the young co-ed.  In the arraignment and other news releases, the prosecutor has never inferred that Sydney Gort had the capacity or the intention to follow through with the threats she may have put up, even when the defense attorney pointed it out.

Analysis:  Different Interpretations of the Law

The obvious question arises:  Why is a threat in Houghton for a young white male to shoot all black people not register as a terrorist threat or any other crime, while bathroom graffiti possibly written by a girl expressing 'striking' every third girl who enters a building on a certain day rises to a 20 year felony?   The prosecutors of each county have looked over the Anti-Terrorism laws and came to much different conclusions as to what should happen. 

Ultimately, judges and maybe juries will have to decide Sydney Gort's fate, but let's take a look at the laws and see whether either of the prosecutors erred on a point of law.  In the original Gort article we posted the law and some of its elements.

The Ingham County Prosecutor (ICP) took a look at the second subsection and seemingly determined that Gort's intent or capability to do the deed was not a defense, which left the prosecution in a strong position.  However, in all of the Houghton County Prosecutor's (HCP) determinations, he focused on Schultz intent and ability to carry his violent deed out. 

The HCP looks to have been in the right, because he focused on what an "act of terrorism" is.  At the beginning of the MATS, it lists definitions of terms.  Definitions are important in law, and definitely in this case.  What you may consider an "act of terrorism" may not be the same as its legal definition, so we note: 

An "act of terrorism" has to be a willful and deliberate act that is 1) a violent felony   2) dangerous to human life and 3) intended to intimidate or coerce.  For a 'terrorist threat' to be made, the threatener must detail an 'act of terrorism, by the previous law. 

At MTU, the prosecutor decided that shooting all black people wasn't a credible threat that Schultz was planning on carrying out, and it seems to lack the third element of a terrorist act.  At MSU, the prosecutor decided that the threat of striking every third woman who entered a building was threatening an act of terrorism. 

However, striking someone is rarely a violent felony, rarely is it dangerous to human life, and in this case, the writing on the stall was not intimidating or coercive.  It offered no reason why the striking was to take place, nor how to appease the striker(s).  It was not a terroristic threat in the legal sense, it was at worst a warning whose intention is claimed by the ICP to have been to get Ms. Gort more time for her exams, even when it is doubtful she had any on the next day. 

If the ICP had used the same reasonable, law-compliant rationale the HCP had used, Sydney Gort would not have been imprisoned with a quarter of a million dollar bond for two felonies that could foreseeably put her in jail until she's old enough to retire.  Will common sense and common law prevail or will the ICP (which also stands for Michigan hip-hop band Insane Clown Posse) continue to terrorize this young lady, her family and her friends with a baseless charge notably lacking in elements of a real crime?

[Willy]

It's obvious that a threat of terrorism and the act terrorism are distinctly different according to the law. So it would appear that both students may be guilty of the making threats but not an actual act of terrorism so I don't believe 750.543b, definitions, sect. 543b would apply to either case. According to the Michigan Penal Code act 328 it would appear that threats made by both students fall under this particular statute. The bathroom stall clearly indicates that an "act of terrorism" was going to take place. If the police can prove that she wrote that message then I would say she is in deep doo doo because they will be trying to make a example of her in order to squash any future "pranksters" from emulating her actions.

The student from Michigan Tech is getting the kid gloves treatment and is very lucky that his fate is not mirroring Ms. Gorts because it looks like his prosecutor is misinterpreting the law.

[XLFD]

And even now, another man (not in college) posts violent threats to his girlfriend and her family, and makes violent and voluminous terroristic threats against the government, and is being charged with a misdemeanor in Hartford (Van Buren County).  This guy has some obvious issues and is making people nervous for their safety. 

My guess as to why Sydney Gort is being held to a higher standard is that the FBI was directly involved, and the MSU police and ICP feel the need to prosecute to the fullest extent or lose face.

But, if you recall the Charleston Shooting where a man shot nine blacks in a church our current FBI director clearly noted:  "FBI director James Comey said Friday that while his agency is investigating the murder of nine people in Charleston, S.C. as a hate crime, it is not an act of terrorism.

He said due to the lack of political motivation for his actions, alleged shooter Dylann Roof is not a domestic terrorist.

"Terrorism is act of violence done or threatens to in order to try to influence a public body or citizenry so it's more of a political act and again based on what I know so more I don't see it as a political act. Doesn't make it any less horrific the label but terrorism has a definition under federal law," he said during a visit to Baltimore."

According to the FBI director, even if Sydney Gort wrote the message, and claimed it was an act of terrorism, it was not an act of terrorism she was threatening, just an act of violence (if you interpret a vague use of 'striking' as violent).  

[XLFD]

Cooler heads of the justice system had Sydney Gort released on a much smaller bond just before Christmas, $25000 at 10%.  Gort will go to court in January for the women's bathroom stall graffiti that she reported to MSU Police just before Thanksgiving.

http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/story/news/local/2015/12/23/msu-...