A California mom has come to the defense of her son after he stirred up the community by tweeting he wanted to “kill some towel heads” to honor 9/11, Bakersfield Now is reporting.
The tweet, since taken down along with the Twitter account, was the handiwork of a recent high school graduate whose mother stated that neither her son nor her family are racists.
Posted on the eve of the anniversary of the attacks on the U.S. dating back to 2001, the tweet read: ““Gonna go kill some towel heads tomorrow in honor of 9/11, who’s with me?”
Informed of the threat, Sgt. Joe Grubbs, a spokesperson for the Bakersfield Police Department, said that, while they investigate all threats, what the teen did is not illegal since he didn’t make a specific threat against a person.
“Nothing about that is illegal. He’s well within his first amendment rights to say something like that,” Grubbs said, adding, “From this tweet, I don’t think there’s really anything to be scared about.”
The mother of the unidentified teen initially told reporters that her son would not apologize, later issuing a statement that he was sorry, but that he would not be talking to reporters.
In a statement she wrote: “I would like to state that I never said my child wouldn’t apologize. I just stated that he would not be interviewed, as he is a minor. He knows he made a huge mistake, and he is very sorry. He has been taught right from wrong and would never do something like that. My child is not racist. We are not racists. The story has been twisted. As a mother, I am protecting my child. That is my job.”
Watch the video below from Bakersfield Now:
Here’s how Trump intends to create ‘chaos and deadlock’ to steal the election from voters
The author of a new piece outlining how President Donald Trump could steal the election from voters explained just how that might happen.
The Atlantic's Barton Gellman revealed the Trump campaign is exploring a strategy to pressure Republican-led state legislatures to appoint electors, instead of letting voters choose, and he told MSNBC's "Morning Joe" how that would work in practice.
"The only other time in history we had a debacle like this with possibility of the multiple competing slates of electors where two groups of people said, 'I'm the state elector for the state of Pennsylvania,' for example, it's supposed to go to Congress," Gellman said. "Congress is supposed to decide who are the legitimate electors, if any, from the state, and the problem is the electorate count act is one of the most garbled statutes ever passed by Congress, which is saying a lot."
Trump apologist thinks president made ‘huge mistake’ by admitting he won’t peacefully give up power
A conservative who usually defends President Donald Trump admitted to CNN on Thursday that the president made a "huge mistake" when he refused to commit to having a peaceful transfer of power should he lose the 2020 election.
During a panel discussion on the president's latest controversial remarks about the upcoming election, liberal guest Bakari Sellers argued that Americans should be "very terrified" about Trump implicitly encouraging violence in the event that he loses.
‘Five-alarm fire’: MSNBC’s Morning Joe explains why Trump is rushing to smash democracy
MSNBC's Joe Scarborough sounded the alarm that President Donald Trump had no intention of giving up the White House.
The president has admitted that he wants to ram through a new Supreme Court justice to help decide the election in his favor, and the "Morning Joe" host was shocked -- yet not surprised -- that Trump refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power.
"Some remarkable things that, actually, could be both shocking and not surprising at the same time considering that they come from Donald Trump," Scarborough said.
"For the first time in the history of this republic, you have a president of the United States, who will not commit to a peaceful transfer of power," he added. "At the same time he's asking Republicans to lie to their constituents and go back on what they said four years ago and ram through a Supreme Court justice. Why? Because he needs that Supreme Court justice to vote for him on any election disputes that he stirs up. That is pretty much a five-alarm fire."