A Death Threat Against 'To the People'

As a rule, I don't respond to blog comments except in their original thread (and even then, not that often). But once every year or so, there's a disturbing one that merits a new post. One memorable such communication once came from a lady named Pam Futerer who, in response to a quickie essay of mine, fantasized about crushing my dick in a vise and cutting off my balls. Ah, good times.

Anyway, this time around, the honor goes to someone called Matt Vollmer, who only took a year and a half to respond to a Nobody's Business riff about the litigiousness of various dumbasses. For his comment, click on the link and scroll down until you see his name in blue.

One case I mentioned in my post — a post that got Mr. Vollmer so riled he demands my apology on behalf of one of the victims — was that of two young women in Florida who discovered the flammability of high-proof alcohol when they visited a nightclub where a fellow patron set fire to a stream of rum. Both women sustained serious burns. Pretty awful.

But here's my problem. They didn't sue the firebug. Rather, they filed suit against Bacardi because, they allege, the distiller's product is "defective" and "dangerous."

It's like getting stabbed and, instead of pressing charges against the assailant, suing the manufacturer of the knife. It's like finding grandma face-down in eight inches of water and suing the maker of the tub because the thing has a stopper.

Alcohol that ignites may be dangerous, but it isn't defective. It dutifully does what it's done for untold thousands of years, and anyone who has ever eaten crêpes suzettes, or banana foster, or any other flambéed food, knows this perfectly well.

Mr. Vollmer accuses me of "picking on burn victims to get [my] social networking fix." It's an odious charge. I obviously don't make light of people with severe burns — it's a horrendous injury that I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. No, what I have a problem with are the craven opportunists who file lawsuits that don't seek justice but a big payout. More to the point, I detest the sundry exploiters of our legal system who give the truly culpable (such as the firestarter in the nightclub) a free pass, while going after a party that clearly has no culpability but does have deep pockets.

And no, that moneygrubbing perversion doesn't become less objectionable as the accuser's physical state is more pitiable (though I'm sure there are swarms of trial lawyers prepared to argue otherwise).

Unlike the hostility displayed by Ms. Futerer against my poor family jewels, Matt Vollmer didn't threaten me with castration, or even with a shotglass of flaming calvados.

He apparently saved the death threat for another blog, To The People, that, in an admittedly prick-ish and intemperate fashion, had also criticized the Florida litigants. Less than half an hour after Matt Vollmer posted his demand for an apology on Nobody's Business, a commenter named Matt (no full name given) threatened bodily harm against To the People's bloggers, confirming that his note was a "death threat" and closing with "be warned you motherfucker." Click on this link and then read the fourth comment.

Remember, both the Nobody's Business post and the one at To the People had lain dormant for 18 months. Is it the same Matt? You'd be forgiven for assuming so. But would anyone really be so muttonheadedly reckless as to leave an e-mail address in one location (you don't see it, but as this site's administrator, I do, along with commenters' IP adresses) and then issue an [ahem] anonymous death threat minutes later at the next site visited? It seems so.

In Matt Vollmer's world, anyone who deplores the vomitous and misguided behavior of a gold digger is way out of line just because said gold digger happens to be injured; but it's OK for him to promise to kill people whose views on gold-digging don't jibe with his own.

I don't think he gets just how repulsive and rationally bankrupt that is — not to mention that it's, you know, a crime.

Comments

[Matt Vollmer]

You're comments about my sister, yes, my sister, were frustrating to me. I don't give a damn about your philosophies, I put family ties before everything. Would you not, and please don't bullshit me, do the same if your own family members, your siblings with whom you've shared your entire life, were subjected to similar flak?
Before running off your self-righteous demagoguery, remember for a second that emotion that binds together those who share the same blood. You would die for any of your family members, and I'm sure most people in this world would put their life at risk for their kin. It's born into us, and cannot be cast aside. You seek to use me as an example, fuck, I don't care, but I stood up for my sister, and I don't regret a word.

Respectfully,
Matt Vollmer

[billy-jay]

Matt,

I know two (and only two things) about your sister. One, she was apparently badly burned in an accident at a bar. Two, her lawyer is suing an innocent party. Based on that, I'd have to say she's not a good person.

Convince me otherwise.

[Rogier]

Matt:

You "put family ties before everything" -- including reason, it seems. There's nothing noble about defending your sister if it means (a) abandoning all logic, and (b) leaving quasi-anonymous death threats for people who wrote a few critical words about her far-fetched legal exploits.

Honestly, where the fuck do you get off threatening to kill people for what they believe?

What I wrote, and what Cicero at To the People wrote (much as I personally dislike how he framed his callous post) is a mere opinion, which happens to be constitutionally protected. You're free to ignore our words if you want, or offer counter-arguments, should you have any. You don't even have to be polite or "respectful" about it. You may yell if you wish.

But instead of choosing either of those two options, you decided to issue death threats against people whose opinions differ from yours. THAT, Matt Vollmer, would be a far cry from protected speech. THAT would be a federal crime.

I hope Cicero at To the People files charges, and that the judge packs you off to jail for a while -- or at the very least makes you perform a few weeks of community service cleaning the shit-stained toilets in the local retirement home.

Should that, regrettably, not happen, then my personal satisfaction will have to come from the knowledge that as long as search engines exist, your name will be associated with a death threat you issued -- a crime to which you have now tacitly confessed.

[Anonymous]

Look, Matt, I get defending your sister, but heres the problem: either she is a fool willing to allow someone else to take advantage of others in her name, or she's an asshole who actively sought out someone to take advantage of others for personal gain. Either way she is worthy of contempt and derision. This is the internet, people say nasty things and laugh at eachother. Its a big bad world, buy a fucking helmet and stop whining.

Also, drop the Internet Tough Guy routine. It doesn't scare anyone, it just makes us laugh at you AND your jackass of a sister.

[Terrence]

Can everyone calm down for a second? I'm having a hard time reconciling what is generally a level headed blog with what appears to be a rabid fan-base. Mr. Vollmer is understandably protective of his sister. To The People and Nobody's Business also have the right to be concerned when threatened. But using personal attacks on a burn victim because of her choice of litigation is insane. Are you all really that outraged about someone trying to sue Bacardi? Really? I'm sure anyone of you has railed against the unfair, uncaring practices of a multinational conglomerate such as Bacardi. As a former bartender who has poured flaming shots of 151, and seen people almost immolate themselves, maybe it is time to reconsider the sale of such a potent liquor, or at least the idea of lighting it on fire in crowded establishments. Agata Macierzynska could probably pick a less typical American approach than suing to achieve this objective, agreed. But calling a burn victim a "jackass", an "asshole" or wishing that "these bitches had died" for their choice is as messed up as a response as threatening the lives of the people who posted it. I'm pretty sure Mr. Vollmer is as aware of the first amendment as Rogier and Cicier. Since we are all so fond of throwing it in each other's faces, maybe we can start using it responsibly.

[RWW]

"...maybe it is time to reconsider the sale of such a potent liquor, or at least the idea of lighting it on fire..."

Spoken like a true despot.

[Jason]

In Matt's defense, I did not read his comment at ToThePeople as a death threat. I assumed he was accusing ToThePeople of making a death threat with the phrase "I wish these bitches had died" and thinking it made them important. It was an indictment of his reading comprehension, but I've gotten good mileage out of "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

OTOH, his responding comment here didn't even try to explain, so maybe I misread it, but it still made more sense then interpreting his comment as itself making a death threat, given that the blog post explicitly wished death upon someone, and his comment threatened violence.

[Cicero]

For what it's worth I obviously don't wish that Vollmer's sister or anyone else had actually died. It was a joke* to emphasize the fact that I'm sick and tired of people abusing our legal system. To sue Bacardi in this instance is an outrage. Such lawsuits do not belong in a free society and we should cast scorn on those who seek to take advantage of others in this way. I understand that the victims went through intense suffering and will carry that suffering for life. They also probably have huge medical bills. But just like robbing your neighbor's house to compensate for your house being robbed by someone else is morally wrong so is this lawsuit, and I'm not ashamed to say so.

*I'm not saying it was a good joke.

CROSS-POSTED AT TO THE PEOPLE

[Anonymous]

Terrence, I understand your concern at my aggression, but I think you're kinda missing my point. I've seen quite a few people do flaming shots too, and I've seen a few mishaps. Thing is, only a fool looks at a flaming shot and doesn't understand that there is at least some risk involved. Even if they don't, its nobody's business except theirs. People get hurt doing stupid things all the time, but that doesn't exactly mean anyone should do anything about it.

But thats kind of beside the point now, isn't it. Yes, I called these women assholes and jackasses and I stand by it. Their story was tragic all the way up until they decided to file an opportunistic suit. They are willfully abusing the system with the intent of using the coercive force of government to steal from someone else because they were either unlucky or foolish. Put crudely, if they were on fire in a crowded bar I wouldn't stop to piss them out.

As for your trope about multinational conglomerates, it doesn't stand up to reason. Have you ever seen a bottle of 151? Did you notice the big warning labels in bold print? The spout designed to reduce the danger of accidental fire? Where is the "unfair, uncaring" business practice? Where, exactly, has Bacardi screwed up other than selling a product that some people use foolishly? I can think of a few dozen uses for high-proof alcohols that don't involve an open flame, should those all be verboten because some people can't be trusted to behave with a minimum of common sense and responsibility?

[Paul]

Matt Vollmer does realize that when he wades into libertarian blogs, he wades into swamp of legal firearms ownership...right?

[Paul]

"But using personal attacks on a burn victim because of her choice of litigation is insane. "

Wow, where does one begin with this one.

If you mean "personal attack" by questioning the character of someone who has gone after the one party that has no culpability in this matter, then no, it's not insane at all.

If Bacardi's product is defective, then so is gasoline. Bacardi's product contains alcohol in sufficient quantity to catch fire. Having said that, she has every right to sue the bar (assuming they sanctioned or allowed such an event to take place), but the maker of the product itself has no place in this suit.

Bacardi has deep pockets, and that is the only reason they're being sued. Period.

"As a former bartender who has poured flaming shots of 151, and seen people almost immolate themselves, maybe it is time to reconsider the sale of such a potent liquor, or at least the idea of lighting it on fire in crowded establishments. "

How about the idea of lighting it on fire in a crowded establishment, Mr. Ex-Bartender?

Why, Mr. Ex-Bartender, did you ever think it was a good idea to set a flammable liquid aflame, and serve it to drunk people?

My guess is, you lit it on fire because you knew you could, therefore, the responsibility lies solely with you, sir.

[Terrence]

I agree. The person who lit it on fire is the one who is responsible. I stopped lighting, and allowing people to light the shots on fire because it was a bad idea.
I'm really in complete agreement with everybody here.

Personal responsibility is a rare commodity these days. It's much easier to say "I didn't see the giant hot pink warning label on the bottle of rum that I knew was going to turn into a flaming shot", than "I'm lacking in common sense sometimes."

As far as the uncaring practices of Bacardi, I was using it as an example. I don't know what there practices are, and was merely surprised that people seemed to be so concerned about the legal action against them. The claim that the product is defective is wrong on a number of levels, not the least of which is that the product is by nature flammable, a point that has been made by a number of people in this forum.

The "personal attacks" that I referred to were fairly clear I thought. Questioning the character of someone is fine, it was more the manor in which is being done.
Also, "Wow, where does one begin with this one." should have a question mark.