Sabattus candidate threatens president, uses racial slur

SABATTUS — Federal and local law enforcement agencies are investigating a comment posted by a local man on Facebook: "Shoot the N*****" atop a picture of President Barack Obama.

More coverage: Sabattus man defends posting

Sun Journal File Photo

David Marsters, running for an open selectman seat in Sabattus this November, has posted an offensive comment about President Barack Obama's race on Facebook, suggesting the president should be shot.

David Marsters said Tuesday he was called down to the town police station and questioned by the Secret Service for about an hour. They asked him for his name, date of birth, past history and family history before getting to the heart of the matter: his Facebook post.

Next, they interviewed his wife and neighbors and searched his home for guns. He owns one handgun, he said.

Marsters is the same person who wanted the town to require every household to own a gun and ammo, and he's since taken out papers to run for selectman this fall.

Sabattus police alerted federal authorities Tuesday to Marsters' Facebook page, according to a written statement from Town Manager Andrew Gilmore. Marsters' post is dated Aug. 23.

Marsters is a retired police officer from Massachusetts. When people in the Facebook thread reacted to his comment and admonished him, Marsters asked if one was a "democrat" and wrote of Obama, "He is not a legal president," in response to the comment, "Our 1st Amendment doesn't give us the right to shoot presidents."

"If these statements were indeed made by Mr. Marsters and that is proven during this investigation, I need to clearly state that I am deeply concerned, appalled and, frankly, dumbfounded as to why he or anyone would declare such a thing, let alone print it for the world to see," Gilmore said.


Gilmore and police Chief Anthony Ward were alerted to the post by residents' emails. Marsters serves on several town committees.

Marsters did not return calls for comment. He appeared to have taken down the post by 1 p.m. Tuesday. Facebook users had to be accepted as a "friend," or be a friend of a friend, to view it and the dozen comments that followed.

Steve Wessler, a former Maine prosecutor and former executive director of the Center for Prevention of Hate Violence, said it would be up to an agency like the U.S. Secret Service to determine whether the words "Shoot the N*****" would result in criminal charges.

Threatening to harm the president is a low-level felony, and prosecutions do happen. A Georgia inmate pleaded guilty last week to threatening to kill Obama in a letter he wrote from prison.

"The idea of somebody expressing those kinds of views and running for public office is extraordinarily disturbing," Wessler said. "Everybody is entitled to disagree with political figures, and somebody may have a right to use racial slurs, the First Amendment right, but to actually have that talk about shooting somebody, much less the president, is totally beyond the pale.

"It's something that the vast, vast majority of Mainers would be disgusted about," he said. "I'm disgusted about it."

Though he has taken out nomination papers, Marsters has yet to turn in his signatures to get on the November ballot, Gilmore said. He said he was unaware of anything the town could do to keep Marsters from running, and he wouldn't necessarily want that.

"I believe the authority to elect or not elect any individual should remain solely with the voters," Gilmore said.

Marsters has had past dealings with local police, but all have been civil and noncriminal, and he has never been charged with a crime in town, Gilmore said.

In March, Marsters proposed a new law that would require Sabattus heads of households to own guns to "provide and protect (the) safety of the city."

At the time, he told the Sun Journal that after some break-ins in the area, he "threatened neighbors" who were "druggies."


Selectmen weren't won over; they turned down Marsters' proposal.

At town meeting in June, voters approved a watered-down version, however, passing a measure that blocks Sabattus from adopting policies or ordinances that restrict the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Gilmore said he didn't want to address the inflammatory Facebook comment with a pat statement that the incident was regretful and didn't reflect on the town.

"Let me go a step further and very clearly state that I personally find this statement, whether made by Mr. Marsters or anyone else for that matter, deplorably hateful, dangerous and exactly opposite of all this country and the town of Sabattus stands for, and against what I believe any moral, sane person truly believes and represents, regardless of his or her ideology or philosophical views of the world," he said.

"I am both deeply saddened and angry that any person would say such a thing and also drag innocent people, such as the vast majority of good-natured residents in Sabattus, through a negative spotlight."

Staff writer Douglas McIntire contributed to this report.

Amber Waterman, Sun Journal


What do you think of this story?

Login to post comments

In order to make comments, you must create a subscription.


Login or create an account here.

Our policy prohibits comments that are:

  • Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful
  • Excessively foul and/or vulgar
  • Inappropriately sexual
  • Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening
  • Commercial postings attempting to sell a product/item



FRANK EARLEY's picture

My worst nightmares are coming true....

There is a very good reason I moved from Massachusetts mere minutes after graduating from High School. I just couldn't connect with people down there. I had nothing in common with anyone. I used to have to explain what I meant about my former fellow citizens. Not anymore, I just have them read the paper. I feel like there's this "chicken wing conspiracy" aimed at getting as many former Massachusetts residents as possible, and having them move to towns very close to my own. Then on cue, do something incredibly stupid.
I moved up here to get away from these lunatics, when all I should have done is just stay put, and wait for them to all move to Maine. It's getting to be like a horror movie. Every morning I wake up, read the paper and then "BAM" there it is, scarey music and all, right there in the headlines. "FORMER MASS. RESIDENT DOES IT AGAIN". It's always something. Murder, robbery, embezzlement, cross dressing, it doesn't matter. It's always something that brings shame to anyone who has previously lived in Massachusetts. I can't get away from it, I type with a Boston accent.
This guy Marsters, he's just the tip of the iceberg. The more you read about him, the more you'll understand why I tell folks I'm from Jersey........

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

This time you're blowing

This time you're blowing smoke rings. To mischaracterize everyone from Massachusetts on the basis of one man's stupid behavior is wrong, wrong, wrong.

FRANK EARLEY's picture

I'm not mentioning any names............

This is not the only case of stupidity by fellow mass residents. This has been going on for years. There's a very large group of transplants here. They live quite nicely with out drawing attention to themselves. It's the ones who make the headlines for all sorts of stuff, not necessarily illegal. Like the one who wanted a "Neighborhood Association", to set guidelines for how your residence should look. That one came up a couple of times. Then there's the one I read about yesterday in the Boston Globe. It was about a guy in this huge housing development down in MA, who broke the cardinal rule of "white curtains" only in the house. What would happen if the genius behind that rule decides to come to Maine? There's a reason Mass transplants stick out sometimes, they insist on bringing their old way of life with them.
For years, I've been trying to figure out, why some people, fed up with the rat race, the crime and violence, decide to make a huge change of residency, only to bring the very problems they are trying to escape, with them. It's awful hard to change your lifestyle if you drag the old one with you. It's usually those people who are making the headlines...............

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

The ones you're talking about

The ones you're talking about are from CT and New 'Yawk'. 0O:-)

Bob White's picture

Thats kinda funny Frank

Do you ever think us people in Maine thought the same of you. Why is it good for you to move to a new place? why is it ok for you to build a house? why is it ok for you to enjoy what you like? BUT its not ok for anyone else to want what you want. See I can never understand people like you for example people that go and build in a new development and then a few years later someone else wants to put in a new development but the people that are there already get all up in arms and start saying you cant build here because that will ruin the neighborhood or they call it sprawl. Maybe the people that were there originally thought the same. People do this all the time its ok for them to do what they want but when someone else wants the same well you cant do that its going to effect my life. Unless they are trying to put something on my property then I have nothing to say.

FRANK EARLEY's picture

Hey Bob...........

Do you ever actually read a post before you reply to it?????????????

Norman Mitchell's picture


Stacey Hall's picture


Those of us on the left did care, those idiots were just as bad as your idiots and plenty of us called them out on it. Selective memory sucks though doesn't it. It's kinda like acting like Bush didn't wiretap illegally, or that he didn't start Fast & Furious, or that he was the president during Katrina. Don't be mad at Bush, but it's okay to blame it all on Obama.

Noel Foss's picture

Point of clarification:

Operation Fast & Furious started in 2009, exclusively within the scope of the Obama administration. The gunwalking operation that occurred under Pres. Bush was called Operation Wide Receiver, was of a much smaller scale and had a much lower level of fallout. It was still a total and complete failure.
However, the Obama administration looked at that past operation, saw that it was a complete and total failure, and decided to do the exact same thing on a larger scale. Unsurprisingly, the fallout from the operation has also been on a larger scale.

JERRY ARIPEZ's picture

Ever since, he wanted to make himself known;

He started his drive for more guns and driving his agenda, not once but twice; I said all along this guy was 5 cans short of a six pack. He threatens his neighbors and acts as the judge, jury and wants to be the executioner.

The guy should be prosecuted for the suggestion of a threat or to insight, just like the other guy some months back that got 2 years for for making a threat against a sitting president.

The town of Sabattus should keep this guy in check and should not support him for any position for any community action or township positions.

The guy is a loose cannon.....

JERRY ARIPEZ's picture

You notice

That his signature gathering buddy Armand Duo is as quiet as a scared mouse, when the FBI and Secret Service pays Marstars a visit and they should be looking at his acquaintances also.

JOANNE MOORE's picture

The thing that strikes me about this is........

.......that people like him shout bloody murder (no pun intended) when they think their rights are being stepped on and the government is intruding too much in their lives and then they go and post nutty things on the internet to cause intrusion.

Telling others to shoot anyone should be a crime if it isn't already. If he is found guilty of a crime I hope he gets locked up before his irrational hatred gets the better of him and he hurts someone. From the comments he has made here, this story doesn't surprise me.

Tony Morin's picture

I am shocked by this story!

Shocked I tell you!

Mike Lachance's picture

The man is old, and seems to

The man is old, and seems to be a bit off his rocker, but this in no way justifies his threat. He should be cited, charged, or whatever the law allows for breaking Federal Law.

My only point of contention is the fact that for (8) years this nation pretty much ignored the widespread death threats exhibited from coast to coast for GW Bush. (see links in comments below) Regardless of party, this is a crime and should be reported with equal vigor (or lack thereof) by the media. To do otherwise indicated political expediency and a disingenuous editorial slant either way.

Hopefully Mr. Marsters learns his lesson. If he doesn't we can only hope he has sane friends who can talk some sense into him.

What we should NOT be doing however, is using this story as a springboard to throw personal insults at each other for no other reason than basic ideological differences. Its safe to say that most conservatives do not want Obama killed, and its equally safe to say that most liberals do not (or did not) want Bush killed.

Enough with the personal attacks.

Noel Foss's picture


I wonder if the SJ asked all those people commenting on his Facebook page for permission before posting their names on here with that screenshot...
Typically those names would have been blurred first to protect their privacy.

RONALD RIML's picture

There is no expectation of privacy when posting on facebook.

As there is no expectation of privacy when posting on the LSJ Forums here........

Noel Foss's picture

That is true, to an extent

(Facebook's Privacy Policy and their recently settled class-action lawsuit for violations of said policy notwithstanding)
However, most news organizations blur people's names whenever they include screenshots from Facebook, probably as a means of avoiding lawsuits over not having asked permission to directly attribute what's said by whom in that screenshot.
Just as it's good journalistic practice to get permission to attribute a statement in an article ("can I quote you on that?"), it's also good journalistic practice to
A) Receive permission from people before including a screenshot that has their names on it
B) Barring that, blur the names on said screenshot in the interest in preserving their privacy.

Don't believe me; google some articles from other news agencies that have used screenshots. $5 will get you $10 that they've blurred the names.

Noel Foss's picture

For example;

Back when the state was going round and round about making concealed weapons permits private, and the SJ was providing coverage of it, there was an article posted about it (see link below). In that article, there were several quotes from a retired police officer about the difficulty of retrieving aggregate data under the current system. Despite the fact that the officer had contacted the SJ, and was directly quoted several times during the article, he was never named. While I can't say for certain, it was probably because he hadn't given the SJ permission to do so, (perhaps out of a desire for personal privacy). I respected the SJ for doing so, despite the fact that it takes away some of the impact of a statement or quote when you don't know where it's coming from.
So why would they respect the right to privacy of somebody who contacted the SJ directly more than somebody who didn't contact the SJ at all? I'm sure that when the retired officer contacted the SJ for that article, he fully expected his comments to be included in the article. I'm also equally certain that when the folks in that screenshot were commenting on Mr. Marster's Facebook page that they didn't expect to have their comments laid out in the newspaper (news-puter?) for all to see.

Just sayin'

RONALD RIML's picture

The Sun Journal named the "Police Officer"

and the article was later picked up by the "New England First Amendment Center"

Read Database on Maine “concealed carry” permits could be pricey.

Excerpt: "Wondering what it might take for the state police to produce aggregate information in his own town, East Boothbay, a coastal community of some 2,000 year-round residents, retired officer Ron Riml asked for the number of permit holders in that town. That number is not available."

Read the entire article.

We have no expectation of privacy when we post on these forums. Got it?? Get it!

Noel Foss's picture


I challenge you to post a link to that story that's located here on the Sun Journal, since you say that the SJ named the officer, and that it was "later picked up" by the 1st Amendment Center.
If it was picked up by them later, it would have had to be published here first. So where is it?

Noel Foss's picture

Sorry Ron,

But the SJ article I referenced never names the officer. Maybe YOU should try reading the entire article. I even gave you a handy-dandy little link to click to make it easy. I want you to click on it, and read through the entire article, and tell me exactly how many times your name is mentioned in the body of that work.
The article YOU supplied mentions you by name; the one I referenced and supplied a link to does not. Got it? Get it?!

Maybe you should try re-reading that whole thread. I'm not saying that posts on this forum are private, am I? I'm simply pointing out that it's unusual that the SJ chose not to blur the names of the people in their screenshot from Mr. Marster's page, since most news organizations opt to do so for the purpose of protecting the privacy of the people involved.
Should I type it out REAL SLOW for you? Find a font that resembles red crayon? Because I really don't know how much more clearly I can spell it out for you here.

RONALD RIML's picture

Sorry, Noel - Not playing YOUR silly little game.

Once you put it on on the web - it is there for the world to see.

Saggy tits and all...........

Noel Foss's picture


My game is silly when I conclusively prove you wrong on a point, but your game's not silly when you post personal insults about other users?
I wouldn't have figured you for a sore loser, but whatever.

And I'll have you know that my tits are still quite firm, thank you very much.

RONALD RIML's picture

I'm not quite sure what point you proved me wrong on...

But if it makes you feel good for me to admit I'm wrong - O.K.

I'm wrong. No one can use anything we post. This is all private, personal, and copyrighted. If anyone ever dares copies it and posts it for anyone else to see, I'll hold my breath until I turn red, pout, and be a perfect be-itch!!!

And glad your tits are firm. Thought as a male you'd have pecs - but sorry I assumed incorrectly.

Noel Foss's picture


Keep beating on that straw man, Ron.
NEVER did I state that Facebook posts and SJ posts are private. I simply said that most news organizations blur names on screen shots in the interest of individual's privacy, and that I thought it was unusual that the SJ chose not to do so.
So you're wrong, because you're arguing against a statement I never made.

You claimed that the SJ identifies you as their source in the article that I provided (They don't).
So you're wrong because you insisted they did.

You provided a link to an article on a different website that you claimed was originally sourced from the SJ. Had that been the case, they would have cited that source. (They didn't, because it's a different version of the same story that Ms (Mrs?) Meyer wrote specifically for that publication)
So you're wrong that the 1st Amendment Center picked up the article. They picked up the STORY, and Ms. (Mrs?) Meyer wrote them a new article.

When I spelled all this out to you, you suddenly decided that my game was silly, and that you were going to take your ball and go home. But whatever.

As for the tits comment, I decided quite a while back that the men in my generation have tits instead of pecs, since we're all such a bunch of girls (obsessed with hair products, tanning, and crappy pop music)

RONALD RIML's picture

So it's only the article 'You' provided.....

That's the only one that counts???


Noel Foss's picture

Since that's the article we were discussing...

Yes, that's the one that counts. You don't insist that Chevy paints all their headers blue and then pop the hood on your Ford to prove it.
But I'll be flexible.
Provide a different SUN JOURNAL article, one that identifies you by name, and we'll count that one instead. After all, you said the SJ named you in their article.

Quoting Ron Riml, Thu, 08/29/2013 - 13:42

'The Sun Journal named the "Police Officer" and the article was later picked up by the "New England First Amendment Center"....'

RONALD RIML's picture

That's obviously the only one I can find.

So we're either both right - or both wrong; or whatever. I had no claim to anonymity. It makes no difference to me, and I didn't see the article until it was long published.

But I'm certainly happy that I was able to have some impact in the process. People should never feel completely disenfranchised nor powerless, no matter how frustrated they become with the system. You have no idea how much networking I had to do, much behind the scenes. It's doubtful that the LSJ gleaned information only from what I've written on the forum here.

JERRY ARIPEZ's picture


You and Noel are the old fashion pen pals...just humor.... 8>)

Noel Foss's picture


I guess that makes you the warden who's stuck inspecting the mail and reading about our lover's quarrel and rolling his eyes!

JERRY ARIPEZ's picture

Bend over, Snap!

Need to check the safe for unwanted contraband....HA!

JERRY ARIPEZ's picture

Noel you miss the permission rights with when you join a webblog

Privacy is where you stay off of social networks.....most sites are now requiring account personal verification with users real names, with anonymous posters going to the wayside, because of posters outrageous, over the top, factless rants.

Noel Foss's picture


I just noticed the "outrageous, over the top, factless rants" part of that statement.

It sure is a good thing that the SJ requires verification to post on here, otherwise we'd see that sort of thing on here all the time!


Noel Foss's picture

We're not talking about this forum.

Most professional news organizations typically blur names whenever they post a screenshot from Facebook, probably because it protects them from legal action from individuals included in that screenshot who did not consent to have their names published in the article.
Hence my wondering if the SJ asked all those nice people in the picture above if they minded if their names appeared in the article.

RONALD RIML's picture

So where are his fellow Right Wingers, Gun Fanciers, and

Tea Partiers to comment??

Mike Lachance had the good grace to show up. A few others must be enjoying a nice day at the range... ;)

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

What he did was indefensible.

What he did was indefensible. What else do you want, a pint of blood?

RONALD RIML's picture

Merely an appearance - Pints of blood not required


Mike Lachance's picture

Grouping me into a bucket

Grouping me into a bucket with this nutbag is about the lowest action possible on this board. You prove beyond any doubt you have no clue. Read the post.

RONALD RIML's picture

Right / Left

No more than that.

David  Cote's picture

I was actually going to bring that up...

I figured you get to it sooner than later.

Noel Foss's picture


On what planet would that seem like a good idea?

Noel Foss's picture

ok, now I'm curious

What genius disagrees with me and thinks that what Mr. Marsters did was a good idea?

Jonathan Albrecht's picture

But he isn't an isolated example

You have very ill-informed people who committed to the republican party in hopes of banning abortion, ending welfare, getting the Federal Government out of their faces, ending EPA, IRS, cutting the budget by 90% and instead you get George W. Bush who creates the largest Federal bureaucracy in history, doubles the National debt, turns a surplus into the largest deficit in history, adds program after program without paying for any of them, begins the largest domestic spying operation, and heaven forbid that lead to the election of, OMG, a Black man as President. These folks are frustrated. They don't understand what's going on. They are losing power they thought they had. They are lied to by friend and foe (in their view). They just have to strike out.
We live in dangerous times.

Mike Lachance's picture

How the hell does the

How the hell does the Democrat-controlled congress's budgets (2007-2009) have anything to do with Bush, (faults and all) and how does any of this have anything to do with "electing an (OMG) Black Man?" Is that how you identify the President? first and foremost a "black man"? On top of this, you claim Bush doubled the national debt, (false, it was the Reid-Pelosi congress) and also disregard the debt that has since accumulated under the current administration through more than a whole term. You fail to mention the Affordable Care Act or its costs, which dwarf any debt accumulated over the entire decade from 2000-2010. ("...adds program after program without paying for them..." are you serious??? which President are you talking about here?)

"These folks"??? Again, who are "these folks"?? do you seriously think anyone who does not agree with the policies of the President or the party who passed the Affordable Care Act want to see the President shot??? You've painted an insultingly broad brush stroke to slander over half of the United States just because they are not cheerleading your ideological corner.

Can you explain to me, while you are so eloquently painting broad strokes, why you should noty be grouped in with the people seen in the photos at the bottom of this article?
According to Ron Riml, both you are these creeps "fellow left wingers"

Please do explain.

Jonathan Albrecht's picture

Its difficult to explain to Tea partiers how our government

works, but I'll try again. The President proposes a budget, house and Senate committees modify the proposal, the House and Senate pass their versions then go to conference (normally) where compromises modify the two bills passed, then the bill that emerges from the conference is adopted by both houses hopefully and goes to the President for his signature (or veto). The mere existence of majority of one party or another does not mean legislative control of that body (the filibuster in the Senate giving 41 Senators legislative control of that body as we have seen over the last 5 years.). But one thing is certain no budget is signed by the president that he personally didn't agree with. Bush was President during the 2007 - 2009 budgets. They were his. He originated them. They contain his proposals and they implemented his and the republican party's policies. And since Obama was not President. he has little to nothing to do with them or the deficits they accumulated in the out years.
You did notice that President Obama is black or african-american literally if you prefer. First one. Historic. I identify President Obama as a Constitutional Scholar, superb speaker, liberal spokesman who has governed as he should (to a degree) as a moderate Republican. But that's not a view held by 1/3 or more of the Republican Party.
I don't claim that Bush doubled the Nationl debt; its a fact. You know, well maybe you don't, reality. The increase in the debt was caused solely by President Bush's policies. Those policies he fought for and pinned his Presidency to. Not the fact that he simply sat in a chair. Did Congress demand that he invade Irag - NO. Did Congress demand $2.1 trillion in tax cuts for the weathy - No. Did Congress demand a prescription drug benefit - No (Conservative Republicans met with President Bush before the vote on the legislation and he lied to them by saying that the cost would be no more than $395 billion/year when his administration knew it would be double). These were all unpaid for proposals initiated, demanded, and fought for by the President of the US, George W. Bush. So don't try to sell the nonsense that these issues were pushed by Democrats. That lie won't sell. In fact we wouldn't have a Tea Party today except for the fact that Bush and the Republican establishment pushed for these fiscally irresponsible policies.
"Affordable Care Act or its costs, which dwarf any debt accumulated over the entire decade from 2000-2010." What utter nonsense. First, the costs of ACA have not really even begun to accumulate. Second, the program is paid for. How can conservatives rail against the taxes that pay for it and then claim that it will add to the debt to the tune of more than $6 trillion.

Noel Foss's picture

Regardless of who's president

Republican or Democrat, you've always got idiots that threaten them.

Bob White's picture

I agree with you there

I agree with you there doesn't mater if your a D or R

Mike Lachance's picture

Agreed Noel. And they should

Agreed Noel. And they should *all* be prosecuted. Including the nutcase in Sabattus.
But we should be going those who threaten the life of Dem Presidents *and* Republican Presidents. And those threats should be reported with equal vigor, regardless of what party the office holder belongs to.

Last I heard...

The Secret Service investigates ALL threats against every President, regardless of party, and no matter how serious it may seem. Which means there will soon be a black SUV visiting his house very soon.

And it doesn't matter how many times you post that link, I ain't clicking it.

Mike Lachance's picture

John Kerry in 2006 on Mahers

John Kerry in 2006 on Mahers show-


I doubt Kerry was investigated. And if you don't consider that a serious enough threat, you're probably right. But to be joking about murdering (literally) the President of the United States on national television... pretty insane. Let alone this bobble head was the Dem. candidate for the Presidency and is now Secretary of State.

Just sayin' There's a lot of this garbage being tossed around and there has been for years....there isn't a single valid excuse for any of it. There's a clear and wide line between expressing total dissatisfaction with a President and threatening to kill or even wishinhg death upon a President. Why is this line so seemingly blurred these days? Because certain people seem to be able to get away with it.

Jonathan Albrecht's picture

That's a very long stretch

How could he go to NH and kill two Presidents. Nonsense.

Peter Jokinen's picture

threatened neighbors to move out?

If he really did make threats to neighbors who he didn't like, it doesn't matter whether or not he actually "forced them to move away" for what he claims to have done to be classified as a "crime of terrorism."


It is time

to charge this man and, if the evidence is there, put him away.

Once in prison or a mental hospital, his "2nd Amendment righty" would be toast. He can then rant, rave, foam at the mouth and otherwise act like an idiot and we can safely ignore him.

RONALD RIML's picture

United States v. Stickrath: "Akin to Treason"

United States v. Stickrath, 242 F. 151, 153 (SD Ohio 1917) (“In this country sovereignty resides in the people, not in the President, who is merely their chosen representative. To threaten to kill him or to inflict upon him bodily harm stimulates opposition to national policies, however wise, even in the most critical times, incites the hostile and evil-minded to take the President's life, adds to the expense of his safekeeping, is an affront to all loyal and right-thinking persons, inflames their minds, provokes resentment, disorder, and violence, is akin to treason, and is rightly denounced as a crime against the people as the sovereign power.”).

Mike Lachance's picture

Excellent clip. And very

Excellent clip. And very true. Good job!

Now can you explain these photos of your "fellow left wingers" (as you like to put it) seen here at the end of the article? Why weren't these people reported about widely or even prosecuted? Surely as ideological compatriots you will be able to explain their reasoning and logical position. Your posts are oftentimes very similar in sentiment and maturity. I figure if anyone can explain these signs you can Ron:

RONALD RIML's picture

Sabattus Residents may very well need to be armed

to protect themselves from the likes of David Marsters.

I'd consider it...

...if my wife weren't so adamantly opposed to my owning one. (Mainly due to my own klutziness... i think she's afraid I'd shoot her by accident.

Claudette Therriault's picture

I figured he was a little off

I figured he was a little off his rocker when he tried to pass that gun bill in Sabattus.

Now I know he is. The scary part is, he probably owns more guns that the NRA members put together.

Mike Lachance's picture

Such a threat should be a

Such a threat should be a disqualifier for elected office, in my opinion...

But, at the same time there is a double standard being applied in amplifying this nut case's facebook posts. The only reason this is SJ top of the fold news is for political expediency.

This article sums up the problem with such reporting over the last 5 years:

Jason Theriault's picture

It is

"Such a threat should be a disqualifier for elected office, in my opinion..."

It is:
18 USC § 871

Mike Lachance's picture

Jason, That's the law...of

Jason, That's the law...of course, and it should be enforced... but it makes no mention of forfeiture of elected office, per se'.
I believe it should be expressly stated as such.

Now about these "disagrees" on my post... its sad so many click that button without even reading more than a name. Unreal.

What makes you think that

What makes you think that your posts are not being read? I for one read every post before I agree or disagree...just because someone isn't agreeing with you??? We can like or dislike any post we gives you an idea of how people think..

Jonathan Albrecht's picture

Only the voters can disqualify a candidate

but I hope, "knowingly and willfully otherwise" expands that title from just threats conveyed by the USPS to include those conveyed by any means.
But yes this gentleman should be on his way to court.

RONALD RIML's picture

I can see little Mikey now.......

Mommy can't spank ME!!!

Johnny did the same thing, and his Mommy didn't spock him. Er, spank.....

Apologies to Dr. Spock.

This guy is NUTS

He had to go to the dump to get people to sign his petition when his proposal was "SHOT" this...this guy is an old man with nothing better to do than stir up trouble..and if you don't think like him he is nasty!!! He should just crawl back to Mass. where he came from..nobody but the low lives want him around..things were just fine till he showed up in his neighborhood..he is a legend in his own warped mind...take the road Masters..we will make sure everyone in the town hears about this one...not everyone thinks like him..thank God!!!!!

The low lifes.

Dont' forget, Linda, he's already run the low-lifes out of town.

it may be time

for Sabattus to force Mr Marsters to move out of town. I know who I'm not voting for in November.

You guys missed the reference

to his statements last Spring about running undesirables out of town. He's an undesirable, so...

David  Cote's picture

I respectfully disagree Wayne...

Running this guy out of town allows him to escape from this. It'd be akin to a reward. He has to answer to this and be dealt with as severely as the law allows. He's on the edge. No one with reasonable sanity would post a remark like that in social media. The guy is sick. He needs to be dealt with accordingly.

RONALD RIML's picture

He's Crazy like a Fox

Probably posted it with a bit of bottled courage.

JOANNE MOORE's picture


Foxes are smart. This guy may be crazy but crazy like a fool. And don't blame it on booze, please. That's a cop out for him.

RONALD RIML's picture

He's still responsible for his writing.

But I'll bet he was half in the bag - and it's a nightly occurrence.

David  Cote's picture

Even if that's the case...

Bottled courage = Truth serum.

And ten bonus points to you if you can name the lead actor in the t.v. series "Crazy Like a Fox."

RONALD RIML's picture

There was a TV series????

LOL -No points for Moi unless I cheat and google it.

David  Cote's picture

Oh yeah Ron

Back in the 80's. It starred Jack Warden, or juror #6 in the film "12 Angry Men." Terrific film. Sidney Lumet was a directoral genius.

A fantastic play, too

It wasn't just Lumet's virtuosity, the play itself (first broadcast live on Studio One, the film script is virtually identical) is a brilliant piece of work. It's no wonder it has been cribbed from repeatedly on TV police and legal drama when they run out of ideas.

Mike Lachance's picture

Saw that film in for the

Saw that film in for the first time way back in 8th grade. Definitely a classic, and winner of "Best Picture" at Academy Awards I believe.
I finally bought the DVD a few years back... could not convince wife and daughter to watch. Ah well... Still a great film.

JERRY ARIPEZ's picture

It is a must see

flick...fantastic realization....

David  Cote's picture

It sure was Jerry...

And it was all shot within that jury room and the adjacent bathroom. Great actors in that film...Fonda, Begley, Martin Balsam and Lee J. Cobb who should have won an Oscar for his performance. Sadly, each one has passed, the last being Jack Klugman who died last year.

RONALD RIML's picture

I see it was on between '84 and '86.

Between the weird hours of work - school - Navy Reserves - I frankly watched little or no TV. God, the energy I had then!!!

David  Cote's picture

Yeah, I didn't think about that...

You must have been a busy guy back in those days with your career and family.

RONALD RIML's picture

I'm making up for it now......

Wife #2 says I'm the laziest Guy she's ever met... ;)

David  Cote's picture

Ha ha ha!

Glad to have you in the fraternity!

RONALD RIML's picture

And with my Sloth

I wasn't even subject to 'Double Secret Probation!'

But WTF - I was a 'Guv'mint Worker'.... (Is that an oxymoron?)



I'm interested in ...