Law Schools

Jonathan Turley's Swatting Theory Fizzled So He Launched His Own Phony Assault

Last year, Jonathan Turley blamed a swatting attack on angry liberals. It will shock you not at all to learn that he was completely wrong.

By  
on
jonathan turley

(Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

The legal academy’s comic relief, Jonathan Turley, just informed his audience that the Department of Justice has indicted the people responsible for calling in a fake serious police emergency at his location — a practice known as “swatting” — which can have deadly results as law enforcement can descend on these calls with a “shoot first” urgency. Thankfully, the attack on Turley did not result in any injuries.

At the time, Turley blamed the “age of rage” so he could use the crime to generate some synergy to juice sales of his book by the same name. Everyday he’s hustling!

So how did that theory turn out?

The indictment below charges two foreign nationals: Thomasz Szabo, 26, of Romania, and Nemanja Radovanovic, 21, of Serbia.
…
The indictment alleges that their crimes encompassed 40 private victims and 61 official victims, including members of Congress, cabinet-level executive branch officials, and senior federal law enforcement officials. It also included four businesses, four religious institutions, and one victim university.

His “age of rage” theory implied that a cabal of domestic liberals were out to do him physical harm when in reality they just laugh at his buffoonery. Instead, it seems to be a pair of foreign nationals engaged in a broad-based attack on public figures in the United States. Swing and a miss, Jon!

But it probably feels better to imagine oneself as a heroic figure speaking truth to power at the risk of political violence than confront just being a punchline for Above the Law. Note how he carefully describes his co-victims as “cabinet-level executive branch officials” rather than “Biden administration cabinet-level executive branch officials,” a more accurate description for such victims in December 2023 when this all took place. So the attacks did include Democrats despite the efforts of his friends at Fox News to milk the attacks by claiming that they targeted “3 GOP lawmakers since Christmas” in an article Turley participated in. Turley conspicuously avoids the phrase “age of rage” in this article now that reality has thrown water on his previous theory.

Sponsored

Speaking of Above the Law, rather than address the fact that his whole theory of the case turned out to be utter bullshit, Turley used the indictment to throw a random stray our direction. Specifically, Turley called out our earlier coverage of the attack when we lamented, regardless of the motive behind it, that the stakes of swatting have grown more and more dangerous because “Swatting is a byproduct of a nation awash in more and more powerful weapons and more and more edgy cops.”

As it happens, this claim enjoys empirical support! One study looking at the impact of gun laws on law enforcement reviewed the numbers of police killed over a 14-year period in two groups of states chosen to control for the number of police officers in each. The study found that police were three times more likely to be killed in the line of duty in the cohort of gun-friendly states compared to the states with fewer guns. That officers respond accordingly in light of the heightened risk isn’t rocket science.

Does Turley have a countervailing data-driven response?

For some, these stories become irresistible opportunities to vent against the victims or even bizarre attacks on conservative legal theory.  The liberal gotcha site, Above the Law, covered my swatting with the usual ad hominem attacks while adding a truly unhinged spin to the story. Senior Editor Joe Patrice (who has defended “predominantly liberal faculties” and not hiring conservative or libertarian law professors) insisted that swatting is somehow the fault of gun owners, Second Amendment advocates, and “edgy” police….

Prosecutors notably did not include the conservative justices as co-conspirators with Szabo and Radovanovic.

Friends, he does not.

Sponsored

This barely even qualifies as handwaving. The man has had almost a year to formulate a response to my article and this is all he could come up with?

No one — least of all me — advocated for holding the Supreme Court and other politicians criminally liable just because their policy choices have heightened the inherent risk of these incidents. Even a cursory review of the original Above the Law article would confirm that its argument is not that lax gun laws directly cause swatting, but that lax gun laws have increased the likelihood that police response ends in tragedy. This has, unfortunately, provided criminal actors a more dangerous attack to exploit. Turley avoids engaging with the substance of this claim because he’s entered an intellectual battle armed with a pool noodle.

The “usual ad hominem attacks” line is reminiscent of the recent embarrassing display put on by Judge Edith Jones. Like Jones in her rant against Professor Vladeck, it’s actually Turley committing the ad hominem fallacy of replacing logical, evidence-based engagement for jabs. “Vent,” “bizarre attacks,” “liberal gotcha site” are all attempts to “poison the well” so he could avoid actually addressing the substance. There’s nothing wrong with dismissive language if you’re willing to back it up. Turley, it seems, is not.

That might be because he concludes his piece adopting one of my core arguments!

As more such cases are prosecuted, it will hopefully shatter the sense of anonymity and impunity of such culprits.

The original article criticized Turley’s assertion that swatting was a product of weak deterrence because Virginia state law only categorized it as a misdemeanor as opposed to a felony.  I argued then that it was not the lack of severity of the potential punishment but that “People think they can call in reports anonymously and never be found.” I’m heartened that he at least read enough of the article to be persuaded by my conclusion!

Also, back to the subject of ad hominem, what’s with his parenthetical “(who has defended ‘predominantly liberal faculties’ and not hiring conservative or libertarian law professors)”? That’s an observation apropos of absolutely nothing except whipping up his mouth-breathing audience to a priori reject my warranted arguments.

But ultimately it carries some unintentional relevance. Because Turley’s attempt at an argument here makes a pretty compelling case that law schools make the proper, merit-based decision in not hiring more conservative or libertarian law professors.

Justice Department Indicts Alleged Swatters of Turley, Members of Congress, and Others [JonathanTurley.org]

Earlier: Jonathan Turley Says He Was Swatted, Offers Thoughts And Prayers For Himself
Unhinged Federal Judge Thinks Criticizing Judge Shopping Causes Death Threats

HeadshotJoe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter or Bluesky if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.

Topics

, , ,