“Hi, we’re here today with Spencer Freeman, Pierce County criminal defense attorney. Spencer, let’s talk about a news-worthy item that’s been in the Pierce County court system for awhile here. And that is the local high school teacher that has been charged with threats to a student. Now, if you recall, it was because she had a conversation with a counselor within the school system about paying for her PTSD counseling. When she was told that it was going to be denied, that’s when the threats were made. And now she’s arrested. Threats to the students.
Now, given everything that’s been going on today with active shooters, is this a reasonable charge for this individual, or because she’s talking about PTSD, should it be something else?”
“First of all, in light of what’s going on recently, with active shooters, it’s certainly reasonable that something be done. You can’t have these types of threats being made, even though the threats weren’t directly to the students, but the threats were made to do something. You can’t have that go unchecked and unmonitored. I am not so sure that the criminal justice system is the right venue to do that. I think there is some interplay between first amendment rights and the felony harassment statutes that she’s going to be charged under, about whether or not there’s an actual criminal charge here.”
“Where is the line for that? Obviously, she made a threat.”
“That’s a discussion for hours and hours of case law research as to what..where that line is. There’s no one definition of that line. So, it’s really fact specific, it’s really case specific. But even if criminal charges could be brought here, the question is…is this the right venue to handle this, as opposed to some sort of other mental health avenue, and addressing that with some sort of civil commitment. Whether a non-voluntary civil commitment is warranted here to a mental health facility because of the actions that she’s threatening and displaying. I’m not so sure the criminal justice systems are actually equipped to handle this, given that there’s a clear mental health problem.”
“Well, it may not even take into…effect…the mental health issue, if she gets into the criminal system. And obviously, she’s in it now. And it may not even come into effect when it comes to sentencing or any type of punitive action.”
“It may not. Here in Pierce County, they do have a mental health court. They are trying to implement and utilize mental health, and look at it from a standpoint, and address cases with it. But when you’re talking about this shooting that’s been threatened, it’s a higher level issue that needs to be monitored and taken into account.”
“Okay. Thank you for your perspective on that, we’ll keep you updated and have you back.”
“Thank you.”
Born and raised in Colorado, Mr. Freeman stayed in the Pacific Northwest after graduating cum laude from Seattle University School of Law in 1995, at which time he was awarded the National Order of Barristers by the National Board of Governors. After gaining extensive trial experience as a prosecutor for the City of Tacoma, Mr. Freeman worked locally for several small law firms focused on personal injury and criminal defense. In 2000, he began to work at a downtown Seattle law firm, where he worked with some of the best lawyers in the nation. During the better part of the next six years, Mr. Freeman was blessed to do work for one of the largest national television providers litigating matters involving the theft of encrypted satellite signals. During this time, he worked closely with corporate counsel and assisted in developing and managing a national litigation campaign. He appeared in federal courts throughout the nation, gaining extensive experience in both federal court litigation and the pursuit of intellectual property thieves attempting to hide on the Internet.
In late 2005, Mr. Freeman decided to open a practice in Tacoma, where his family was growing. Mr. Freeman’s connections locally and nationally nourished his practice over time. He has served the local community as well as handling cases in federal courts across the country. Locally, Mr. Freeman has assisted local businesses in such matters as contentious shareholder disputes and individuals in matters ranging from catastrophic injuries to class A felonies as well as lawsuits against insurance companies for bad faith claims practices. He tried a Whatcom County Superior Court case for a bail bond company that resulted in the first appellate law in Washington truly outlining the rights of fugitive recovery agents. He has tried cases in many counties throughout the State of Washington, argued before the Court of Appeals Division I and Division II and the Washington State Supreme Court.
Mr. Freeman’s practice has taken him beyond Washington State, where he has handled cases for national Internet multi-media companies enforcing copyrights in states such as Florida, Nevada, Arizona, and California. In those cases, he has successfully argued for jurisdiction in the United States against individuals that reside in other countries. Mr. Freeman also represented a publisher against sheriffs regarding First Amendment Rights to distribute a magazine in county jails, resulting in arguments before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the first case law of its kind. He has argued before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals five times and submitted a briefing to the United States Supreme Court.
On more than several occasions, Mr. Freeman has been retained by parties on the near eve of a trial solely for purpose of being lead trial counsel. One such successful case was against the U.S. Department of Justice in their first trial attempting to enforce the CAN-SPAM Act for the actions of independent contractors.
Mr. Freeman’s passion and strength lay in front of a jury. He finds a beautiful balance between fact witnesses, statutes, case law, rules of evidence, and the different contexts of each jury. Most cases find a resolution before trial, but the best resolution occurs when counsel is prepared to try the case. And, when a case cannot find resolution, Mr. Freeman loves to go to work.
Did PTSD Cause Threats Of School Shooting? Is It Just A Convenient Defense?
Home » Videos » Active Shooter » Did PTSD Cause Threats Of School Shooting? Is It Just A Convenient Defense?
Did PTSD Cause Threats Of School Shooting? Is It Just A Convenient Defense?
Ray Hrdlicka – Host – Attorneys.Media
“Hi, we’re here today with Spencer Freeman, Pierce County criminal defense attorney. Spencer, let’s talk about a news-worthy item that’s been in the Pierce County court system for awhile here. And that is the local high school teacher that has been charged with threats to a student. Now, if you recall, it was because she had a conversation with a counselor within the school system about paying for her PTSD counseling. When she was told that it was going to be denied, that’s when the threats were made. And now she’s arrested. Threats to the students.
Now, given everything that’s been going on today with active shooters, is this a reasonable charge for this individual, or because she’s talking about PTSD, should it be something else?”
Spencer Freeman – Criminal Defense Attorney – Pierce County, WA
“First of all, in light of what’s going on recently, with active shooters, it’s certainly reasonable that something be done. You can’t have these types of threats being made, even though the threats weren’t directly to the students, but the threats were made to do something. You can’t have that go unchecked and unmonitored. I am not so sure that the criminal justice system is the right venue to do that. I think there is some interplay between first amendment rights and the felony harassment statutes that she’s going to be charged under, about whether or not there’s an actual criminal charge here.”
Ray Hrdlicka – Host – Attorneys.Media
“Where is the line for that? Obviously, she made a threat.”
Spencer Freeman – Criminal Defense Attorney – Pierce County, WA
“That’s a discussion for hours and hours of case law research as to what..where that line is. There’s no one definition of that line. So, it’s really fact specific, it’s really case specific. But even if criminal charges could be brought here, the question is…is this the right venue to handle this, as opposed to some sort of other mental health avenue, and addressing that with some sort of civil commitment. Whether a non-voluntary civil commitment is warranted here to a mental health facility because of the actions that she’s threatening and displaying. I’m not so sure the criminal justice systems are actually equipped to handle this, given that there’s a clear mental health problem.”
Ray Hrdlicka – Host – Attorneys.Media
“Well, it may not even take into…effect…the mental health issue, if she gets into the criminal system. And obviously, she’s in it now. And it may not even come into effect when it comes to sentencing or any type of punitive action.”
Spencer Freeman – Criminal Defense Attorney – Pierce County, WA
“It may not. Here in Pierce County, they do have a mental health court. They are trying to implement and utilize mental health, and look at it from a standpoint, and address cases with it. But when you’re talking about this shooting that’s been threatened, it’s a higher level issue that needs to be monitored and taken into account.”
Ray Hrdlicka – Host – Attorneys.Media
“Okay. Thank you for your perspective on that, we’ll keep you updated and have you back.”
Spencer Freeman – Criminal Defense Attorney – Pierce County, WA
“Thank you.”
Born and raised in Colorado, Mr. Freeman stayed in the Pacific Northwest after graduating cum laude from Seattle University School of Law in 1995, at which time he was awarded the National Order of Barristers by the National Board of Governors. After gaining extensive trial experience as a prosecutor for the City of Tacoma, Mr. Freeman worked locally for several small law firms focused on personal injury and criminal defense. In 2000, he began to work at a downtown Seattle law firm, where he worked with some of the best lawyers in the nation. During the better part of the next six years, Mr. Freeman was blessed to do work for one of the largest national television providers litigating matters involving the theft of encrypted satellite signals. During this time, he worked closely with corporate counsel and assisted in developing and managing a national litigation campaign. He appeared in federal courts throughout the nation, gaining extensive experience in both federal court litigation and the pursuit of intellectual property thieves attempting to hide on the Internet.
In late 2005, Mr. Freeman decided to open a practice in Tacoma, where his family was growing. Mr. Freeman’s connections locally and nationally nourished his practice over time. He has served the local community as well as handling cases in federal courts across the country. Locally, Mr. Freeman has assisted local businesses in such matters as contentious shareholder disputes and individuals in matters ranging from catastrophic injuries to class A felonies as well as lawsuits against insurance companies for bad faith claims practices. He tried a Whatcom County Superior Court case for a bail bond company that resulted in the first appellate law in Washington truly outlining the rights of fugitive recovery agents. He has tried cases in many counties throughout the State of Washington, argued before the Court of Appeals Division I and Division II and the Washington State Supreme Court.
Mr. Freeman’s practice has taken him beyond Washington State, where he has handled cases for national Internet multi-media companies enforcing copyrights in states such as Florida, Nevada, Arizona, and California. In those cases, he has successfully argued for jurisdiction in the United States against individuals that reside in other countries. Mr. Freeman also represented a publisher against sheriffs regarding First Amendment Rights to distribute a magazine in county jails, resulting in arguments before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the first case law of its kind. He has argued before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals five times and submitted a briefing to the United States Supreme Court.
On more than several occasions, Mr. Freeman has been retained by parties on the near eve of a trial solely for purpose of being lead trial counsel. One such successful case was against the U.S. Department of Justice in their first trial attempting to enforce the CAN-SPAM Act for the actions of independent contractors.
Mr. Freeman’s passion and strength lay in front of a jury. He finds a beautiful balance between fact witnesses, statutes, case law, rules of evidence, and the different contexts of each jury. Most cases find a resolution before trial, but the best resolution occurs when counsel is prepared to try the case. And, when a case cannot find resolution, Mr. Freeman loves to go to work.
Contact Attorney:
Tags:
tags
Here are more videos from Attorney Spencer Freeman
You may also like