Federal prosecutors say a Melvindale man took his anger at immigration authorities way too far, allegedly flooding social media with graphic threats aimed at Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers and triggering a Homeland Security investigation.
According to a criminal complaint filed on Tuesday by a Homeland Security Investigations special agent in Detroit, 41-year-old Michael Gary Petersen of Melvindale is charged with threatening to assault or murder federal law enforcement officers and with transmitting threats in interstate commerce. Prosecutors say posts on Facebook, Threads and TikTok included lines such as “there’s not gonna be any of ’em left” and “I have a bullet with your name on it.” Petersen was taken into temporary custody and is set for a detention hearing this afternoon in Detroit, according to ClickOnDetroit.
Federal statutes and penalties
Threats against federal officers and violent messages that cross state lines are not just ugly talk, they can be federal crimes. Under 18 U.S.C. § 115, making threats against federal law enforcement can carry a sentence of up to 10 years, as outlined in the U.S. Code. Separately, sending communications that contain threats in interstate commerce can violate 18 U.S.C. § 875, which has a maximum penalty of five years, according to the Legal Information Institute.
Timeline and agent warnings
HSI Detroit says it first got wind of Petersen’s online activity in early January, after the FBI forwarded information about the posts. Agents executed a search warrant at his Melvindale home on Jan. 16. Investigators say that when Petersen later came to the HSI office to pick up property, agents reminded him in person that while speech is broadly protected, direct threats to kill officers cross a legal line. Despite that warning, the complaint alleges that threatening posts continued into June and July. The timeline and specific examples are laid out by ClickOnDetroit.
How courts treat online threats
Courts have been sorting out for years when online rants turn into “true threats” that can be prosecuted. In Elonis v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that it is not enough for the government to rely only on how a reasonable person might interpret a statement as threatening, a higher bar is required, as discussed in the Court’s opinion available on Justia. More recently, in Counterman v. Colorado, the Court held that at a minimum the First Amendment requires proof that a speaker acted with recklessness, meaning a conscious disregard of a substantial risk that the words would be seen as threatening, according to the Legal Information Institute.
Petersen’s public profile
The complaint links the social media accounts at issue to a small filmmaking venture, Dark Fortress Pictures LLC, which Petersen is alleged to promote online. Film credits listed under the name Michael G. Petersen on IMDb appear to match the accounts that investigators say were used to post the threats.
Prosecutors are expected to ask a judge to keep Petersen locked up while the case moves forward, and for now the allegations have not been tested in court. If he is ultimately convicted on the federal counts in the complaint, Petersen would face the statutory penalties described in the laws cited by prosecutors.
