Arizona Man Seeks Dismissal of Charges Tied to Deadly Australian Attack in Online Exchange

An Arizona man, Donald Day Jr., is seeking the dismissal of charges related to threatening online comments tied to a deadly attack in Australia. The attack, which took place on December 12, 2022, left six people dead, including two Queensland state police officers and a bystander. Day’s lawyer, Mark Rumold, argues that the charges should be thrown out as the indictment fails to allege any specific intent to harm individuals.

The incident in Australia unfolded in the rural community of Wieambilla, where Gareth Train, his brother Nathaniel Train, and Nathaniel’s wife, Stacey Train, ambushed and fatally shot the two police officers and a bystander. The Trains, described as conspiracy theorists, engaged in a six-hour siege with the police before being killed. Authorities have labeled the attack as religiously motivated.

It is revealed that Gareth Train had been following Donald Day Jr. on YouTube since May 2020, and their communication escalated over time. Day, who has pleaded not guilty to the charges, is currently in jail awaiting trial after a judge deemed him a danger to the community and a flight risk.

The indictment against Day alleges that he engaged in a course of conduct inciting violence and threatening various groups, including law enforcement and government authorities. Prosecutors claim that Day made comments in response to a video posted by the individuals responsible for the Australian attack, expressing his desire to have been there with them and stating that those who crossed them would regret it.

Day’s attorney argues that the charges should be dismissed as they do not involve threats to specific individuals or constitute “true threats.” One count accuses Day of making threats against any law enforcement official who would come to his home, while the other count involves online threats towards an individual whose full identity is not provided in the indictment but is believed to be Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the director general of the World Health Organization.

Rumold disputes that Day’s comments about the WHO official can be classified as “true threats” under the law. He asserts that Day’s online comments were protected speech under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

As the legal battle unfolds, the fate of Donald Day Jr. hangs in the balance. Will the court dismiss the charges against him, or will he face the consequences of his alleged threatening online comments? Only time will tell as this intriguing case continues to unfold.