Police are local, and have no effective jurisdiction online, excxept when they have a local victim and local suspect.
You need the FBI.
and for every murder with an online threat, there are a million "free speech" death threats with no murder.
Online forums generally don't adjudicate whether subpoenas meet some objective standard of jurisdiction. It's not so much that police cannot investigate a crime for a local victim when the suspect could be in another jurisdiction, it's just that it likely won't lead to a prosecution. But I'd bet that a nastygram on a police department letterhead would go a long way towards discouraging most internet haters.
I'm not pointing this out as a desirable state of affairs (it's essentially government-capital synergy aka fascism), but rather a possibility of where things might head. Burbclaves applying their customary/statutory powers to interactions in the interconnected world, and offering their services up as a point of competition.
Then i remembered the geofencing warrants and surveillance platforms they have access to. I remembered nearly going deaf when the police fired a flashbang at my head for getting too close to a group of nazis that myself and other locals wanted to shoo back to the state they came from.
I remembered the police arent here to protect the vulnerable, they are here to protect freedom of speech.
Dont worry i grew out of my juvenile delusion that i have any ability to influence or refuse to tolerate certain discourse in my city.
Nazis rallying in your city is just a sign of how well protected and safe you are i guess. Ill make sure to stay home next time.
> I remembered the police arent here to protect the vulnerable, they are here to protect freedom of speech.
The police, like every entrenched power structure, are "there to" serve their own interests. Sometimes that's expressed in terms of lofty ideals, but it's fundamentally about power relationships - for instance their casually attacking you with an explosive.
If you were someone "important" - politically connected, rich and looking like it, or even just upper-middle but persistent, it's likely they would have responded to your brother's issue with more attention. And if they mistakenly judged you and didn't, you would escalate to their superiors. That dynamic isn't a free pass, but it informally goes a long way.
My point was this attention could very well shift to putting a priority on policing online threats, perhaps even to the detriment of investigating physical crime.
Strangely enough am family friends with the person likely to become chief. I doubt ill ever raise the issue because i dont think he would be able to have any positive effect without losing the position.
Entrenched.