Another threat

Today at 1408 I received another threating phone call. It sounded like the same guy as last time but it was from a different phone number.

The first time the phone number was 619-646-7526, this time it was 630-489-9064.

The call went very close to this:

Joe: Hello?
Caller: Is this Joe Huffman?
Joe: Yes.
Caller: Do you have any guns?
Joe: Who is this?
Caller: Do you have any guns?
Joe: Who is this?
Caller: I said, “Do you have any guns?”
Joe: And I’m asking who am I talking to.
Caller: You better own some guns because if you mess with me I’m going to f*&^king shove them up your ass.
Joe: <hangs up>

As Ry has said before, “Ah, the voice of reason.”

Or as Officer Dill said, “He is clearly irrational.”

This is the same number that was a “no answer” from an Illinois exchange at 8:26 AM the day after the threatening text messages.

I’ve received several “no answer” calls in the last few days but until now I wasn’t certain they were connected. Now I know that at least some of them are.

I also have to wonder if the brute force attack attempting to log into this blog this morning was related. I may have a way of answering this question.

Update: Apparently he followed up with a bogus ad on Craig’s List.
Update 2: I got the ad taken down.


27 thoughts on “Another threat

  1. BTW, he may start trying to “block” his caller ID. I recommend Trapcall — I use it. When you send the call to VM, it routes through Trapcall as an 800 number call, meaning that it unmasks any blocking (since you can’t charge someone for a call without giving them the billing info.) Nothing is more satisfying than busting a hidden number.

      • I wouldn’t worry too much about it. He’s never going to have anonymity, and this just demonstrates it. There is nothing he can do to hide that we can’t get through, and the sooner he knows that, the sooner he might wise up.

    • Notice too, the common thread of sexual humiliation.

      It has been posited that emotional stress awakens sexuality. Emotional distress, which can be readily defined as, or at least associated with, the lack of reason, would therefore seem to explain a lot regarding Markley’s Law and this recent threat, or leftism in general.

  2. Craigs List Ad is down, you didn’t happen to take a screen shot, did you?

    • No. It wasn’t much to look at. Something like “$750 to $1000 for removal of a pile of dirt.” with my phone number.

      • That’s it?

        Couldn’t muster the imagination to make an Ad with you asking for some kind of kinky sex?


          • It’s alright. You blog about the stalkers you have, not the stalkers you wish for…

  3. Wait so, he requires you to have the guns, so he can shove them up YOUR ass?

    He’s not going to bring his own guns or else he would say “I’ll shove my gun up your ass”.

    So basically he is threatening someone, with guns, and the threat is to shove said guns up the gun owners ass…

    Me thinks he is infinity fries short of a happy meal…

    • Yup. All interactions with him have been similarly irrational. Hence my comments such as “Ah, the voice of reason.”

  4. It boggles the mind how violent the peace-loving non-violent anti-gunners can be. And how many of their threats actually involve guns. Its like the universe tried to divide by zero, and this was the result.

    • Well dividing be zero, of course, is a pole. I know there’s been some discussion on Markley’s Law lately and why it exists but I have a different proposal: These guys have such big poles that they “know” they don’t need any substitution

  5. Pingback: Quote of the day—David W. | The View From North Central Idaho

    So in the above book, which is a good read, there are a couple sections of stalkers. In the book he has examples of the standard romantic type but also other types that better fit this individual. The basic deal is that any contact is contact and feeds the aggressor into more contact. I suggest taking a look at the book and contemplate his recommendations.

      • Don’t get turned off by the initial anti firearms comment in the intro. He gets to see the worst of the world and it has affected him or the publisher asked him to put it there. It is not mentioned again.

        • Unfortunately, what Joe is doing is going to convince the stalker that he is getting somewhere and he will make more contact — which may be what Joe wants?

          • Not what I want.

            I know that with some personality types it is strongly advised to not give them anything that they want and to even “attack” (in a legal way of course) back. With others a different course of action is best.

            I don’t know what is best in this case.

            For now he is mostly unwanted entertainment when I would rather be doing something more productive. But if you have insight into the psychology of this guy such that a better course of action is advised please do share.


  7. I got annoyed over the scam emails and phone texts the last time I had puppies to sell. I found great pleasure in raising the prices astronomically then demanding cash payment, at which point the more stupid ones still wanted to pay for a $25,000 puppy with a counterfeit money order. The only way I stopped the most persistent was to tell them the puppies had all sold during our negotiations, but that a $10,000 deposit would give them first pick of the next litter. Sadly, none agreed.

    I suggest that if you are getting unsolicited phone calls of such a creepy nature, you charge market prices per minute to give the caller his jollies. Refuse to converse unless he provides a credit card number.

  8. Pingback: Quote of the day—Joseph C. | The View From North Central Idaho

  9. You could make your secret admirer work a little harder by blocking the numbers he is known to use. I don’t know about other carriers but Verizon Wireless lets you block a few numbers for free via their web site. Perhaps your phone carrier has a way to block incoming calls from specific numbers.

  10. Pingback: More stalker activity | The View From North Central Idaho

Comments are closed.