Public Statement - Federal Agent?!?

As a Combat Veteran who was trained to identify, track, and stop terrorist activity—foreign and domestic—

I take this issue seriously.

I support the First Amendment. I support lawful protest. I support citizens observing public government activity.

But the moment a person crosses from speech into harassment, intimidation, or interference with federal agents performing lawful duties, it is no longer “activism.” It becomes obstruction.

There is a clear line in American law between:

free speech and lawful observation, and

intimidation, threats, and physical interference.

You do not get to claim constitutional protection while:

blocking agents,

surrounding vehicles,

disrupting arrests or searches,

threatening federal personnel,

doxxing them or targeting their families,

or provoking confrontations that jeopardize public safety.

That behavior isn’t “concerned citizenship.”

It’s reckless interference with federal law enforcement duties, and it can trigger serious federal charges.

As Americans, we have the right to criticize government.

But we do not have the right to obstruct federal agents in the line of duty—and pretending otherwise is how people end up catching felonies they can’t talk their way out of later.

I’m a Combat Veteran. I’ve been trained to recognize threats — foreign AND domestic.

So, I’m not impressed by civilians cosplaying as law enforcement while they harass federal agents in the line of duty.

Protest is protected.

Observation is protected.

Criticism is protected.

But obstruction, intimidation, harassment,

and interference are NOT protected.

Your rights stop where someone else’s safety

and lawful duties begin.

I will NEVER defend harassment, intimidation, or obstruction

dressed up as “freedom.”

___________________________________________

1) The big picture

“Concerned citizens” can observe federal agents and even criticize them, but harassing, threatening, interfering with, or obstructing federal duties can quickly become a federal crime.

The law draws a hard line between:

Protected speech / lawful observation ✅
vs.
Conduct that interferes with federal work ❌

2) Common federal crimes that cover harassment/interference with federal agents

A) Forcibly interfering with a federal agent (18 U.S.C. § 111)

This is one of the most-used statutes.

It can cover:

assaulting,
resisting,
opposing,
impeding,
intimidating, or
interfering with

a federal officer while they are doing their job.

Important: You don’t have to land a punch.

If there’s force, aggressive physical interference, or intimidation while they’re performing duties, it can qualify.

Penalties increase if:

there’s bodily injury,
a weapon is used,
physical contact occurs, or
the conduct is especially dangerous.

B) Threats against a federal official or their family (18 U.S.C. § 115)

This covers threats intended to:

stop them from doing their job, or
retaliate for doing their job.

This includes threats directed at:

the agent,
their spouse, children, etc.

You don’t have to mean it “literally” for it to become a serious issue—courts look at context, intent, and whether a reasonable person would take it as a threat.

C) Stalking / harassment using “course of conduct” (18 U.S.C. § 2261A)

This is the federal stalking law. It can apply if someone:

repeatedly targets an agent (or anyone),
intends to harass/intimidate,
and causes substantial emotional distress or fear of harm.

It also covers harassment using:

internet/social media,
tracking behavior,
repeated unwanted contact,
targeting family members, etc.

D) Obstruction-type crimes

(interfering with investigations / operations)

These often apply when people interfere with federal investigations, arrests, searches, or enforcement actions.

Common ones:

18 U.S.C. § 1503 (influencing/obstructing justice in court-related contexts)

18 U.S.C. § 1512 (witness tampering / intimidation / corrupt obstruction)

18 U.S.C. § 1519 (destroying/altering/concealing evidence; “anti-shredding” law)

Even when “harassment” is the surface behavior, prosecutors sometimes treat it as obstruction if the goal is to disrupt enforcement or intimidate people involved.

E) Disorderly conduct / interference on federal property

(18 U.S.C. § 1382, plus regulations)

If it’s happening on certain federal property (buildings, facilities, restricted areas, etc.), people can be removed or charged even for “smaller” behaviors depending on the site rules.

F) Conspiracy to interfere (18 U.S.C. § 371)

If two or more people coordinate to:

target agents,
interfere with duties,
intimidate them, or
obstruct activity,

that can become conspiracy, even if no single person commits the “full” act alone.

G) Threats via communications (18 U.S.C. § 875, § 876)

Threats made through:

texts,
phone calls,
social media,
email,
mailed letters

can be separately charged depending on the method.

3) What “harassment” looks like legally

(the behaviors that trigger liability)

Here are actions that frequently cross the line into criminal territory:

Physical interference / intimidation

blocking agents’ path
surrounding a vehicle or person
following them closely in a way that restrains movement
trying to prevent an arrest or search
interfering with restraints, doors, evidence collection, etc.

Threats and coercive intimidation

“I know where you live”
“We’ll get you later”
threats toward family
threats framed as “jokes” or “warnings”

Doxxing / targeting off-duty life

posting home address
encouraging people to “pay a visit”
showing up repeatedly at their home
contacting family members or employers

Interference with investigations

warning suspects (“feds are coming”)
hiding evidence
coordinating distractions
trying to identify undercover agents
encouraging others to resist lawful actions

4) What IS generally lawful (even if annoying)

A lot of people confuse “rude” with “illegal.”

Generally lawful activities can include:

filming agents in public (as long as you don’t interfere)
verbally criticizing them (even harshly)
asking questions
standing at a reasonable distance
being present in public spaces where you’re allowed to be

BUT: If the “recording” is paired with crowding, chasing, blocking, shouting in faces, or refusing lawful orders, it can become interference/obstruction fast.

5) The First Amendment doesn’t protect everything

The First Amendment protects speech, but not:

true threats
incitement to imminent lawless action
fighting words (rarely used, but still a concept)
harassment/stalking conduct
physical obstruction
assault or intimidation
interference with lawful duties

So someone can’t defend harassment by saying “free speech” if the behavior is conduct-based interference rather than pure expression.

6) Practical reality: how these cases usually get charged

In real enforcement, you’ll often see cases charged as one or more of:

18 USC 111 (interference/assault)
18 USC 115 (threats/retaliation)
18 USC 2261A (stalking / course of harassment)
18 USC 371 (conspiracy)
plus add-ons (weapons, communications threats, obstruction)

And if it’s organized behavior, prosecutors may treat it as domestic extremism-adjacent intimidation, even if the people call themselves “concerned citizens.”

7) Key takeaway (clean legal framing)

A person can be a “concerned citizen” and still be committing a felony if they cross into intimidation or interference.
The law protects observing and speaking. It does not protect obstructing, threatening, or targeting agents to disrupt federal duties.

______________________________________________________

If you want to play terrorist games,

don’t cry when you win felony prizes.

Free speech doesn’t come with a free pass to harass,

intimidate, or obstruct. And I said what I said.

If your ‘activism’ requires intimidation and interference, you’re not fighting tyranny — you’re becoming it. Hooah

Shalom,

Nicole (Schuyler) Kapuscinski

Public Statement from a
Combat Veteran / Activist Perspective

Federal Agent Interference