Edvard Munch
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2001
- Messages
- 4,750
Are death threats illegal?
I think they are
I think they are
Death Threats
- Thread starter Edvard Munch
- Start date
Morrison's Lament
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2003
- Messages
- 8,680
No, and I'll kill anyone that says otherwise.
Seriously, I think it's more of an issue of "what constitutes a death threat".
i.e., everyone has said "I'll kill you!" at some point, but it's not necessarily enough to get you arrested.
--- G.
Seriously, I think it's more of an issue of "what constitutes a death threat".
i.e., everyone has said "I'll kill you!" at some point, but it's not necessarily enough to get you arrested.
--- G.
i.e., everyone has said "I'll kill you!" at some point, but it's not necessarily enough to get you arrested.
--- G.[/QB][/QUOTE]
Yes it is. IT is called verbal assault and is very much enough to arrest a person saying it. Death threats are definitely illegal and can land you in jail with a felony.
--- G.[/QB][/QUOTE]
Yes it is. IT is called verbal assault and is very much enough to arrest a person saying it. Death threats are definitely illegal and can land you in jail with a felony.
Morrison's Lament
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2003
- Messages
- 8,680
Well, yes, but that's not my point. Call the cops and give them a list of people who've threatened to kill you and see what they say. In most cases it includes countless people on the internet, irrate drivers shouting from moving vehicles and family members complaining you finished all the ice-cream.
My point is that no one is going to do anything unless there's something to indicate you might actually mean it.
--- G.
My point is that no one is going to do anything unless there's something to indicate you might actually mean it.
--- G.
Morrison's Lament
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2003
- Messages
- 8,680
I'm pretty sure context is everything when it comes to death-threats. Where I come from "I'm gonna fuckin' kill you" is about the equivolent of: "Hey, dude, how's it goin'?"
--- G.
--- G.
Anorak
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2002
- Messages
- 214
I have to agree with Morrison's Lament here. It depends on the context. If you're saying "I'm going to kill you" AND you have the means to go through with it, then it can be a felony. If you are dead serious when you say "I'm going to kill you" then it is verbal assault. But if it's just you're pissed off at someone, and they know that you're not being 100% serious, then it is not a crime. At the very most, it's a misdeameanor, as Dr J said.
In the US, uttering/expressing a real threat of death/harm by mail, computer or telephone is a federal crime. Any claim it was "just kidding" is a defense to be made at trial, not a bar to being charged. Also, any threat of death or serious physical harm or threat of death or serious physical harm to someone's family to keep them from reporting a crime, testifying about a crime, or to change their testimony, or if it is made in retaliation for having provided information to law enforcment or having testified, is a federal crime.
"Grabassing" doesn't count. Truly enraged comments made in the heat of passion but maybe later reconsidered DO count. Don't do it, but don't expect cops to get involved becasue you or an S/O can't behave.
"Grabassing" doesn't count. Truly enraged comments made in the heat of passion but maybe later reconsidered DO count. Don't do it, but don't expect cops to get involved becasue you or an S/O can't behave.
themagicbean
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2001
- Messages
- 455
I. First Amendment Issues
Threats are not protected speech under the First Amendment and thus may be criminally punished. In determining whether a communication is a "true threat" (not protected) as opposed to a joke/euphamism/political hyperbole, the federal courts use a two-part test. First, they ask if a reasonable person in the threatener's position would have expected the recipient of the communication to perceive the communication as a threat. (Some circuits ask if a reasonable recipient would have perceived the communication as a threat, but there is no noticeable difference between the outcome of the two tests.) Second, they ask if the threat was sufficiently unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, etc. as to convey a gravity of purpose (imminent prospect of death OR violence against the recipeint) to the recipient. In analyzing these two factors the circumstances surrounding the communication are heavily considered.
Example: In Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 (1969), the Supreme Court said that the statement "If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J." was constitutionally protected "political hyperbole" and not a threat because the statement was made at a political rally, the listeners laughed in response, and the young man had already said that he would never carry a rifle.)
II. Criminal Punishment
Not all constitutionally unprotected threats are punished. Federally, 18 U.S.C. §871 makes it illegal to threaten the president. However, state penal codes preventing threats against private citizens vary state to state, and often use a narrower test than the one outlined above.
Example: Cal. Pen. Code §422 punishes threats only if the threatener intended the communication to be taken as a threat and the recipient suffered sustained, reasonable fear as a result of the threat. Thus, if the threatener did not intend to intimidate the recipient (although a reasonable person would have felt threatened) or the recipient did not personally suffer fear as a result of the threat, the threat will not be punished under California law. However, if the same statement was to be uttered in reference to the President, the threatener would be guilty under 18 U.S.C. §871.
That'll be $600, please.
Threats are not protected speech under the First Amendment and thus may be criminally punished. In determining whether a communication is a "true threat" (not protected) as opposed to a joke/euphamism/political hyperbole, the federal courts use a two-part test. First, they ask if a reasonable person in the threatener's position would have expected the recipient of the communication to perceive the communication as a threat. (Some circuits ask if a reasonable recipient would have perceived the communication as a threat, but there is no noticeable difference between the outcome of the two tests.) Second, they ask if the threat was sufficiently unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, etc. as to convey a gravity of purpose (imminent prospect of death OR violence against the recipeint) to the recipient. In analyzing these two factors the circumstances surrounding the communication are heavily considered.
Example: In Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 (1969), the Supreme Court said that the statement "If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J." was constitutionally protected "political hyperbole" and not a threat because the statement was made at a political rally, the listeners laughed in response, and the young man had already said that he would never carry a rifle.)
II. Criminal Punishment
Not all constitutionally unprotected threats are punished. Federally, 18 U.S.C. §871 makes it illegal to threaten the president. However, state penal codes preventing threats against private citizens vary state to state, and often use a narrower test than the one outlined above.
Example: Cal. Pen. Code §422 punishes threats only if the threatener intended the communication to be taken as a threat and the recipient suffered sustained, reasonable fear as a result of the threat. Thus, if the threatener did not intend to intimidate the recipient (although a reasonable person would have felt threatened) or the recipient did not personally suffer fear as a result of the threat, the threat will not be punished under California law. However, if the same statement was to be uttered in reference to the President, the threatener would be guilty under 18 U.S.C. §871.
That'll be $600, please.
Last edited: