posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 01:36 AM
reply to post by jackinthebox
OK what you need to do is show me the federal terroristic threat laws and the elements of the crime section; by the way I have it right here and again
the self serving part here is being made by you. It shows that there does in fact need to be a threat and that the culpable mental state needs to be
proven as purposely; which means that it was that persons concious object or desire to inflict apprehension upon the person which is being threatened.
First of all what you are saying would never hold up in a court of law and I know you are just trying to bait me, it is ok I love to debate, but at
least address something that holds water instead of just coming out with junk that isnt the case. ITS JUST NOT THE CASE AT ALL.
this is from a legal sight off the internet but there are many take a look
commonly used definition of a terrorist or criminal threat has five elements:
Someone willfully threatens to commit a crime that will result in death or great bodily harm. This means that the threat obviously has to be of a
highly dangerous nature. Threatening to slash someones tires, for instance, would probably not be sufficient. However, the threat can be made in any
medium, written, orally, or electronically transmitted.
The threat was made with the specific intent that it be taken as a threat. Although this certainly seems like a redundant sentence, it is meant to
convey that the threat is a crime even if there is no actual intent to carry it out. The only intent you need is the intent to make the threat
itself. So if you threaten to blow up a school, you will still be guilty of this crime even if you are completely unarmed and have no means of
accomplishing this at all.
The threat is so unequivocal, unconditional, and specific as to convey a gravity of purpose and immediate prospect of execution. This extremely
complicated sounding sentence is very important to the law,
[edit on 14-6-2008 by birchtree]