1 day, 2 shootings in spotlight:

[fredtoast]

(09-27-2016, 10:27 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Incorrect, an actual threat must be made.  Simple inference does not constitute a legal threat.  You really need to stop, I'm actually feeling bad for you.

You live in California, correct?


 "A communication that is ambiguous on its face may nonetheless be found to be a criminal threat if the surrounding circumstances clarify the communication's meaning. [Citation.]" ( George T., supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 635, 16 Cal.Rptr.3d 61, 93 P.3d 1007.) In determining whether conditional, vague, or ambiguous language constitutes a violation of section 422, the trier of fact may consider "the defendant's mannerisms, affect, and actions involved in making the threat as well as subsequent actions taken by the defendant.


You do not have to specifically threaten violence.  you are completely ignorant of the law in this area.

Cursing a person and telling him he better not come back to that area is a clear threat.  There is no other way it could be interpreted by a reasonable person.  Any judge or juror would understand that was a clear threat.

What exactly would you tell the court you meant by the statement if it was not intended as a threat?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-27-2016, 11:12 AM)fredtoast Wrote: You live in California, correct?


 "A communication that is ambiguous on its face may nonetheless be found to be a criminal threat if the surrounding circumstances clarify the communication's meaning. [Citation.]" ( George T., supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 635, 16 Cal.Rptr.3d 61, 93 P.3d 1007.) In determining whether conditional, vague, or ambiguous language constitutes a violation of section 422, the trier of fact may consider "the defendant's mannerisms, affect, and actions involved in making the threat as well as subsequent actions taken by the defendant.


You do not have to specifically threaten violence.  you are completely ignorant of the law in this area.

Cursing a person and telling him he better not come back to that area is a clear threat.  There is no other way it could be interpreted by a reasonable person.  Any judge or juror would understand that was a clear threat.

What exactly would you tell the court you meant by the statement if it was not intended as a threat?

Hahaha, why did you stop bolding where you did?  Seriously, I'm starting to feel sad for you.  You're scrambling and it's to the point that I'm embarrassed for you.  

[*rfaulk34*]

(09-27-2016, 11:12 AM)fredtoast Wrote: if the surrounding circumstances clarify the communication's meaning.

That's kind of an important point; slapping a blunt object in your hand. Reaching under your shirt or in your pocket as though you have a gun or knife. Walking toward the person you are talking to. Those are examples that could clarify an ambiguous communication, and seem to be necessary under this definition.

Quick question for anyone since i'm not completely sure...if a woman calls the police becaused her boyfriend threatened harm because he's a controlling, overbearing asshole, do the police go arrest the boyfriend or do they say they can't do anything because no crime has been committed yet?

[*bfine32*]

(09-27-2016, 10:03 AM)fredtoast Wrote: No.  You are both 100% wrong.  It is illegal to threaten a person even if you do not intend to enforce that threat.

Surprisingly (to no one); you are changing the subject. you said this:

(09-27-2016, 10:03 AM)fredtoast Wrote: You have no authority to tell a citizen that he can not be in an area open to the public.

[GMDino]

(09-27-2016, 01:50 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: That's kind of an important point; slapping a blunt object in your hand. Reaching under your shirt or in your pocket as though you have a gun or knife. Walking toward the person you are talking to. Those are examples that could clarify an ambiguous communication, and seem to be necessary under this definition.

Quick question for anyone since i'm not completely sure...if a woman calls the police becaused her boyfriend threatened harm because he's a controlling, overbearing asshole, do the police go arrest the boyfriend or do they say they can't do anything because no crime has been committed yet?

How about just randomly screaming at a stranger who asked if you had the time?

I mean I know he has superpowers that let him know what the rest of us fin unknowable but still if a complete stranger just started yelling at me to never come back to that place or whatever he said I'd at least feel a little bit threatened.  Confused, maybe a bit angry too.

[*rfaulk34*]

(09-27-2016, 01:56 PM)GMDino Wrote: How about just randomly screaming at a stranger who asked if you had the time?

I mean I know he has superpowers that let him know what the rest of us fin unknowable but still if a complete stranger just started yelling at me to never come back to that place or whatever he said I'd at least feel a little bit threatened.  Confused, maybe a bit angry too.

Crazy people scream at strangers all the time. Do they get arrested for it?

[GMDino]

(09-27-2016, 02:00 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Crazy people scream at strangers all the time. Do they get arrested for it?

No. That wasn't the question though.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-27-2016, 01:50 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: That's kind of an important point; slapping a blunt object in your hand. Reaching under your shirt or in your pocket as though you have a gun or knife. Walking toward the person you are talking to. Those are examples that could clarify an ambiguous communication, and seem to be necessary under this definition.

Quick question for anyone since i'm not completely sure...if a woman calls the police becaused her boyfriend threatened harm because he's a controlling, overbearing asshole, do the police go arrest the boyfriend or do they say they can't do anything because no crime has been committed yet?

See, this is why I really don't think Fred is a lawyer, you get the nuances of the point being made better than he does.  He first tried to say I violated the guy's rights.  I pointed out that he was completely full of crap and he quickly backtracked.  Now he's on this inane kick that a criminal threat was made but he can't explain what the threat was.

As to your question, you're mostly correct.  Unless there is physical violence or the direct threat of physical violence there is very little that can be done.  Also the DA, a lawyer who actually knows the law, tries to avoid filing what they call "one on ones", i.e. a case in which it's one person's word against another with no other evidence.

(09-27-2016, 01:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Surprisingly (to no one); you are changing the subject. you said this:

Fred has said so many inane, and wholly inaccurate, things in this thread that one was easy to overlook.  His predictable sycophant aside, he's being met with blank stares.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-27-2016, 01:56 PM)GMDino Wrote: How about just randomly screaming at a stranger who asked if you had the time?

Already answered.  Unfortunately your buddy doesn't know the law so I've had to clear things up for him.

Quote:I mean I know he has superpowers that let him know what the rest of us fin unknowable but still if a complete stranger just started yelling at me to never come back to that place or whatever he said I'd at least feel a little bit threatened.  Confused, maybe a bit angry too.

Excuse me, sir.  It's called a sixth sense and I'll kindly request you refer to it by its proper name.

[GMDino]

Amazingly while one member claims to have ESP and a total command of all things legal we're no longer talking about two people shot by police.

I guess that was the plan all along....

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-27-2016, 03:37 PM)GMDino Wrote: Amazingly while one member claims to have ESP and a total command of all things legal we're no longer talking about two people shot by police.

I guess that was the plan all along....

It appears that one deserved to get shot and the other did not.  In the latter instance the officer who pulled the trigger has been charged.  Looks to me like the system worked as designed,

[GMDino]

(09-27-2016, 03:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It appears that one deserved to get shot and the other did not.  In the latter instance the officer who pulled the trigger has been charged.  Looks to me like the system worked as designed,

Well when you put it that way.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-27-2016, 03:55 PM)GMDino Wrote: Well when you put it that way.  

What way would you put it?

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(09-20-2016, 11:13 AM)Au165 Wrote: The Tulsa shooting should result in murder charges against whoever fired on him. The NYC guy not getting killed is unrelated and completely different as pointed out above. Trying to draw comparisons between the two is ridiculous.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/22/us/tulsa-officer-charged/index.html

Felony Manslaughter in the 1st Degree is what she was charged with. That's up to 12.5 years in Arizona.

- - - - - - - - -

As for NYC, I didn't read the entire thread, so I don't know if anyone posted this, but here's this:
http://www.nj.com/union/index.ssf/2016/09/ahmad_khan_rahami_shot_7_times_in_linden_arrest_au.html

Dude was shot SEVEN times. It's not like they used rubber bullets on him or anything, if you get shot seven times, it's just sheer trajectory luck that you didn't have enough damage done to kill you multiple times over.

[fredtoast]

(09-27-2016, 01:50 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: That's kind of an important point; slapping a blunt object in your hand. Reaching under your shirt or in your pocket as though you have a gun or knife. Walking toward the person you are talking to. Those are examples that could clarify an ambiguous communication, and seem to be necessary under this definition.

(09-27-2016, 03:30 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: See, this is why I really don't think Fred is a lawyer, you get the nuances of the point being made better than he does. 

Neither one of you have a clue what you are talking about.

To keep things clear I will stay in the State of California.  in People v. Mendoza (1997) 59 Cal. App. 4th 1333, the cpourt held that Mendoza was guilty of making a threat by doing nothing more than saying "I am going to talk to some guys in Happy Town".  No slapping a blunt object, no reaching under shirt, no walking toward the person.  Just simple words that the victim realized was a threat.


I'll say it again.  Any judge or jury would find that SSF's cursing and telling a "He better not see hims again" in an area open to the public is clearly a threat.  There is no other logical interpretation of what SSF said.

[*rfaulk34*]

(09-27-2016, 09:49 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Neither one of you have a clue what you are talking about.

To keep things clear I will stay in the State of California.  in People v. Mendoza (1997) 59 Cal. App. 4th 1333, the cpourt held that Mendoza was guilty of making a threat by doing nothing more than saying "I am going to talk to some guys in Happy Town".  No slapping a blunt object, no reaching under shirt, no walking toward the person.  Just simple words that the victim realized was a threat.


I'll say it again.  Any judge or jury would find that SSF's cursing and telling a "He better not see hims again" in an area open to the public is clearly a threat.  There is no other logical interpretation of what SSF said.

You have got to be ****ing kidding me. 

Go read the damn link you just posted. A known gang banger makes a comment to someone he's familiar with...OF COURSE THAT'S TAKEN AS A DIRECT THREAT! Holey freaking moley.

Hey, you see that first sentence in your post? That's irony right there holmes. 

Oh my gawwwwwd...

[fredtoast]

(09-27-2016, 10:18 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: You have got to be ****ing kidding me. 

Go read the damn link you just posted. A known gang banger makes a comment to someone he's familiar with...OF COURSE THAT'S TAKEN AS A DIRECT THREAT! Holey freaking moley.

Hey, you see that first sentence in your post? That's irony right there holmes. 

Oh my gawwwwwd...

Again you completely missed the point.

The law is that it is a threat if a reasonable person would be placed in fear.  SSF claimed there had to be a specific threat of violence.  I proved him wrong.  You claimed that it had to involve some physical gesture (and SSF parsied you for understanding the nuances of the law better than me   ).  But this case proves you were wrong

The point is that you are both ignorant of the meaning of the law.

Any judge or juror would consider what SSF did a threat.  There is no other reasonable way to interpret what he said other than as a threat of violence.

[*rfaulk34*]

(09-27-2016, 11:27 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Again you completely missed the point.

The law is that it is a threat if a reasonable person would be placed in fear.  SSF claimed there had to be a specific threat of violence.  I proved him wrong.  You claimed that it had to involve some physical gesture (and SSF parsied you for understanding the nuances of the law better than me   ).  But this case proves you were wrong

The point is that you are both ignorant of the meaning of the law.

Any judge or juror would consider what SSF did a threat.  There is no other reasonable way to interpret what he said other than as a threat of violence.

The land of delusion some people live in, man...

Enjoy it. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-27-2016, 11:33 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: The land of delusion some people live in, man...

Enjoy it. 

It's a land of denial and pretend law degrees. At least he's got his sidekick. Btw, a few friends in the DAs office read Fred's post and they both agreed he's either trolling or he's not a lawyer. I'm going with both. 

[*rfaulk34*]

(09-28-2016, 12:05 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's a land of denial and pretend law degrees. At least he's got his sidekick. Btw, a few friends in the DAs office read Fred's post and they both agreed he's either trolling or he's not a lawyer. I'm going with both. 

As much as i've tried to refrain from saying such...i'm having a hard time disagreeing after this latest round. 

And thank you for saving me the time of getting the opinion(s) of people that i can verify are actual lawyers. As innocuous as posts on a message board are, it's annoying constantly pointing out faults and then being told i missed a point or don't know what i'm talking about when it's plainly obvious that i'm not the one it applies to.