09-27-2016, 03:30 PM
(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.
