09-27-2016, 09:49 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.
(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.
