1 day, 2 shootings in spotlight:

[*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.