01-14-2021, 09:20 PM
(01-14-2021, 08:56 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Well, depending on the jurisdiction, but point taken.
To be sure, as a threat has been issued directly at your person. That was not the scenario you initially described.
Again, this is a direct threat against a person, which wasn't how you framed your initial point. I agree, in the instance you just provided, you have an actionable crime. Otherwise you have nothing different than Madonna saying she wants to blow up the White House, which is actually very specific, and yet she was not arrested or charged.
The question then becomes how much “threatening” has to be done? If I post online someone should kill the “squad” multiple times, then show up at a protest the squad is at with a gun, are we there yet? What if a group for the protest is setup and the participants said “we need to carry guns to show we mean business”, does that now meet the legal definition of “intimidation” since that was their purpose, to create fear in specific people?
The line between rights and crimes is a pretty Gray area, especially in a digital world where people say crazy shit online but crazy people are also online ready to do crazy shit and tell you they are about to do it. Again, I said earlier if carrying the gun is something your just doing because you always do, that’s great. In the context of certain events however or with certain people it needs to be seen for what the reason for having it really is.
