Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Could you arrest these people for terroristic threat?

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Could you arrest these people for terroristic threat?

    As penal codes differ from state to state, would this fit as a terroristic threat in your area?

    If so, would you arrest them?



    Texas Penal Code - Section 22.07. Terroristic Threat

    Sec. 22.07. TERRORISTIC THREAT. (a) A person commits an offense if he threatens to commit any offense involving violence to any person or property with intent to:

    (1) cause a reaction of any type to his threat by an official or volunteer agency organized to deal with emergencies;

    (2) place any person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury;

    (3) prevent or interrupt the occupation or use of a building, room, place of assembly, place to which the public has access, place of employment or occupation, aircraft, automobile, or other form of conveyance, or other public place;

    (4) cause impairment or interruption of public communications, public transportation, public water, gas, or power supply or other public service;

    (5) place the public or a substantial group of the public in fear of serious bodily injury; or

    (6) influence the conduct or activities of a branch or agency of the federal government, the state, or a political subdivision of the state.

    (b) An offense under Subsection (a)(1) is a Class B misdemeanor.

    (c) An offense under Subsection (a)(2) is a Class B misdemeanor, except that the offense is a Class A misdemeanor if the offense:

    (1) is committed against a member of the person's family or household or otherwise constitutes family violence; or

    (2) is committed against a public servant.

    (d) An offense under Subsection (a)(3) is a Class A misdemeanor, unless the actor causes pecuniary loss of $1,500 or more to the owner of the building, room, place, or conveyance, in which event the offense is a state jail felony.

    (e) An offense under Subsection (a)(4), (a)(5), or (a)(6) is a felony of the third degree.

    (f) In this section:

    (1) "Family" has the meaning assigned by Section 71.003, Family Code.

    (2) "Family violence" has the meaning assigned by Section 71.004, Family Code.

    (3) "Household" has the meaning assigned by Section 71.005, Family Code.

    (g) For purposes of Subsection (d), the amount of pecuniary loss is the amount of economic loss suffered by the owner of the building, room, place, or conveyance as a result of the prevention or interruption of the occupation or use of the building, room, place, or conveyance.
    The beatings will continue until morale improves.

    Originally posted by jcioccke
    After I hit it, I would be disgusted with her

  • #2
    It would be difficult to prove intent. They might want to, but it seems like they're just "expressing" what they would like to do. (BS defense, but would fly here) The second any type of bottle gets thrown at a squad, I'd be charging them. But, good luck charging that poor 4 year old that doesn't know what she's doing... She can thank her parents when she's spending life in prison at age 25.
    "I sometimes wish that people would put a little more emphasis upon the observance of the law than they do upon its enforcement."
    -Calvin Coolidge

    "Amateurs train until they get it right. Professionals train until they can't get it wrong." - Unk

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by LPD003 View Post
      It would be difficult to prove intent. They might want to, but it seems like they're just "expressing" what they would like to do. (BS defense, but would fly here) The second any type of bottle gets thrown at a squad, I'd be charging them. But, good luck charging that poor 4 year old that doesn't know what she's doing... She can thank her parents when she's spending life in prison at age 25.
      Huh, I thought if charges got levied it would be against the parents and then CPS would become involved due to the parents providing a hostile living environment for the children.

      More over, couldn't you arrest and charge them to rain on their parade and then leave it up to the DA to decide... Letting the "system" work it out while mommy and daddy get hammered by CPS and freak out.
      The beatings will continue until morale improves.

      Originally posted by jcioccke
      After I hit it, I would be disgusted with her

      Comment


      • #4
        Yeah, I just mean that they'd be in prison by the time they were 25 due to them teaching their kids this sort of thing. And that I feel bad for kids with parents like this.
        "I sometimes wish that people would put a little more emphasis upon the observance of the law than they do upon its enforcement."
        -Calvin Coolidge

        "Amateurs train until they get it right. Professionals train until they can't get it wrong." - Unk

        Comment


        • #5
          No, In my area a decent defense attorney would have argued limited language of the statute. It would get dropped here so I wouldn't even bother. It could also be argued as a protected freedom of speech.

          Comment


          • #6
            no .

            Comment


            • #7
              No. And good lord that kid has horrible coordination, shes not even blindfolded and she still missed the car by like 3 feet.

              Comment


              • #8
                Alabama has a law against making a terroristic threat. What is depicted would, in all likelihood be protected speech.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Absolutely protected speech. While I may not like the words, I may not like the image depicted, my right to not be offended doesn't trump their right to be ***holes.

                  That being said, typically these situations must include a specific threat, not a vague one. For instance, when a person says they're going to blow up the world, it's not a specific threat. When somebody says they're going to bring a gun to school next thursday and shoot the place up, it's more specific, but not REAL specific. When they say they're going to bring a gun to school next thursday and shoot John Smith after 4th period, that's pretty specific.

                  It could be argued if it was a photograph of an individual officer, easily recognizable as that officer that it rose to the level of intimidation or some similar statute. But a generic black and white car that resembles the stereotypical police car....not even close.
                  Originally posted by K40
                  To me, open carry is the equivalent of the couple making out and groping each other at the food court in the mall. Yeah, they are probably legal, as long as they don't start getting undressed. But they are still social retards.
                  ‎"You go for a man hard enough and fast enough, he don't have time to think about how many's with him; he thinks about himself, and how he might get clear of that wrath that's about to set down on him." - Rooster Cogburn

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    So if I said I was going to throw molotov cocktails at police cars. This is protected by free speech as it is just a generalized threat against all police?
                    The beatings will continue until morale improves.

                    Originally posted by jcioccke
                    After I hit it, I would be disgusted with her

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by 10-7Alpha View Post
                      So if I said I was going to throw molotov cocktails at police cars. This is protected by free speech as it is just a generalized threat against all police?
                      Again, it would depend on the context. If you walked into a police station holding a molotov cocktail saying it, then you'd be in a big of a jam. If you held up a sign on the side of the road saying that you were going to do it, then you likely wouldn't be.

                      Many times in situations like this, the trial is buried in constitutional claims by both parties, and arguments over a persons freedom of speech, and the limits and extents of it.

                      A black and white answer isn't possible, you have to look at the totality of the circumstances.
                      Originally posted by K40
                      To me, open carry is the equivalent of the couple making out and groping each other at the food court in the mall. Yeah, they are probably legal, as long as they don't start getting undressed. But they are still social retards.
                      ‎"You go for a man hard enough and fast enough, he don't have time to think about how many's with him; he thinks about himself, and how he might get clear of that wrath that's about to set down on him." - Rooster Cogburn

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        There is no threat in the picture. There is no CPS issue in the picture. There is no crime.
                        Free Deke O'Mally!!!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by 10-7Alpha View Post
                          Huh, I thought if charges got levied it would be against the parents and then CPS would become involved due to the parents providing a hostile living environment for the children.

                          More over, couldn't you arrest and charge them to rain on their parade and then leave it up to the DA to decide... Letting the "system" work it out while mommy and daddy get hammered by CPS and freak out.
                          I COULD, but I'd be in prison for it...
                          Originally posted by K40
                          To me, open carry is the equivalent of the couple making out and groping each other at the food court in the mall. Yeah, they are probably legal, as long as they don't start getting undressed. But they are still social retards.
                          ‎"You go for a man hard enough and fast enough, he don't have time to think about how many's with him; he thinks about himself, and how he might get clear of that wrath that's about to set down on him." - Rooster Cogburn

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by PtlCop View Post
                            Again, it would depend on the context. If you walked into a police station holding a molotov cocktail saying it, then you'd be in a big of a jam. If you held up a sign on the side of the road saying that you were going to do it, then you likely wouldn't be.

                            Many times in situations like this, the trial is buried in constitutional claims by both parties, and arguments over a persons freedom of speech, and the limits and extents of it.

                            A black and white answer isn't possible, you have to look at the totality of the circumstances.
                            Agreed wholeheartedly in the context statement. I appreciate the answers all.
                            The beatings will continue until morale improves.

                            Originally posted by jcioccke
                            After I hit it, I would be disgusted with her

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              It's no more a case of criminal threats than is someone playing GTA and blowing up a police car or something. That sign is well within the First Amendment.

                              It certainly would not fall within CA's definition of criminal threats, because it would have to be a specific, unconditional threat against a particular individual, and the suspect would have to be able to carry it out right then.
                              Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. - Ronald Reagan

                              I don't think It'll happen in the US because we don't trust our government. We are a country of skeptics, raised by skeptics, founded by skeptics. - Amaroq

                              Comment

                              MR300x250 Tablet

                              Collapse

                              What's Going On

                              Collapse

                              There are currently 3782 users online. 201 members and 3581 guests.

                              Most users ever online was 26,947 at 07:36 PM on 12-29-2019.

                              Welcome Ad

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X