allen-1
NES Member
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
oops; sending threatening text during CT firearms hearings; buh-bye...
- Thread starter allen-1
- Start date
Probably not. But it must. Can’t have it both ways. If The shoe WAS on the other foot and this was one of ours getting tossed from A moms demand action meeting for a private text sent to a friend(?) that someone saw over someone’s shoulder we would all be out raged that they were even tossed from the meeting, not to mention being arrested. Second amendment for all! Also means first amendment for all, even the dip shits.
Of course again the problem is "what is a criminal threat?" They probably let this broad walk because they figured out that she wasn't serious, or at least that's what they thought... if this was a
male, I bet he would have left in handcuffs, especially if it was threatening an anti, cuz male and cuz guns, blah blah.
Also I don't think threatening to kill people (especially in a very specific nature like she did) is necessarily protected speech, so I don't know if this qualifies as a 1A issue. If she was just joking
about it, like in a satirical manner, you could likely argue that is protected. Like if she had said "If a truck drove through the building and wiped this guy out, it would save everyone a lot of
trouble" one could argue that is distasteful but not an actionable threat....
It'll be fun if someone can find out her identity, though. Of course she probably works for the state or some moonbat org....
-Mike
Another article about this one...
Capitol Police eject woman during gun hearing
Seem to indicate the capitol police there "covering" for this bitch, probably because she's some kind of state worker or perhaps an aide or some other piece of garbage that works for the
state somehow...
-Mike
Capitol Police eject woman during gun hearing
Seem to indicate the capitol police there "covering" for this bitch, probably because she's some kind of state worker or perhaps an aide or some other piece of garbage that works for the
state somehow...
-Mike
D
Deleted member 67409
IANAL
Incitement, the form of unprotected and violent speech for the purpose of attacking the government, has three elements: intent, imminence, and likelihood. Looking purely at the headline text, there's no incitement because she says "if I had a gun." So there's no intent because she doesn't say "I'm going to buy a gun and..." nor does she say "I will go shoot...". There's no intent, imminence, or likelihood. Maybe there's imminence, but definitely no intent or likelihood. So there's probably no incitement here.
If she didn't how did anyone else know about it?
Could be.
Either way if it was one of us , you would be scraping up bail money right now.
I read the legal side of this above in this post. I don't agree with the action by the police, she should have been taken in for questioning. Her name should be made public, for safety reasons. And, I have this feeling if it was one of ours, he/she would be in the cooler right now.
D
Deleted member 67409
Intent typically means that you plan on doing the act. You could use the evidence of the paper both ways. On the one hand, someone wrote it down and thought enough about it to write it down. On the other, they thought about it and trashed the thought, literally.
Pro tip: don't write down your criminal thoughts.
Chevy 2 65
NES Member
I don't have to worry about any of it.
this is some weak sauce, who was that dude who published Zim's address and asked to take him out? Crimes against gun owners are no crimes, not that laws have been very fluid and open to interpretation by judges and bureaucrats alike.
lowbuckbob
NES Member
Threatening in the First Degree
A person is guilty of threatening in the first degree in the state of Connecticut when such person:
A person is guilty of threatening in the second degree in the state of Connecticut when they:
Making threats in the first degree is considered a felony, while threatening in the second degree is a misdemeanor. As a result, you will receive greater penalties for committing threatening in the first degree than for committing threatening in the second degree. You can receive a prison sentence of 1-5 years for making threats in the first degree. Also, you could face a jail sentence of up to one year for threatening in the second degree.
A person is guilty of threatening in the first degree in the state of Connecticut when such person:
- Threatens to commit any crime involving the use of a hazardous substance with the intent to terrorize another person, to cause evacuation of a building or otherwise cause serious public inconvenience.
- Hazardous substance is defined as any physical, chemical, biological or radiological substance that in a certain quantity can cause or contribute to an increased chance of death or serious illness.
- Threatens to commit any crime of violence with the intent to cause evacuation of a building, place of assembly or facility of public transportation or otherwise to cause serious public inconvenience.
- Or commits threatening in the second degree and in the process they have/use/or threaten to use a firearm.
A person is guilty of threatening in the second degree in the state of Connecticut when they:
- By physical threat, intentionally places or attempts to place another person in fear of imminent serious physical injury; or
- Threatens to commit any crime of violence with the intent to terrorize another person or;
- Threatens to commit such crime of violence in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror.
- True threats, such as a serious expression of intent to do harm, are not protected by the 1st amendment of the U.S. Constitution (141 Conn. App. 377)
- The courts have defined terror as, “words or acts meant to scare or to cause intense fear or apprehension in another person” (81 Conn. App. 248).
- To be considered a true threat, there must be credible evidence that a person made a threat and the threat placed a victim in immediate fear of serious physical injury (2013 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2417).
Making threats in the first degree is considered a felony, while threatening in the second degree is a misdemeanor. As a result, you will receive greater penalties for committing threatening in the first degree than for committing threatening in the second degree. You can receive a prison sentence of 1-5 years for making threats in the first degree. Also, you could face a jail sentence of up to one year for threatening in the second degree.
JayMcB
NES Member
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2011
- Messages
- 22,363
- Likes
- 109,122
Can I ERPO the St. of CT for the ass-rape of tolls, where they will track me down and arrest me with a firearm for not paying their 4.4c a mile tax on their shitty roads?
Her mug shouldn't be that difficult to pick her out from the crowd for someone with the time, patience and resources.
There has to be some official video recording of this hearing somewhere.
Look for an older woman, late 50's/60'ish plus, brown hair, wearing a white sweater over an angry moms orange t-shirt, with
some sort of embroidery on the back.
I have no idea how Twitter works, but it looks like either her name is Sally or she's communicating with someone named Sally.
Put 4Chan on the case and they'd have her in no time.
Whomever she is, this isn't her first dance party at these sort of things.
Someone will recognize her.
There has to be some official video recording of this hearing somewhere.
Look for an older woman, late 50's/60'ish plus, brown hair, wearing a white sweater over an angry moms orange t-shirt, with
some sort of embroidery on the back.
I have no idea how Twitter works, but it looks like either her name is Sally or she's communicating with someone named Sally.
Put 4Chan on the case and they'd have her in no time.
Whomever she is, this isn't her first dance party at these sort of things.
Someone will recognize her.
fencer
NES Member
From the page...
"The Connecticut teen who fatally shot himself while playing with a gun at a friend's house would likely still be alive if the state had a law requiring the safe storage of firearms, his parents told lawmakers today."
That is awful, and I truly feel for the parents. But I can't help but think, their son would likely still be alive if he had been taught the simplest of safety rules. People talk to their teenage kids about the dangers of strangers, drugs and unprotected sex, but we need laws about storage.
"The Connecticut teen who fatally shot himself while playing with a gun at a friend's house would likely still be alive if the state had a law requiring the safe storage of firearms, his parents told lawmakers today."
That is awful, and I truly feel for the parents. But I can't help but think, their son would likely still be alive if he had been taught the simplest of safety rules. People talk to their teenage kids about the dangers of strangers, drugs and unprotected sex, but we need laws about storage.
SpaceCritter
NES Member
...whereas _I_ can't help but think he might not of shot himself, but, instead have died eating a Tide Pod or somesuch.
