-> PN>        My non-lawyer opinion is that while nasty, this is
-> obviously PN>nowhere near a "true threat", and I wonder if calling it
-> a "death threat" PN>was part of the maneuvering over the controversy,
-> combined with a dash PN>of anti-Internet politicing.
-> DA> Sounded like a death threat to me.  His mealy-mouthed DA>
-> "explanation" in the 2nd message does nothing to lessen the DA>
-> threat of the first, which stands alone.
-> Motive, Means, Opportunity?
Motive, means, opportunity are needed to get a murder conviction.
The crime in this case is not murder.  The crime is making a death
threat, and incitement to commit murder.
-> I tend to agree with the original poster.  I just plain don't see a
-> credible threat.  But we all have differing degrees of "reasonable,"
-> so I suggest that both of us can be "right."
We're not talking the kind of "threat" for which the person being
threatened has justification to shoot back.  We are talking a verbalized
or written threat.  It is against the law in most states that  I know
of.   If someone writes a letter to you, whether on a piece of paper, or
via email, and says something like "I'm going to kill you" they have
violated a law.
Same thing would apply if someone wrote on a piece of paper "John Doe
should die!  Let's kill him!"  and posted it on the bulletin board at
the neighborhood grocery store.  That would be an incitement to commit
murder, also against the laws in most states.
-> I suspect it will come down to how 12 (supposed) "reasonable" people
-> perceive it.
I hope they convict the sucker.
-> DA> If the kid really "didn't mean it", then you can thank modern DA>
-> liberal education for the fact that a 19 year old doesn't know DA>
-> what words mean, and doesn't know how to phrase a "what if" type DA>
-> of hypothetical statement.  If I had received, or been the DA>
-> subject of, such a message, I definitely would have taken it to DA>
-> the local prosecutor.
-> Perhaps I've heard more threats than you.  Most are hyperbole.  If
-> everybody who ever stated "I'm gonna kill you" were in jail...well,
-> you and I would be lonely here on this echo .
That's not the same context, nor the same crime.  The message in
question was not hyperbole.  It was concise and specific.
"Freedom of speech" is not the freedom to say *anything*.  Threats,
conspiracy, incitement, obscentiy, libel, etc, are NOT protected
speech.
--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 10 (05-17-96 16
(1:231/875)
---------------