- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Upstate NY man receives ICE warning about social media posts
Posted on 7/7/26 at 1:13 pm to BBONDS25
Posted on 7/7/26 at 1:13 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
He’s gone. I called him out and asked him to cite the definition he claimed to know and called others ignorant over…and poof. Gone.
I have this thing called work. During times of my day, I cannot immediately respond to TD posts. I hope thats OK with you.
1
Posted on 7/7/26 at 1:13 pm to onmymedicalgrind
quote:
A "lawyer" who thinks you can't disagree with someone's opinion while also thinking them stating it shouldn't be illegal.
What are you trying to say here? Where have I said this? You’re getting a bit cringy.
And a scrub tech pretending on the internet to be a doctor shouldn’t be making fun of anyone’s profession.
This post was edited on 7/7/26 at 1:14 pm
Posted on 7/7/26 at 1:14 pm to onmymedicalgrind
quote:
I have this thing called work. During times of my day, I cannot immediately respond to TD posts. I hope thats OK with you.
still waiting on that definition. Why won’t you post it?Posted on 7/7/26 at 1:15 pm to onmymedicalgrind
quote:
You think my asking "Different set of Amendments apply to spiritual leaders?" is equivalent to my stating "context doesn't matter?" Bless your heart....
What was the point of that post, then? My sweet summer child…
Posted on 7/7/26 at 1:16 pm to onmymedicalgrind
quote:Well, there are obviously always going to be shades of gray. Those are the shades a jury weighs.
shouldn't allow for shades of grey regarding enforcement
But I guess the point here is there has been no "enforcement." As far as I can tell, there was only a "warning," which could be interpreted as a public service alert that the individual was getting pretty close to a line that could involve criminality.
Posted on 7/7/26 at 1:16 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Post the legal definition which allows you to make this claim.
quote:
True threats encompass those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals.
=/=
"You will never know peace"
Posted on 7/7/26 at 1:17 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
And a scrub tech pretending on the internet to be a doctor shouldn’t be making fun of anyone’s profession.
I really get under your skin. I'm not sure why, but it does amuse me.
Posted on 7/7/26 at 1:20 pm to onmymedicalgrind
quote:
True threats encompass those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals.
Wrong. The Supreme Court specifically states an intent to carry out a violent act is not required.
Back to Google for you. Try again dummy.
Posted on 7/7/26 at 1:22 pm to onmymedicalgrind
quote:
I really get under your skin. I'm not sure why, but it does amuse me.
Then we amuse each other.
it takes a lot to get under my skin. You haven’t come close. You’re entertainment. I like when people post with hubris from a place of complete ignorance…as you do. You aren’t special. I have interactions on here all the time with dumb people posting legal conclusions with absolutely zero legal acumen to back it up. You’re a dime a dozen. Now go clean the instruments.
Posted on 7/7/26 at 1:23 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
But I guess the point here is there has been no "enforcement." As far as I can tell, there was only a "warning," which could be interpreted as a public service alert that the individual was getting pretty close to a line that could involve criminality.
Yep.
Posted on 7/7/26 at 1:24 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Wrong. The Supreme Court specifically states an intent to carry out a violent act is not required.
quote:
The State must show that the defendant consciously disregarded a substantial risk that his communications would be viewed as threatening violence
=/=
"You will never know peace."
Posted on 7/7/26 at 1:26 pm to onmymedicalgrind
quote:
The State must show that the defendant consciously disregarded a substantial risk that his communications would be viewed as threatening violence
Finally. The Google machine worked for you. Second time was the charm. Funny you claimed to know the definition this entire time. Why lie about that? Glad I could educate you.
quote:
=/= "You will never know peace."
Says who?
This post was edited on 7/7/26 at 1:28 pm
Posted on 7/7/26 at 1:27 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Then we amuse each other. it takes a lot to get under my skin. You haven’t come close. You’re entertainment. I like when people post with hubris from a place of complete ignorance…as you do.
You aren’t special. I have interactions on here all the time with dumb people posting legal conclusions with absolutely zero legal acumen to back it up. You’re a dime a dozen. Now go clean the instruments.
Whatever makes you feel better about yourself
Posted on 7/7/26 at 1:28 pm to onmymedicalgrind
quote:
Whatever makes you feel better about yourself
Exactly. I enjoy pointing out your mental deficits. Not the most mature habit…but it is still entertaining.
Posted on 7/7/26 at 1:28 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Says who?
Thats my position. What's yours? That statement, in this context we have been given thus far, rises to a true threat? Yay or Nay?
Posted on 7/7/26 at 1:29 pm to BBONDS25
quote:Nah, he's a pretty bright hombre FWIW. So is Decatur. I think OMMG makes assumptions here which may or may not be valid, and in fairness, he acknowledges that.
You’re giving him too much credit.
But I would be interested in your opinion about the validity of the lawsuit assuming we have complete context on all sides already (I don't think that we do BTW). What is the actual harm driving the suit?
This post was edited on 7/7/26 at 1:30 pm
Posted on 7/7/26 at 1:32 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
But I would be interested in your opinion about the validity of the lawsuit assuming we have complete context on all sides already (I don't think that we do BTW). What is the actual harm driving the suit?
I think you are spot on. The lawsuit fails because the harm is zero or de minimis.
I find the discussion of whether his email rises to unprotected speech far more intriguing.
Posted on 7/7/26 at 1:37 pm to onmymedicalgrind
quote:
Thats my position. What's yours? That statement, in this context we have been given thus far, rises to a true threat? Yay or Nay?
My position is that it is reasonably foreseeable that the person receiving the email with that statement could perceive it as a threat. I don’t think on its own it would be a chargeable crime, but it certainly is appropriate to warn the writer of that possibility.
What part of that do you object to?
Posted on 7/7/26 at 1:40 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
I don’t think on its own it would be a chargeable crime
All of your nonsense in this thread just to agree with me
I don't have cooties. Its OK for you to just admit you agree with me from the jump and save us all some time
Posted on 7/7/26 at 1:43 pm to onmymedicalgrind
No shite
Page 7 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News