BBONDS25

quote:

---

You forgot "reasonable."

---

Foreseeable that a reasonable person could see it as a threat is the question. I believe the email as a whole meets that standard.

quote:

---

Again....................you are agreeing with me. It's OK to admit it and stand proud. 99% of the time agreeing with me means you are in the right.

---

I can’t type it any slower. That statement COMBINED with the rest of the email is what is important. If it is foreseeable that a person could perceive it as a threat is the question. Clearly the person who received it did…so…..

quote:

---

You got this bro

---

Failure to substantiate your claim is tacit admission you’re speaking from a place of complete ignorance. :lol: rocket surgery. :cheers:

quote:

---

a statement of mine you later admitted to agreeing with

---

Wrong. I think a reasonable person could perceive what was said as a threat. There are several in this thread that said that. I don’t think it ALONE is a criminal threat. However, the overall tone of the parts of the email we have seen combined with that statement can certainly be considered a threat by the person who received it.

Clearly the person who received it felt it was a threat. Was that reasonably foreseeable?


It’s not a binary issue.

quote:

---

Email, social media post, letter, etc. Not a bad argument for him to make.

---

It’s the only argument he can make. I think it’s a very weak one. The argument he made a threat is much stronger.

quote:

---

Dude you have to read better. My whole argument from my first post in this thread was that his speech was protected and doesn't constitute a true threat. ....which you finally admitted you agree with

---

Take your own advice. I simply claimed you stating it was not a threat does not make it true. You came at me in this thread. I simply responded.

quote:

---

Your incessant need to talk down to people is well known and honestly, very sad to watch Apply the same metrics to Don Jr and Eric. This isn’t rocket surgery

---

I’m asking you to substantiate whatever the claim is you are trying to make. You can’t seem to do that. Apparently, to you, it is rocket surgery. :lol:

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 don’t see the damages. I don’t see negligence. I don’t see the suit doing very well. Maybe he will get a cost of litigation settlement. But he won’t win on the merits.

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?

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?