Wearing Ski Mask while walking through a convenient store on the phone = Making Terrorist threat

[PatboyX]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SampSon

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
DJs are idiots. I hope he gets the year in jail. Stupid fvck.

It's called pushing the limits.

The limits are getting ever more restrictive year by year. The dj illustrated his point very well.
A terrorist threat? Comon. :roll:

If you'd ever been robbed, or worked at a retail establishment, you'd understand why.

Your personal fears/shortcomings should not impact anyone else's rights.

THEY have the right to wear whatever they want.
YOU have the right to order them off your property.
YOU Have the right to defend yourself (and IMO your property, though this is something of a gray area).

I'm somewhat torn on this because I'm 100% in favor of gun rights, & the rights of a property owner, but as a public place of business you can't open fire on people simply because they're wearing something you don't like. If it was your own home, & they were there without your permission then by all means pull the gun. In your business, though, you have to accept the risk of dealing with the public.

Viper GTS

i agree.
but that doesnt make it true.

 

[Shockwave]

Originally posted by: Amused


You need to read the thread and practice your reading comprehension.

1. The terrorist threats law predates 9/11. It has ALWAYS been illegal to threaten somone. And it has been illegal to threaten someone with the sole purpose of making them live in fear.
2. The penalty for his actions is a MAX of 1 year in jail and a $4000 fine. Chances are, he'll get pled down to nothing.

Yes and no. The law does predate 9/11, that I can agree on. But before 9/11 it was rarely used. After 9/11 its become commonplace to want to charge someone Jaywalking with "terrorism"
Also, the textbook definition of terrorism and the accepted definition are drastically different as well.

On a side note, what the hell does that have to do with myreading comprehension??

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Shockwave

Originally posted by: Amused


You need to read the thread and practice your reading comprehension.

1. The terrorist threats law predates 9/11. It has ALWAYS been illegal to threaten somone. And it has been illegal to threaten someone with the sole purpose of making them live in fear.
2. The penalty for his actions is a MAX of 1 year in jail and a $4000 fine. Chances are, he'll get pled down to nothing.

Yes and no. The law does predate 9/11, that I can agree on. But before 9/11 it was rarely used. After 9/11 its become commonplace to want to charge someone Jaywalking with "terrorism"
Also, the textbook definition of terrorism and the accepted definition are drastically different as well.

On a side note, what the hell does that have to do with myreading comprehension??

The terroristic threats laws have been used regularly for things just like this.

This law, it's use, and this case have NOTHING to do with terrorism and fears thereof.

 

[PanzerIV]

I think the DJ excercised a complete lack of common sense here and deserves what he gets. We all know the reaction he was banking on when he did this and there is no humor in it.

 

[slag]

Originally posted by: jyates

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: Amused
If he walked into my store like that he'd find himself on the floor with a gun at his head.

Retail people have EVERY REASON to be scared to death of robbers... because we get robbed all the time.

Where do you draw the line?

Ski masks?
Baggy clothes?
FUBU?
How about black males between the ages of 17 and 30?

While I would agree it's not an especially bright stunt, you would be WAY outta line in taking him down.

This is a damn slippery slope, you of all people should see that.

Viper GTS

A ski mask is where the line is.
What's the purpose of wearing one in a public place?
If you were working the check out at a convience store and a guy
walks in with one (summer time in Austin, Texas) what would you think?

Whats the purpose of blacks wearing a freaking dumb looking comb in their hair

Whats the purpose of people wearing bandanas around their leg

Whats the purpose of people wearing hats with tags still on them

Whats the purpose of people wearing sandals with socks

Its all a matter of what you want to do

 

[SoylentGreen]

Originally posted by: Triumph
When I was 18, two friends and I thought it would be hilarious to go to McDonald's wearing Scream-esque masks (one of them looked just like the mask from the movie, the other two were similar), and simply order our food and eat it. This is what you do when you have no job and nothing else to do during the summer months. We waited in line patiently, ordered our food like any other customer, and were enjoying our burgers and fries until the cops walked in.

That Big Mac value meal cost me $223.50 and a disorderly conduct charge.

As for this DJ, that's all he should have gotten. How was he "making a terroristic threat?"

Just as we all thought, you are an asshole.

 

[ReiAyanami]

walk into a bank with a ski mask on and see what happens.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Triumph

person commits the crime of terroristic threats if the person communicates a threat to commit any crime of violence with intent to terrorize another

The intent part is key here. A robber does not intend to terrorize, he intends to steal. If the people are terrorized, that's a secondary effect of his intent to steal.

By your understanding of the law, it could be applied to ANY CRIME which involves more than one person.

Idiot. Robbery does intend to terrorize and scare someone. Why else would they part with the cash or goods? Robbery implies a threat or usage of force. I don't know how many times you've been robbed, but I have and it was scary sh!t. You don't know if they are going to start shooting you or order you into a freezer.


robbery: The act or an instance of unlawfully taking the property of another by the use of violence or intimidation.


Terrorism: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments

Gee golly!

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Shockwave

Originally posted by: Amused


You need to read the thread and practice your reading comprehension.

1. The terrorist threats law predates 9/11. It has ALWAYS been illegal to threaten somone. And it has been illegal to threaten someone with the sole purpose of making them live in fear.
2. The penalty for his actions is a MAX of 1 year in jail and a $4000 fine. Chances are, he'll get pled down to nothing.

Yes and no. The law does predate 9/11, that I can agree on. But before 9/11 it was rarely used. After 9/11 its become commonplace to want to charge someone Jaywalking with "terrorism"
Also, the textbook definition of terrorism and the accepted definition are drastically different as well.

On a side note, what the hell does that have to do with myreading comprehension??

Sure it was used. You just notice it more now.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: slag

Originally posted by: jyates

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: Amused
If he walked into my store like that he'd find himself on the floor with a gun at his head.

Retail people have EVERY REASON to be scared to death of robbers... because we get robbed all the time.

Where do you draw the line?

Ski masks?
Baggy clothes?
FUBU?
How about black males between the ages of 17 and 30?

While I would agree it's not an especially bright stunt, you would be WAY outta line in taking him down.

This is a damn slippery slope, you of all people should see that.

Viper GTS

A ski mask is where the line is.
What's the purpose of wearing one in a public place?
If you were working the check out at a convience store and a guy
walks in with one (summer time in Austin, Texas) what would you think?

Whats the purpose of blacks wearing a freaking dumb looking comb in their hair

Whats the purpose of people wearing bandanas around their leg

Whats the purpose of people wearing hats with tags still on them

Whats the purpose of people wearing sandals with socks

Its all a matter of what you want to do

All those are items that don't hide your identity. Are you ok with people wearing a Klan outfit and walking around in the general public? There's no excuse to be wearing a Ski Mask in Austin, TX is freaking July. NONE. If you are wearing it you are either mentally disturbed, trying to rob someone/hide your identity, or you are playing a stupid joke.

 

[Yo Ma Ma]

Although no verbal threats were made, store clerk Atif Akhlaque said he thought he was going to be robbed and pressed the silent alarm.

Can't blame the clerk for his actions, the charge seems over the top but we'll see how it shakes out in court.

It was the latest in a series of on-air gags by Chappell, who also has had a bikini wax, walked across hot coals and married a listener who was paid $100.

Wacky.. does it mean he performed a ceremoney for a listerner, or got married TO a listerer?

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Shockwave

Originally posted by: Amused


You need to read the thread and practice your reading comprehension.

1. The terrorist threats law predates 9/11. It has ALWAYS been illegal to threaten somone. And it has been illegal to threaten someone with the sole purpose of making them live in fear.
2. The penalty for his actions is a MAX of 1 year in jail and a $4000 fine. Chances are, he'll get pled down to nothing.

Yes and no. The law does predate 9/11, that I can agree on. But before 9/11 it was rarely used. After 9/11 its become commonplace to want to charge someone Jaywalking with "terrorism"
Also, the textbook definition of terrorism and the accepted definition are drastically different as well.

On a side note, what the hell does that have to do with myreading comprehension??

Wrong. This law has absolutely nothing to do with terrorism. It's not meant to be used against terrorists, as the maximum penalty is only 1 year in jail. It's meant to be used against idiots who do stupid stuff like what this guy did, or kids who call bomb threats into their school, or guys who threaten their ex-girlfriend's new boyfriend. You're right that the "textbook" definition of terrorizing someone is different from what we consider to be "terrorism," and that is exactly why you are confused about this law. You see it as a law intended for terrorists that is misapplied to normal people, when in fact it is and always has been a law intended for normal people who do stupid stuff.

The charge makes sense here, because it is blatantly obvious that the guy intended to scare people by making them believe he was going to rob the store. The maximum penalty seems a bit high for what he did, but it IS just the maximum we're focusing on here. He'll probably get a big fine, no jail time.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: Triumph

person commits the crime of terroristic threats if the person communicates a threat to commit any crime of violence with intent to terrorize another

The intent part is key here. A robber does not intend to terrorize, he intends to steal. If the people are terrorized, that's a secondary effect of his intent to steal.

By your understanding of the law, it could be applied to ANY CRIME which involves more than one person.

Idiot. Robbery does intend to terrorize and scare someone. Why else would they part with the cash or goods? Robbery implies a threat or usage of force. I don't know how many times you've been robbed, but I have and it was scary sh!t. You don't know if they are going to start shooting you or order you into a freezer.


robbery: The act or an instance of unlawfully taking the property of another by the use of violence or intimidation.


Terrorism: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments

Gee golly!

He had already capitulated. Did you have to go and insult him?

Geeze!

 

[Shockwave]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: Shockwave

Originally posted by: Amused


You need to read the thread and practice your reading comprehension.

1. The terrorist threats law predates 9/11. It has ALWAYS been illegal to threaten somone. And it has been illegal to threaten someone with the sole purpose of making them live in fear.
2. The penalty for his actions is a MAX of 1 year in jail and a $4000 fine. Chances are, he'll get pled down to nothing.

Yes and no. The law does predate 9/11, that I can agree on. But before 9/11 it was rarely used. After 9/11 its become commonplace to want to charge someone Jaywalking with "terrorism"
Also, the textbook definition of terrorism and the accepted definition are drastically different as well.

On a side note, what the hell does that have to do with myreading comprehension??

Sure it was used. You just notice it more now.

I agree it was. But in todays society its gorssly overused is what I'm saying. Hell, almost any act in which your breaking the law now *could* put you on the stand with terrorist charges tacked on. Its ridiculous.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: Triumph

person commits the crime of terroristic threats if the person communicates a threat to commit any crime of violence with intent to terrorize another

The intent part is key here. A robber does not intend to terrorize, he intends to steal. If the people are terrorized, that's a secondary effect of his intent to steal.

By your understanding of the law, it could be applied to ANY CRIME which involves more than one person.

Idiot. Robbery does intend to terrorize and scare someone. Why else would they part with the cash or goods? Robbery implies a threat or usage of force. I don't know how many times you've been robbed, but I have and it was scary sh!t. You don't know if they are going to start shooting you or order you into a freezer.


robbery: The act or an instance of unlawfully taking the property of another by the use of violence or intimidation.


Terrorism: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments

Gee golly!

He had already capitulated. Did you have to go and insult him?

Geeze!

Eh? I must have missed that post of his.

 

[Amused]

Here it is, so you don't have to search through the whole thread:

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Triumph

person commits the crime of terroristic threats if the person communicates a threat to commit any crime of violence with intent to terrorize another

The intent part is key here. A robber does not intend to terrorize, he intends to steal. If the people are terrorized, that's a secondary effect of his intent.

By your understanding of the law, it could be applied to ANY CRIME which involves more than one person.

But this man did not intend to rob, he intended to terrorize people by making them THINK he was going to rob them.

He intentionally terrorized them by making indrect threats of a violent crime.

Ok, true.

Well, Apu Nahasapedapedilon behind the counter has probably been robbed so many times that he isn't afraid anymore. So he should be subpoenaed to testify that he was not, in fact, terrorized.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Amused
Here it is, so you don't have to search through the whole thread:

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Triumph

person commits the crime of terroristic threats if the person communicates a threat to commit any crime of violence with intent to terrorize another

The intent part is key here. A robber does not intend to terrorize, he intends to steal. If the people are terrorized, that's a secondary effect of his intent.

By your understanding of the law, it could be applied to ANY CRIME which involves more than one person.

But this man did not intend to rob, he intended to terrorize people by making them THINK he was going to rob them.

He intentionally terrorized them by making indrect threats of a violent crime.

Ok, true.

Well, Apu Nahasapedapedilon behind the counter has probably been robbed so many times that he isn't afraid anymore. So he should be subpoenaed to testify that he was not, in fact, terrorized.

My apologies then.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Shockwave

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: Shockwave

Originally posted by: Amused


You need to read the thread and practice your reading comprehension.

1. The terrorist threats law predates 9/11. It has ALWAYS been illegal to threaten somone. And it has been illegal to threaten someone with the sole purpose of making them live in fear.
2. The penalty for his actions is a MAX of 1 year in jail and a $4000 fine. Chances are, he'll get pled down to nothing.

Yes and no. The law does predate 9/11, that I can agree on. But before 9/11 it was rarely used. After 9/11 its become commonplace to want to charge someone Jaywalking with "terrorism"
Also, the textbook definition of terrorism and the accepted definition are drastically different as well.

On a side note, what the hell does that have to do with myreading comprehension??

Sure it was used. You just notice it more now.

I agree it was. But in todays society its gorssly overused is what I'm saying. Hell, almost any act in which your breaking the law now *could* put you on the stand with terrorist charges tacked on. Its ridiculous.

Terroristic threats have nothing to do with terrorism... at least not the type of terrorism you're thinking of. It's not being applied any differently now than it was before. OTHER laws, that actually are intended to combat terrorism are being used improperly, but this has nothing to do with that...

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: SoylentGreen

Originally posted by: Triumph
When I was 18, two friends and I thought it would be hilarious to go to McDonald's wearing Scream-esque masks (one of them looked just like the mask from the movie, the other two were similar), and simply order our food and eat it. This is what you do when you have no job and nothing else to do during the summer months. We waited in line patiently, ordered our food like any other customer, and were enjoying our burgers and fries until the cops walked in.

That Big Mac value meal cost me $223.50 and a disorderly conduct charge.

As for this DJ, that's all he should have gotten. How was he "making a terroristic threat?"

Just as we all thought, you are an asshole.

Yeah, well you're ugly.

 

[StageLeft]

I can't see a conviction. He did nothing illegal really, and ski masks are not illegal.

That said, it's a NATURAL and fully expected response of the owner of the store to hit silent alarm any time somebody with a ski mask comes in. In the name of common sense that DJ should at least be ordered to pay a fine for general stupidity. A year in jail is overboard.

If you were behind the counter what would be your first thought?

Robbery. That's a natural and prudent first thought. Hitting the alarm is a natural and prudent response. Thusly the guy should be held responsible for the annoyance caused to the store/police/court. There must be some lesser more appropriate law like wasting police time or something that they can easily convict him on.