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

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SampSon

Originally posted by: Amused
A quick google search shows this law in many states. I randomly picked Pennsylvania:

§ 2706. Terroristic threats.
(a) Offense defined. A person commits the crime of terroristic threats if the person communicates, either directly or indirectly, a threat to:

commit any crime of violence with intent to terrorize another;
cause evacuation of a building, place of assembly, or facility of public transportation; or
otherwise cause serious public inconvenience, or cause terror or serious public inconvenience with reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience.

This is very grey area here. I can call you up and threaten to kick your dog, and that is a terrorist threat.
I can threaten you on here, and that's a terrorist threat.

It is if I have a valid reason to fear your threats.

But that said, yes, it is, and always has been illegal to threaten others.

The law is much more open now for interpretation due to recent history.

Valid, like me kicking your dog with a skimask on?

 

[CPA]

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 shouold 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

It's not gray in my world. You have no right, ever, to be on my property without my consent.

 

[Viper GTS]

Originally posted by: CPA

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 shouold 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

It's not gray in my world. You have no right, ever, to be on my property without my consent.

I think you missed my point, in Oregon you can't shoot someone because they're stealing your car, you (or someone else) has to be in immediate physical danger.

Viper GTS

 

[MrMaster]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Good god. I can't believe you people. You are really saying that it is someones right to walk into a store with a ski mask on? Give me a freakin' break. You are going out of your way to put fear into someone else. They don't know your intentions. I'd sure as hell take your ass down too if you walked into my store wearing a ski mask over your face.

Slippery slope my ass. You have no right to intimidate someone else for your own amusement.

Robbers usually are not terrorists. No one saying it is right just that he shouldn't have been nailed with terrorist cahrges.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: SampSon

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SampSon

Originally posted by: Amused
A quick google search shows this law in many states. I randomly picked Pennsylvania:

§ 2706. Terroristic threats.
(a) Offense defined. A person commits the crime of terroristic threats if the person communicates, either directly or indirectly, a threat to:

commit any crime of violence with intent to terrorize another;
cause evacuation of a building, place of assembly, or facility of public transportation; or
otherwise cause serious public inconvenience, or cause terror or serious public inconvenience with reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience.

This is very grey area here. I can call you up and threaten to kick your dog, and that is a terrorist threat.
I can threaten you on here, and that's a terrorist threat.

It is if I have a valid reason to fear your threats.

But that said, yes, it is, and always has been illegal to threaten others.

The law is much more open now for interpretation due to recent history.

Valid, like me kicking your dog with a skimask on?

The fact is, every threat is illegal. But police only tend to follow up on imminent threats or those in which it is reasonable to believe that the person will carry them out.

 

[ddjkdg]

Wasn't it shown already that the law has nothing to do with 9/11 or being a terrorist? "Terroristic threats" is just the name for the law.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: ddjkdg
Wasn't it shown already that the law has nothing to do with 9/11 or being a terrorist? "Terroristic threats" is just the name for the law.

Yeah, but people are too busy trying to defend their prior knee-jerks.

 

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: ddjkdg
Wasn't it shown already that the law has nothing to do with 9/11 or being a terrorist? "Terroristic threats" is just the name for the law.

Yeah, but people are too busy trying to defend their prior knee-jerks.

Naw, I'm just trying to threaten you.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: CPA

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 shouold 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

It's not gray in my world. You have no right, ever, to be on my property without my consent.

I think you missed my point, in Oregon you can't shoot someone because they're stealing your car, you (or someone else) has to be in immediate physical danger.

Viper GTS

You can in Texas.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: SampSon

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: ddjkdg
Wasn't it shown already that the law has nothing to do with 9/11 or being a terrorist? "Terroristic threats" is just the name for the law.

Yeah, but people are too busy trying to defend their prior knee-jerks.

Naw, I'm just trying to threaten you.

That's IT! I'm calling the cops!

 

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SampSon

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: ddjkdg
Wasn't it shown already that the law has nothing to do with 9/11 or being a terrorist? "Terroristic threats" is just the name for the law.

Yeah, but people are too busy trying to defend their prior knee-jerks.

Naw, I'm just trying to threaten you.

That's IT! I'm calling the cops!

Call em, I live in spain!

 

[jyates]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SampSon

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: ddjkdg
Wasn't it shown already that the law has nothing to do with 9/11 or being a terrorist? "Terroristic threats" is just the name for the law.

Yeah, but people are too busy trying to defend their prior knee-jerks.

Naw, I'm just trying to threaten you.

That's IT! I'm calling the cops!

AND he was wearing a ski mask WHILE typing out the threat

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: SampSon

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SampSon

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: ddjkdg
Wasn't it shown already that the law has nothing to do with 9/11 or being a terrorist? "Terroristic threats" is just the name for the law.

Yeah, but people are too busy trying to defend their prior knee-jerks.

Naw, I'm just trying to threaten you.

That's IT! I'm calling the cops!

Call em, I live in spain!

So, now you are making international terroristic threats? I'll call Interpol!!!

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: Amused
A quick google search shows this law in many states. I randomly picked Pennsylvania:

§ 2706. Terroristic threats.
(a) Offense defined. A person commits the crime of terroristic threats if the person communicates, either directly or indirectly, a threat to:

commit any crime of violence with intent to terrorize another;

Wearing a ski mask is an intent to get money through robbing, not to terrorize.

cause evacuation of a building, place of assembly, or facility of public transportation;

Lesson here, don't let anyone leave when you're robbing a store!

or otherwise cause serious public inconvenience,

Driving too slow in the left lane causes serious public inconvenience. We should charge those people with terroristic threats.

or cause terror or serious public inconvenience with reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience.

Already explained that robbing does not cause terror, and "serious public inconvenience" could be applied to even the most humdrum activities.

Just another BS overarching law written so vaguely that it can be applied to anything if you want to make it apply.

 

[mugs]

Jeez people, just because he's accused of making a terristic threat doesn't mean they're saying he's a terrorist!

 

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SampSon

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SampSon

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: ddjkdg
Wasn't it shown already that the law has nothing to do with 9/11 or being a terrorist? "Terroristic threats" is just the name for the law.

Yeah, but people are too busy trying to defend their prior knee-jerks.

Naw, I'm just trying to threaten you.

That's IT! I'm calling the cops!

Call em, I live in spain!

So, now you are making international terroristic threats? I'll call Interpol!!!

I meant russia.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: Amused
A quick google search shows this law in many states. I randomly picked Pennsylvania:

§ 2706. Terroristic threats.
(a) Offense defined. A person commits the crime of terroristic threats if the person communicates, either directly or indirectly, a threat to:

commit any crime of violence with intent to terrorize another;

Wearing a ski mask is an intent to get money through robbing, not to terrorize.

cause evacuation of a building, place of assembly, or facility of public transportation;

Lesson here, don't let anyone leave when you're robbing a store!

or otherwise cause serious public inconvenience,

Driving too slow in the left lane causes serious public inconvenience. We should charge those people with terroristic threats.

or cause terror or serious public inconvenience with reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience.

Already explained that robbing does not cause terror, and "serious public inconvenience" could be applied to even the most humdrum activities.

Just another BS overarching law written so vaguely that it can be applied to anything if you want to make it apply.

The threat of robbery, even implied, DOES terrorize people. People fear robbery, fear is terror.

This is NOT that hard to understand, folks. He did this with the sole intent of scaring the hell out of these folks and making them think they were about to be robbed, which is a violent crime.

His actions fit this crime to a T.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[So]

idiot.

 

[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.

 

[Amused]

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.

Normally I would find that funny. But to be honest, no matter how many times it happens, you are NEVER not scared. It is, quite simply, one of the most terrorizing things I've ever had happen to me.

 

[Shockwave]

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.

I agree with your definition, and it is correct. My problem is the punishment associated with it. Its suddenly FAR more grevious to SCARE someone then to actually rob/rape/kill someone!! How bassackwards is this?! If someone would have robbed that store they'd get 2 years. If you go in and scare people you COULD face like 90 million years in jail. My problem is the government created the "terrorist" laws and passed it off to the public as a way to stop real terrorists, but has truned right around and used those "terrorist" laws as nothing more then a tool to keep its own citizens in line!!

And FYI, all you people you said you'd gun him down, you'd be in jail so fast your head would spin. Regardless, you CANT shoot someone based on appearance, no matter how threatening it may be. And if you think the shooter is always right, take a look at how many people have shot someone in defense and STILL get charged. And thats in very cut and dried situations where the shooter had every right to do what he did!!

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Shockwave

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.

I agree with your definition, and it is correct. My problem is the punishment associated with it. Its suddenly FAR more grevious to SCARE someone then to actually rob/rape/kill someone!! How bassackwards is this?! If someone would have robbed that store they'd get 2 years. If you go in and scare people you COULD face like 90 million years in jail. My problem is the government created the "terrorist" laws and passed it off to the public as a way to stop real terrorists, but has truned right around and used those "terrorist" laws as nothing more then a tool to keep its own citizens in line!!

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.

 

[jyates]

Originally posted by: Shockwave

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.

And FYI, all you people you said you'd gun him down, you'd be in jail so fast your head would spin. Regardless, you CANT shoot someone based on appearance, no matter how threatening it may be. And if you think the shooter is always right, take a look at how many people have shot someone in defense and STILL get charged. And thats in very cut and dried situations where the shooter had every right to do what he did!!

Being charged and being convicted is 2 different things....Remember that this happened
in Austin, Texas not some criminal loving/understanding local.