YASECT: I'll blow a hole right through your ******* head!

[Atomic Playboy]

I doubt any rational person would consider that a death threat especially since the detective was pretty amped up at the time.

The key to getting away with a good death threat is to make sure you get really, really angry first; that way it will seem less believable.

 

[JSt0rm]

edit

 

[waggy]

Dude no need to get arrogant. I doubt any rational person would consider that a death threat especially since the detective was pretty amped up at the time. I live in that area I couldn't possibly imagine myself on a jury voting I believed the detective was really going to do it.
Again the detectives actions were not professional in any way but they didn't appear criminal either.

what? are you fucking insane?

/facepalm

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I don't think you understand the law very well at all. Threatening to put a hole in someone's head is a death threat, plain and simple.



Wow. You really don't understand the law . . . or common sense, for that matter. You can't threaten to end someone's life, period, and being "amped up" is no effing exculpatory factor!

Definition of Threat

The law faced a constitutional challenge in Robinson v. Bradley, 300 F. Supp. 665, 668 (D. Mass. 1969) on the grounds that the law was vague and overbroad. That court decided that the meaning of the term "threat" is well established, and has "been interpreted to require both intention and ability in circumstances which would justify apprehension on the part of the recipient of the threat." All three elements must be present.


Intent

The first element that the court examines is the intent of the defendant. The intent must be verbalized, in that there must be an expression of that intention. However, it must be directed to, or be intended to reach, the desired person. Merely making a statement that someone overhears or learns of later is not sufficient. The Model Jury Instructions, which a judge gives the jury at the end of a trial, clearly explain complex elements of a particular crime. The instructions on intent for verbal threats states, "that the defendant communicated to (alleged victim) an intent to injure his (her) person or property, now or in the future"


Ability

While the defendant's intent is important, it is not sufficient by itself to meet the elements of the crime. The defendant must also be capable of carrying out the threat. Because a threat can be completed in many ways, the physical abilities of the defendant are not the only consideration. In one case, letters from an inmate in prison demonstrated "ability." The court found that just because the ability is not immediate does not make it less credible.


Reasonable Fear

The final element of the crime is that the victim must be in reasonable fear under the circumstances. This is obviously fact dependent in each case. The court looks at the "reasonable fear" standard objectively, in that it tries to determine if a hypothetical similar person would react in the same way as the victim. This is a difficult task, but the fear cannot be subjective and unspecified. Viewed objectively, the apprehension that force may be used must be

Definition of Threat

The law faced a constitutional challenge in Robinson v. Bradley, 300 F. Supp. 665, 668 (D. Mass. 1969) on the grounds that the law was vague and overbroad. That court decided that the meaning of the term "threat" is well established, and has "been interpreted to require both intention and ability in circumstances which would justify apprehension on the part of the recipient of the threat." All three elements must be present.


Intent

The first element that the court examines is the intent of the defendant. The intent must be verbalized, in that there must be an expression of that intention. However, it must be directed to, or be intended to reach, the desired person. Merely making a statement that someone overhears or learns of later is not sufficient. The Model Jury Instructions, which a judge gives the jury at the end of a trial, clearly explain complex elements of a particular crime. The instructions on intent for verbal threats states, "that the defendant communicated to (alleged victim) an intent to injure his (her) person or property, now or in the future"


Ability

While the defendant's intent is important, it is not sufficient by itself to meet the elements of the crime. The defendant must also be capable of carrying out the threat. Because a threat can be completed in many ways, the physical abilities of the defendant are not the only consideration. In one case, letters from an inmate in prison demonstrated "ability." The court found that just because the ability is not immediate does not make it less credible.


Reasonable Fear

The final element of the crime is that the victim must be in reasonable fear under the circumstances. This is obviously fact dependent in each case. The court looks at the "reasonable fear" standard objectively, in that it tries to determine if a hypothetical similar person would react in the same way as the victim. This is a difficult task, but the fear cannot be subjective and unspecified. Viewed objectively, the apprehension that force may be used must be reasonable



I don't think it would meet the reasonable fear requirement. No weapon was shown, no future threat was made and all his threats were in past references. I'm not a legal expert & I assume you are not either. I personally don't see a crime.
I do see a public servant doing a shitty job. I saw a quick piece about this on my local news, the detective had anger counseling from a bad interaction a few years ago. He needs to be held accountable for his behavior.

 

[JSt0rm]

edit

 

[Perknose]

I don't think it would meet the reasonable fear requirement.

I, and everyone else in this thread but you, disagree, even a serving MP!

I'm inclined to believe, based on the video evidence, that the guy behind the wheel would be reasonably threatened with violence. I don't believe his response was unusual. Hell, I'm a Soldier and a Military Police officer myself and I would have had quite an adrenaline rush thinking my life was in danger the way this asshole officer acted throughout the encounter.

 

[waggy]

Definition of Threat

The law faced a constitutional challenge in Robinson v. Bradley, 300 F. Supp. 665, 668 (D. Mass. 1969) on the grounds that the law was vague and overbroad. That court decided that the meaning of the term "threat" is well established, and has "been interpreted to require both intention and ability in circumstances which would justify apprehension on the part of the recipient of the threat." All three elements must be present.


Intent

The first element that the court examines is the intent of the defendant. The intent must be verbalized, in that there must be an expression of that intention. However, it must be directed to, or be intended to reach, the desired person. Merely making a statement that someone overhears or learns of later is not sufficient. The Model Jury Instructions, which a judge gives the jury at the end of a trial, clearly explain complex elements of a particular crime. The instructions on intent for verbal threats states, "that the defendant communicated to (alleged victim) an intent to injure his (her) person or property, now or in the future"


Ability

While the defendant's intent is important, it is not sufficient by itself to meet the elements of the crime. The defendant must also be capable of carrying out the threat. Because a threat can be completed in many ways, the physical abilities of the defendant are not the only consideration. In one case, letters from an inmate in prison demonstrated "ability." The court found that just because the ability is not immediate does not make it less credible.


Reasonable Fear

The final element of the crime is that the victim must be in reasonable fear under the circumstances. This is obviously fact dependent in each case. The court looks at the "reasonable fear" standard objectively, in that it tries to determine if a hypothetical similar person would react in the same way as the victim. This is a difficult task, but the fear cannot be subjective and unspecified. Viewed objectively, the apprehension that force may be used must be

Definition of Threat

The law faced a constitutional challenge in Robinson v. Bradley, 300 F. Supp. 665, 668 (D. Mass. 1969) on the grounds that the law was vague and overbroad. That court decided that the meaning of the term "threat" is well established, and has "been interpreted to require both intention and ability in circumstances which would justify apprehension on the part of the recipient of the threat." All three elements must be present.


Intent

The first element that the court examines is the intent of the defendant. The intent must be verbalized, in that there must be an expression of that intention. However, it must be directed to, or be intended to reach, the desired person. Merely making a statement that someone overhears or learns of later is not sufficient. The Model Jury Instructions, which a judge gives the jury at the end of a trial, clearly explain complex elements of a particular crime. The instructions on intent for verbal threats states, "that the defendant communicated to (alleged victim) an intent to injure his (her) person or property, now or in the future"


Ability

While the defendant's intent is important, it is not sufficient by itself to meet the elements of the crime. The defendant must also be capable of carrying out the threat. Because a threat can be completed in many ways, the physical abilities of the defendant are not the only consideration. In one case, letters from an inmate in prison demonstrated "ability." The court found that just because the ability is not immediate does not make it less credible.


Reasonable Fear

The final element of the crime is that the victim must be in reasonable fear under the circumstances. This is obviously fact dependent in each case. The court looks at the "reasonable fear" standard objectively, in that it tries to determine if a hypothetical similar person would react in the same way as the victim. This is a difficult task, but the fear cannot be subjective and unspecified. Viewed objectively, the apprehension that force may be used must be reasonable



I don't think it would meet the reasonable fear requirement. No weapon was shown, no future threat was made and all his threats were in past references. I'm not a legal expert & I assume you are not either. I personally don't see a crime.
I do see a public servant doing a shitty job. I saw a quick piece about this on my local news, the detective had anger counseling from a bad interaction a few years ago. He needs to be held accountable for his behavior.

yeah...you are not right.

Reasonable fear is there. the guy got out and said he was going to kill him while reaching in his pants etc

if they did this to a cop he would be dead and the shooting justified.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

From my brief web search it appears to be a $100 fine for a first offense in MA so its pretty irrelevant. I appear to be wrong how others view it.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

yeah...you are not right.

Reasonable fear is there. the guy got out and said he was going to kill him while reaching in his pants etc

if they did this to a cop he would be dead and the shooting justified.

This is an excellent point Waggy thank you its thought provoking.

 

[JSt0rm]

edit

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Definition of Threat

The law faced a constitutional challenge in Robinson v. Bradley, 300 F. Supp. 665, 668 (D. Mass. 1969) on the grounds that the law was vague and overbroad. That court decided that the meaning of the term "threat" is well established, and has "been interpreted to require both intention and ability in circumstances which would justify apprehension on the part of the recipient of the threat." All three elements must be present.


Intent

The first element that the court examines is the intent of the defendant. The intent must be verbalized, in that there must be an expression of that intention. However, it must be directed to, or be intended to reach, the desired person. Merely making a statement that someone overhears or learns of later is not sufficient. The Model Jury Instructions, which a judge gives the jury at the end of a trial, clearly explain complex elements of a particular crime. The instructions on intent for verbal threats states, "that the defendant communicated to (alleged victim) an intent to injure his (her) person or property, now or in the future"


Ability

While the defendant's intent is important, it is not sufficient by itself to meet the elements of the crime. The defendant must also be capable of carrying out the threat. Because a threat can be completed in many ways, the physical abilities of the defendant are not the only consideration. In one case, letters from an inmate in prison demonstrated "ability." The court found that just because the ability is not immediate does not make it less credible.


Reasonable Fear

The final element of the crime is that the victim must be in reasonable fear under the circumstances. This is obviously fact dependent in each case. The court looks at the "reasonable fear" standard objectively, in that it tries to determine if a hypothetical similar person would react in the same way as the victim. This is a difficult task, but the fear cannot be subjective and unspecified. Viewed objectively, the apprehension that force may be used must be

Definition of Threat

The law faced a constitutional challenge in Robinson v. Bradley, 300 F. Supp. 665, 668 (D. Mass. 1969) on the grounds that the law was vague and overbroad. That court decided that the meaning of the term "threat" is well established, and has "been interpreted to require both intention and ability in circumstances which would justify apprehension on the part of the recipient of the threat." All three elements must be present.


Intent

The first element that the court examines is the intent of the defendant. The intent must be verbalized, in that there must be an expression of that intention. However, it must be directed to, or be intended to reach, the desired person. Merely making a statement that someone overhears or learns of later is not sufficient. The Model Jury Instructions, which a judge gives the jury at the end of a trial, clearly explain complex elements of a particular crime. The instructions on intent for verbal threats states, "that the defendant communicated to (alleged victim) an intent to injure his (her) person or property, now or in the future"


Ability

While the defendant's intent is important, it is not sufficient by itself to meet the elements of the crime. The defendant must also be capable of carrying out the threat. Because a threat can be completed in many ways, the physical abilities of the defendant are not the only consideration. In one case, letters from an inmate in prison demonstrated "ability." The court found that just because the ability is not immediate does not make it less credible.


Reasonable Fear

The final element of the crime is that the victim must be in reasonable fear under the circumstances. This is obviously fact dependent in each case. The court looks at the "reasonable fear" standard objectively, in that it tries to determine if a hypothetical similar person would react in the same way as the victim. This is a difficult task, but the fear cannot be subjective and unspecified. Viewed objectively, the apprehension that force may be used must be reasonable



I don't think it would meet the reasonable fear requirement. No weapon was shown, no future threat was made and all his threats were in past references. I'm not a legal expert & I assume you are not either. I personally don't see a crime.
I do see a public servant doing a shitty job. I saw a quick piece about this on my local news, the detective had anger counseling from a bad interaction a few years ago. He needs to be held accountable for his behavior.

ROFL!!!

Congratulations! You have now surpassed the soon-to-be-ex cop as the biggest idiot in this story.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

It can be a burden being so manly that I have no fear.
Gag I don't get why you insist on picking fights.

 

[TheSlamma]

ROFL!!!

Congratulations! You have now surpassed the soon-to-be-ex cop as the biggest idiot in this story.

:thumbsup:

 

[Ichinisan]

They call a round-a-bout a "rotary?"

 

[Howard]

I believe that Fanatical Meat should simply abstain from further viewing of, or replying to, this thread in order to salvage what little credulity remains.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Hey I've admitted I was wrong

Rotary = round-a-bout in MA speak

 

[Ichinisan]

The date on the camera says it happened a couple hours from now...in the future!

 

[Perknose]

They call a round-a-bout a "rotary?"

They're quite similar, but not exactly the same thing.

Roosevelt Circle (Interstate 93, Route 28 & S Border Road), in Medford, Massachusetts, is an oval shaped rotary interchange. 42.42917°N 71.10333°W

Medford Square Rotary (Interstate 93, Massachusetts Route 60, and Ring Road) in Medford, Massachusetts

State Route 60 (a.k.a. High St.) and Mystic Valley Parkway and Arlington Street, in Medford, MA. No state "rotary" sign marks this rotary immediately east of the Mystic River, the boundary with Town of Arlington.

Immediately west of the Mystic River bridge, about 200 feet away, is the Route 60 rotary in Arlington, which is marked by state "rotary" signs. The pair of rotaries connects Mystic Valley Parkway roads adjacent to Mystic Lake in each city.

 

[Ichinisan]

Finished it. Cop was absolutely in-the-wrong with the way he approached. Complete asshole.

It would have been 100% justifiable for the driver to shoot this unknown stranger as the stranger threatened the driver's life and approached the driver aggressively.

I'm fairly certain the driver didn't go the wrong way through the roundabout intentionally. It was *obviously* an accident. Perhaps the driver was distracted, I don't know. The detective's approach was not necessary.

 

[Ichinisan]

They're quite similar, but not exactly the same thing.

Roosevelt Circle (Interstate 93, Route 28 & S Border Road), in Medford, Massachusetts, is an oval shaped rotary interchange. 42.42917°N 71.10333°W

Medford Square Rotary (Interstate 93, Massachusetts Route 60, and Ring Road) in Medford, Massachusetts

State Route 60 (a.k.a. High St.) and Mystic Valley Parkway and Arlington Street, in Medford, MA. No state "rotary" sign marks this rotary immediately east of the Mystic River, the boundary with Town of Arlington.

Immediately west of the Mystic River bridge, about 200 feet away, is the Route 60 rotary in Arlington, which is marked by state "rotary" signs. The pair of rotaries connects Mystic Valley Parkway roads adjacent to Mystic Lake in each city.

Good to know. Thanks. :thumbsup:

 

[Perknose]

Good to know. Thanks. :thumbsup:

In New Jersey, they're called . . . wait for it . . . traffic circles. :biggrin:

They are the more old fashioned rotaries, and they really, really suck. Roundabouts, however, are supposed to be the bees knees.

Having been scarred by my NJ experiences, I'll believe this when I experience them. But my more enlightened friends assure me this is so, that roundabouts are the wave of the future.

 

[waggy]

we have a few roundabouts around here. they are neat. though they are on roads around the collage near the country.

 

[CZroe]

That "Macho Masshole" sound is so unbelievably nerve-grating.

 

[destrekor]

This is the only roundabout or rotary that looks anywhere near confusing or approachable in any way that doesn't strike you as immediately wrong.
42.401094, -71.116732

Every other one, even if you've never driven through, to me strikes me as impossible to drive through wrong unless you were completely distracted, which is frankly dangerous if it reaches that point.

That one I pointed to - I could forgive a wrong-way in that one. That looks like a mess if you were not at all prepared for it mentally and had not once been through one similar.

 

[destrekor]

we have a few roundabouts around here. they are neat. though they are on roads around the collage near the country.

NW Ohio is starting to invest in the idea of roundabouts... they are awesome. I love them. Far, far more effective at the locations in which they have been placed.