• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

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

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Fanatical Meat said:
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.
Click to expand...

what? are you fucking insane?

/facepalm
 
Perknose said:
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! :colbert:
Click to expand...

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.
 
Fanatical Meat said:
I don't think it would meet the reasonable fear requirement.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
 
Fanatical Meat said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
waggy said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is an excellent point Waggy thank you its thought provoking.
 
Fanatical Meat said:
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.
Click to expand...

ROFL!!!

Congratulations! You have now surpassed the soon-to-be-ex cop as the biggest idiot in this story.
 
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.
 
Ichinisan said:
They call a round-a-bout a "rotary?"
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Perknose said:
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.
Click to expand...

Good to know. Thanks. :thumbsup:
 
Ichinisan said:
Good to know. Thanks. :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

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.
 
we have a few roundabouts around here. they are neat. though they are on roads around the collage near the country.
 
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.
 
waggy said:
we have a few roundabouts around here. they are neat. though they are on roads around the collage near the country.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top