JPP member urges that a US Congresswoman be butchered. How does the law stand ?

moon said:
That's one way of looking at it- then again new folks should know that there's a deep pothole in the road.
He is, after all, eligible for the designation ' terrorist ' by the State Department.
Click to expand...

Let the State Department handle it then. In the meantime, you keep him alive here.
 
moon said:
It's no secret that some members of Congress and the Senate support the movement for freedom for Palestinians and condemn the crimes committed by Jewish fascists under cover of their illegal occupation of Palestine and the spurious US support for it. They were elected according to their anti-fascist beliefs and activities and their following is growing. Their activities are legal and form a legitimate addition to the sphere of US politics.
Freedom of speech is guaranteed under the 1st Amendment but there are, surely, limitations when it comes to a foreign rabble-rouser calling for murder ?

How does the law stand in protecting elected politicians from the overt excesses of the scum that threaten them with death ?

There's a minimal thread-ban list for this question as I'm interested to see how many other degenerates believe that calls for butchery of an American politician in the mode of the actual butchering of American journalist Jamal Khashoggi are legitimate.
Click to expand...

[h=3]Threatening government officials of the United States[/h]
 
moon said:
It's no secret that some members of Congress and the Senate support the movement for freedom for Palestinians and condemn the crimes committed by Jewish fascists under cover of their illegal occupation of Palestine and the spurious US support for it. They were elected according to their anti-fascist beliefs and activities and their following is growing. Their activities are legal and form a legitimate addition to the sphere of US politics.
Freedom of speech is guaranteed under the 1st Amendment but there are, surely, limitations when it comes to a foreign rabble-rouser calling for murder ?

How does the law stand in protecting elected politicians from the overt excesses of the scum that threaten them with death ?

There's a minimal thread-ban list for this question as I'm interested to see how many other degenerates believe that calls for butchery of an American politician in the mode of the actual butchering of American journalist Jamal Khashoggi are legitimate.
Click to expand...

"Needs to be" is not a real threat. The threat has to be serious and the person has to be capable of doing it. This is just political hyperbole.
 
Flash said:
"Needs to be" is not a real threat. The threat has to be serious and the person has to be capable of doing it. This is just political hyperbole.
Click to expand...

No, his statement ' needs to be ' is in the imperative;

'[imperatives] are words used to create an imperative sentence that gives a command to the person being addressed.
Click to expand...

Any disaffected anti-democratic asshole stupid enough to be a follower of the Brit maggot could register those words as a command- and therefore it is a real threat.

Gabby Giffords was shot, not by command, but by being painted as a target by some disaffected anti-democratic asshole. It could argued that depicting her as a target was not a direct threat. Stating that she ' needs to be shot ' certainly would have been.
 
moon said:
No, his statement ' needs to be ' is in the imperative;

Any disaffected anti-democratic asshole stupid enough to be a follower of the Brit maggot could register those words as a command- and therefore it is a real threat.

Gabby Giffords was shot, not by command, but by being painted as a target by some disaffected anti-democratic asshole. It could argued that depicting her as a target was not a direct threat. Stating that she ' needs to be shot ' certainly would have been.
Click to expand...

Saying a person "needs to be......" does not say that person plans to do it. It is not directed to any particular person. And, it is not a command since nobody committed that act. A threat has to be something like "I am going to shoot x." He has to be serious and capable.

A "command" to another person does not require that person to commit that act. He does not have to follow that command and is totally responsible for his actions unless accompanied by coercion.

Similar statements were used to imprison people for threatening presidents but overturned by the courts.
 
Flash said:
Saying a person "needs to be......" does not say that person plans to do it. It is not directed to any particular person. And, it is not a command since nobody committed that act. A threat has to be something like "I am going to shoot x." He has to be serious and capable.

A "command" to another person does not require that person to commit that act. He does not have to follow that command and is totally responsible for his actions unless accompanied by coercion.

Similar statements were used to imprison people for threatening presidents but overturned by the courts.
Click to expand...

OK- but my reasoning would have the Brit maggot convicted. His imperatives were worse than being directed at one murderer in particular- they were directed at ANYBODY wanting to kill. Same as the Gabby Giffords guy. ' Here's your target '
 
moon said:
OK- but my reasoning would have the Brit maggot convicted. His imperatives were worse than being directed at one murderer in particular- they were directed at ANYBODY wanting to kill. Same as the Gabby Giffords guy. ' Here's your target '
Click to expand...

That is not the way the law is applied.
 
Flash said:
That is not the way the law is applied.
Click to expand...

The government would disagree;

Threatening government officials of the United States

Threatening the government officials of the United States is a felony under federal law. Threatening the president of the United States is a felony under 18 U.S.C. § 871, punishable by up to 5 years of imprisonment, that is investigated by the United States Secret Service.[1] Threatening other officials is a Class D or C felony, usually carrying maximum penalties of 5 or 10 years under 18 U.S.C. § 875, 18 U.S.C. § 876 and other statutes, that is investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. When national boundaries are transcended by such a threat, it is considered a terrorist threat.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threat..._United_States
Click to expand...


Would the Congresswomen that the maggot names feel threatened ? I believe that they would. They would certainly feel more threatened than if the maggot had not called for them to be butchered. Open threats/veiled threats are threats.

To my mind, the maggot is a danger to anybody with Arab heritage and to women in general. He should be detained upon attempted entry into the United States.
You're free to disagree, of course.
 
moon said:
OK- but my reasoning would have the Brit maggot convicted. His imperatives were worse than being directed at one murderer in particular- they were directed at ANYBODY wanting to kill. Same as the Gabby Giffords guy. ' Here's your target '
Click to expand...

Dozy cunt doing what she does best!! Funny how she's happy with MbS again now that he's siding with the mullahs.
 
Last edited:
Ah, the Brit terrorist has turned up- four pages in and with a mouth full of lies.
 
moon said:
The government would disagree;

Would the Congresswomen that the maggot names feel threatened ? I believe that they would. They would certainly feel more threatened than if the maggot had not called for them to be butchered. Open threats/veiled threats are threats.

To my mind, the maggot is a danger to anybody with Arab heritage and to women in general. He should be detained upon attempted entry into the United States.
You're free to disagree, of course.
Click to expand...

The government makes threats illegal, but threats have been defined by case law. The statute you posted contains no elements of what constitutes a threat.

It must be a "real threat" which the person is capable of committing. It cannot be based on a condition which might not occur or what somebody thinks should happen. See Watts v. U. S.
 
Flash said:
The government makes threats illegal, but threats have been defined by case law. The statute you posted contains no elements of what constitutes a threat.
Click to expand...

Then what constitutes a threat is determined on a case-by-case basis.

It must be a "real threat" which the person is capable of committing. It cannot be based on a condition which might not occur or what somebody thinks should happen. See Watts v. U. S.
Click to expand...

I maintain that canvassing for an assassin to dismember a US Congresswoman constitutes a real threat . The canvasser intends harm to US officials whether he intends to participate himself or not.
 
moon said:
Then what constitutes a threat is determined on a case-by-case basis.
Click to expand...

To some extend, yes. But they must all contain certain specified elements:


  1. the context of the statement or statements in question;
  2. the reaction of the recipient or listeners; and
  3. whether the threat was conditional.
moon said:
I maintain that canvassing for an assassin to dismember a US Congresswoman constitutes a real threat . The canvasser intends harm to US officials whether he intends to participate himself or not.
Click to expand...

He made no offer to solicit anybody and there was no indication that anybody was going to act on his statement. If he actually was offering to pay to harm someone, that would be a more serious solicitation of murder charge (but this does not meet the conditions).
A threat has to be something you intend to do, you cannot make a threat on behalf of somebody else.

I understand what you are saying, but the law requires much more specific elements be present to be a true threat.
 
Flash said:
To some extend, yes. But they must all contain certain specified elements:


  1. the context of the statement or statements in question;
  2. the reaction of the recipient or listeners; and
  3. whether the threat was conditional.


He made no offer to solicit anybody and there was no indication that anybody was going to act on his statement. If he actually was offering to pay to harm someone, that would be a more serious solicitation of murder charge (but this does not meet the conditions).
A threat has to be something you intend to do, you cannot make a threat on behalf of somebody else.

I understand what you are saying, but the law requires much more specific elements be present to be a true threat.
Click to expand...

He is not charged with anything and courts are not involved. The point is that - by his own solicitation for the assassination of an American Congresswoman - he meets the State Department recommendation for being classified as a foreign terrorist.

Threatening government officials of the United States

Threatening the government officials of the United States is a felony under federal law. Threatening the president of the United States is a felony under 18 U.S.C. § 871, punishable by up to 5 years of imprisonment, that is investigated by the United States Secret Service.[1] Threatening other officials is a Class D or C felony, usually carrying maximum penalties of 5 or 10 years under 18 U.S.C. § 875, 18 U.S.C. § 876 and other statutes, that is investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. When national boundaries are transcended by such a threat, it is considered a terrorist threat.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threat..._United_States
Click to expand...
 
Flash said:
The government makes threats illegal, but threats have been defined by case law. The statute you posted contains no elements of what constitutes a threat.

It must be a "real threat" which the person is capable of committing. It cannot be based on a condition which might not occur or what somebody thinks should happen. See Watts v. U. S.
Click to expand...

She knows that but is just trying to shit stir, just ignore the fucking bitch!!!
 
moon said:
Nobody ? Must be the degenerates' week off.

Glad to see it. The Brit maggot stands alone then. Nobody is going to butcher an American Congresswoman on his behalf.
Click to expand...

I actually don't disagree with Tlaib receiving justice. I think that bitch is an anti-American agent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top