|
Post by turbonium on Apr 17, 2007 2:06:57 GMT -4
Actually neither would be a threat. A threat is when someone says they or someone else will do harm to someone (and the latter could be a warning depending on the situation). No. As I explained in my last post, they are threats. It's important to put yourself in O'Donnell's and Barrett's position. That is, as the target of media figures who argue in favor of your being killed. Not by them directly. But in general terms of how it would be the right way to deal with you. It would be a really great thing, in fact. And you also know that this would have been seen on TV by thousands, maybe millions, of people. And that many could agree with the comments. How would you feel? Sort of nervous? A little bit on edge? What if someone came up to you on the street and called you a traitor? Would your heart rate zoom up to 200 bpm? A threat causes others to feel threatened. It doesn't have to be a direct threat. Indirect or generalized threats are still threats. You can’t ignore the 1st part of the quote where he said Barrett should have been fired, which brings up free speech issues but wasn’t a call to violence. The second part seems to be a bit of hyperbole but even taken literally it still wasn’t a threat or even a call for violence to be done Saying Barrett should have been fired is his opinion, which is fine. But wishing there were people like the Chancellor still around to deal with it properly - by snuffing him out - is despicable.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Apr 17, 2007 2:45:29 GMT -4
How do we know Jonathan Swift wasn’t serious? The comment was so absurd I find it hard to believe he was serious. Then why isn't it just as absurd to you when it comes from jackchit? Bonaduce's comments were absurd, but that doesn't mean he wasn't serious. If someone is entirely serious - like Bonaduce was - making such comments, they have to be considered as such. Not able to review it right now, but it can be heard just after the host asks him if he meant it. Bonaduce backs up his comments. Fire him, seems more like it. Who knows? Even if it were less likely, O'Reilly only got giddy talking about the body being tossed into the water. I note that you seem to have abandoned that thread; It isn’t appropriate to transfer that debate here. If you have reasonable replies to my lasts posts on that thread I suggest you post them there. Otherwise my evidence that he intentionally gave contradictory accounts remains unchallenged. I will address that thread soon.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Apr 17, 2007 3:09:31 GMT -4
You accused two Dallas police detectives of complicity in the murder of Lee Harvey Oswald. When I called you on it, you implied that it didn't matter because the Dallas P.D. must have been connected to organized crime (through Jack Ruby) and weren't "a group of boy scouts." You declined to retract your accusation even after it was demonstrated to be non-credible. I consider that to be strong evidence of moral bankruptcy. Off the thread topic, but a quick reply.... Imo, the two cops escorting Oswald were the least convincing actors I've seen since a grade school Christmas play. And it wasn't proven to be non-credible at all.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Apr 17, 2007 3:43:19 GMT -4
So, Turbonium, what are you doing about the American policies you don't like? Are you just blathering on uninformed garbage on a website, or are you active in the real world? What are you doing about the war? Are you active in protests? Are you writing your congressional representatives? What are you doing about the things you don't like? I have, and will continue, to write letters to my representatives. And I talk about the issues to friends, family, and people I've just met. I have not yet attended protests, due to various reasons. And I certainly am not "blathering on uninformed garbage on a website". I leave that to the official story supporters.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Apr 17, 2007 4:13:41 GMT -4
How would you feel? Sort of nervous? A little bit on edge? What if someone came up to you on the street and called you a traitor? Would your heart rate zoom up to 200 bpm? If I had a member of the Partridge Family accuse me of treason and suggest I should be executed for it? Yeah, my pulse rate would go up; it does, when I laugh that hard. Hey, at least I know the difference between a big chunk of concrete with rebar sticking out of it and "slag."
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Apr 17, 2007 8:06:32 GMT -4
A site addressing the issue of a "death threat" in legal terms.... That is, the prosecution must show that he was aware of the words used and the meaning they would convey. It also must show that he intended the threat to be taken seriously, that is, to intimidate or strike fear into the recipient. It is not necessary that the person making the threat intend to carry it out or be capable of doing so. The motive for making the threat is equally irrelevant.www.defencelaw.com/textversion-utter-threats.html#ThreatenThreats - Spoken or written words tending to intimidate or menace others.Random House Unabridged Dictionary 1. a declaration of an intention or determination to inflict punishment, injury, etc., in retaliation for, or conditionally upon, some action or course; menace: He confessed under the threat of imprisonment. American Heritage Dictionary 1. An expression of an intention to inflict pain, injury, evil, or punishment. Wordnet/Princeton University. 3. declaration of an intention or a determination to inflict harm on another; "his threat to kill me was quite explicit" Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary 1. a warning that one is going to hurt or punish someone Example: He will certainly carry out his threat to harm you. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law : an expression of an intention to injure another : MENACE 1 <criminal laws against making terroristic threats> All definitions above from: dictionary.reference.com/browse/threat Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary 1 : an expression of intention to inflict evil, injury, or damage m-w.com/threat Your cherry-picked definition comes from the “American Law Encyclopedia” which despite its august name seems rather obscure we have no indication who its author(s) is (are) it is only cited by sites like answers.com which gets most of its info from Wikipedia and other open source references. When you turn up an authoritive source that agrees with you get back to us. Let’s look at your other source www.defencelaw.com/textversion-utter-threats.html#Threaten you left out the following relevant bits: “Under the Criminal Code, it is an offence to knowingly utter or convey a threat to cause death or bodily harm to any person. It is also an offence to threaten to burn, destroy or damage property or threaten to kill, poison or injure an animal or bird that belongs to a person.” All of the above indicates the offending comment must include an indication the author plans to cause harm. “It (‘the Crown’ i.e. the prosecutors) also must show that he intended the threat to be taken seriously” “In assessing whether the words constitute a threat, they must be considered objectively. The court must ask: In the context and circumstances in which the words were spoken or written, the manner in which they were used, and the person to whom they were directed would they convey a threat to a reasonable person? “ “No offence is committed, however, if a threat is innocently made. The offence is not meant to criminalize idle threats or words blurted out only in anger, desperation, bitterness or frustration. Words said in jest or in a manner that they could not be taken seriously do not constitute a threat.” Most people would agree that Bonaduce and O’Reily’s words failed to constitute threats due to the above, they weren’t meant to be taken seriously a reasonable person would not feel threatened by them etc. I probably wouldn't like it, but I'm not a public figure making controversial statements, if I were I’d have to accept this “goes along with the territory”. Or course neither of them held up anyone’s photo. In any case even if they made such comments seriously they wouldn’t be threats. Neither of them indicated anyone (except perhaps the President of U. of Wisconsin) should carry out such acts. You’re the only person here who seems to think the comments were meant to be taken seriously. I believe the comments were in bad taste but bad taste is neither criminal nor morally repugnant. Threatening to kill someone is both and condoning or encouraging them is the latter. Speaking of which why are you refusing to answer my question about Avery? Once again O’Riely was calling for Barrett to be fired, the part about him floating down the river seemed to be in jest
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Apr 17, 2007 8:11:44 GMT -4
Indeed, it would be considered a death threat. Ummm... yeah, that is the topic of this thread. All opinions are acceptable, even if they aren't reasonable. The quotes in question don't even rise to the level of "promoting" any action. Nope. I'd feel I had a strong case of larceny against them for stealing my driver's license, for which they should be imprisoned. Oh, did I just threaten their liberty by expressing an opinion? There's been no conviction, no trial, no arraignment, nor even an indictment, and here I am promoting their hypothetical imprisonment for a hypothetical crime. Maybe they should feel threatened by you, because you, in a public forum, promoted the idea that one or both of these specific, identified individuals would steal my driver's license. You just accused them of hypothetical thievery to an international audience.
|
|
|
Post by SpitfireIX on Apr 17, 2007 9:20:30 GMT -4
Imo, the two cops escorting Oswald were the least convincing actors I've seen since a grade school Christmas play.Your opinion is frankly worthless, due to your obvious and extreme bias; further, you failed even to challenge, let alone refute, any of the evidence presented here. Also, as usual, you merely belittle, rather than attempt to refute, the evidence you don't like. And it wasn't proven to be non-credible at all.You were presented with incontrovertible evidence that Leavelle and Graves had less than one second to react to Ruby, and that neither the reporter standing next to Graves nor Oswald himself reacted before the shot. You were also presented with other strong evidence, such as the lighting, Leavelle's obstructed view, and the fact that the two detectives were not looking in Ruby's direction. Any reasonable person would accept these as evidence; your strong state of denial does not alter this fact. If you wish to dispute any of the above, I'll be glad to start a new thread here where we can discuss all of your thoroughly discredited JFK claims from the baut thread.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Apr 17, 2007 11:25:41 GMT -4
How do we know Jonathan Swift wasn’t serious? The comment was so absurd I find it hard to believe he was serious. Then why isn't it just as absurd to you when it comes from jackchit? Bonaduce's comments were absurd, but that doesn't mean he wasn't serious. If someone is entirely serious - like Bonaduce was - making such comments, they have to be considered as such. Is seems you have even less sense of irony than Bonaduce which is sad. Jack previously said He thought it was better that his daughter’s mother died a violent death allowing him to teach them his worldview than she survived to raise them. He believes his wife’s death was “fortunate” and God’s will because it allowed him to regain custody of daughters. It’s not a stretch to imagine he would act out violently against anyone he perceived as a threat to that custody especially someone he had a preexisting animosity towards and he perceived Roberts as such a threat and hated him due to his debunking of CT’s. He spelled out how he was going to visit NYC track Roberts down at work and kill (or blind him) he reaffirmed that threat a few posts later. Bonaduce and O’Rielly’s offhand comments were analogous and weren’t threats. Not that it’s really relevant but how many cases are there of someone being attacked due to comments of a TV pundit?
|
|
|
Post by papageno on Apr 17, 2007 15:32:34 GMT -4
Just so I understand turbonium's point.
Is he justifying the "truth-seekers" support or non-condemnation of the threats on the basis of "others do it too!" ?
What happened to the moral high ground the self-proclaimed truth-seekers claim for themselves?
|
|
|
Post by SpitfireIX on Apr 17, 2007 15:54:43 GMT -4
Is he justifying the "truth-seekers" support or non-condemnation of the threats on the basis of "others do it too!" ?
No, he's trying to claim that the people who supported or didn't condemn are not representative of the so-called "truth" movement as a whole. To support this position, he's attempting to manufacture evidence of comparable behavior among debunkers and Bush Administration supporters. He is also attempting to conflate the latter with the former.
|
|
|
Post by papageno on Apr 17, 2007 16:02:08 GMT -4
Is he justifying the "truth-seekers" support or non-condemnation of the threats on the basis of "others do it too!" ?No, he's trying to claim that the people who supported or didn't condemn are not representative of the so-called "truth" movement as a whole. To support this position, he's attempting to manufacture evidence of comparable behavior among debunkers and Bush Administration supporters. He is also attempting to conflate the latter with the former. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Apr 17, 2007 20:55:02 GMT -4
Turbonium, your reading skills are leaving something to be desired. Try reading your quoted text again. Especially this part:
It also must show that he intended the threat to be taken seriously, that is, to intimidate or strike fear into the recipient.
Do you really believe that someone saying that a person is so fat that they'd need an extra large rope to hang them for treason, or that if a certain person was still in control of a university he'd have kicked someone into the river is a) to be intended to be taken seriously, and b) an attempt to intimidate or cause fear? If the answer is yes, then either you need a sense of humor transplant, as it is obvious that, while clearly tasteless, both are attempts at humour, or you are so paranoid that you really, really, really, need to get professional help.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Apr 17, 2007 21:00:25 GMT -4
No, he's trying to claim that the people who supported or didn't condemn are not representative of the so-called "truth" movement as a whole. To support this position, he's attempting to manufacture evidence of comparable behavior among debunkers and Bush Administration supporters. He is also attempting to conflate the latter with the former.
The funny thing is that by his definition anyone calling someone a traitor is a death threat. What does that mean about all the 9/11 Truthers that stand outside Silverstein's NY office and yell abuse, calling him a traitor?
|
|
|
Post by SpitfireIX on Apr 18, 2007 11:28:16 GMT -4
The funny thing is that by his definition anyone calling someone a traitor is a death threat.
It's not necessarily a death threat, as the death penalty is not mandatory for treason. In fact, no person has ever been executed for treason against the United States, though one person (John Brown) has been executed for treason against a U.S. state, and one death sentence for treason has been commuted.
However, your point is still well taken--under turbonium's definition, such statements clearly constitute a threat (of false arrest and criminal confinement, at a minimum), and are arguably just as ill-founded as Danny Bonaduce's accusation against Rosie O'Donnell.
What does that mean about all the 9/11 Truthers that stand outside Silverstein's NY office and yell abuse, calling him a traitor?
Clearly closer to a "true threat" than Bonaduce's statement, which was at least half-joking.
|
|