|
Post by gillianren on Apr 18, 2007 16:53:22 GMT -4
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. Um, the Rosenbergs?
|
|
|
Post by donnieb on Apr 18, 2007 16:56:45 GMT -4
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. Um, the Rosenbergs? Espionage, wasn't it? Of course, an argument could be made that those two things are pretty closely related.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Apr 18, 2007 19:01:43 GMT -4
Sorry--you're right. Espionage it is.
Now, there's a governmental conspiracy with some weight behind it, huh?
|
|
|
Post by SpitfireIX on Apr 18, 2007 21:00:53 GMT -4
Um, the Rosenbergs?
<Ronald Reagan voice> "Well, Gilian--I'm glad you asked that . . ."
Seriously, though, Julius and Ethyl Rosenberg were convicted of espionage, not treason. They are the only Americans ever to be executed.for that crime. As a result of the controversy surrounding the executions, Congress abolished the death penalty for peacetime espionage cases. It was reinstated as a result of the Aldrich Ames case. FBI Agent Robert Hanssen was eligible for a death sentence, but was given a life sentence in return for his cooperation in assessing the damage caused by his spying.
[edited to add: oops--sorry; I didn't notice that donnieb had already pointed this out]
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Apr 20, 2007 0:35:12 GMT -4
I'd like to address the comments considered by lenbrazil as a "death threat"........
Posting on forums is one thing but when you try to break up my family then it crosses the line..........Mark…. I know you read this forum so bear this in mind, one day whilst you are showing people around the city you will see lots of pairs of eyes but one day you will look into a pair of eyes that will be mine and you know instantly that you will never forget my eyes because they will be the last thing you see.
What I'd like to know, first of all, is what happened to make Jack angry enough to post his threat to Roberts?
Jack believes that Roberts tried to break up his family. What is known about this accusation? Did it arise in an earlier post?
It's still a threat of violence, of course. But did it stem from an attempt by Roberts to break up Jack's family, as Jack has asserted? It is not a death threat.
He says that you will never forget my eyes because they will be the last thing you see."
Quite different than saying "You will never forget my eyes because they will be the last thing you ever see."
If it was meant as a death threat, then it makes no sense for Jack to say Roberts "will never forget" his eyes.
Further, saying it will be the "last thing you see", (and not the "last thing you ever see)", infers a knockout punch or something similar. Not a threat to blind him.
It's deplorable behavior to utter unprovoked threats of violence to someone else. Was it unprovoked? Jack believes it was provoked by Roberts.
What can be determined as the truth in this whole matter?
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Apr 20, 2007 1:41:58 GMT -4
Sure it does. The dead never forget anything. And since we're picking semantic nits, he also didn't say "the last thing you see until you come to," either. "Last" is final.
Death threats are acceptable so long as those making them think they're provoked. Got it.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Apr 20, 2007 3:10:16 GMT -4
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. The source of such comments usually is a buffoon like Bonaduce or O'Reilly. And I consider them just as laughable as you do. But it's a sad fact that they have thousands of mindless admirers, who take every word they say almost as if it were gospel truth. Televangelists such as Jerry Falwell are an even more extreme example. That's why I consider anyone making such comments to the mass public as a valid concern. Hey, at least I know the difference between a big chunk of concrete with rebar sticking out of it and & "slag". I assume you are referring to this... It's quite apparent that the object has a significant degree of oxidation (rust) on its surface. Concrete can be ruled out as the cause of this rust, obviously. Rebar will rust, and the rebar sticking out of the object appears to be covered with rust. Rust also covers most of the object, at least from what can be seen in the photo. They have denied all requests from independent scientists to either study this object in person, or give permission to procure any samples from it. So until the time, if ever, that such access is allowed for analysis, nobody will know its actual composition. You claim it's nothing but a big chunk of concrete with rebar. You demand solid evidence for my claims, so it's only fair that you should have to meet those same standards of proof. Otherwise, it's nothing but....as I recall how you put it to me.... "Blathering on uninformed garbage"?
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Apr 20, 2007 4:14:59 GMT -4
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.
Again, I think that these comments were meant seriously. The comment about finding a thick enough rope was said with a tone of contempt and anger, not in a tone of light humor.
When Bonaduce was asked if he was serious about his comments, he confirmed that he was indeed being serious.
What more do you need to think it was meant seriously?
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Apr 20, 2007 4:19:40 GMT -4
Death threats are acceptable so long as those making them think they're provoked. Got it. Death threats and threats of violence are both unacceptable. I just want to know what occurred before he made the threat.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Apr 20, 2007 4:24:42 GMT -4
Sure it does. The dead never forget anything. And since we're picking semantic nits, he also didn't say "the last thing you see until you come to," either. "Last" is final. Sounds like a promo to a zombie / slasher movie- "The dead never forget!"
|
|
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 20, 2007 7:01:48 GMT -4
Sure it does. The dead never forget anything. And since we're picking semantic nits, he also didn't say "the last thing you see until you come to," either. "Last" is final. So IF he "only” meant he was going to beat Roberts unconscious it would be OK with you Turbonium? Your interpretation is made less likely because Jack rather than clarify his comment said it "was a promise". The Va. Tech shooter thought he was provoked too. Jack's comments that his wife's death was fortuitous and God's will caused a JREF to become concerned about his kids welfare. They said they were going to contact social services and Jack got visited. There is no indication Roberts had anything to do with this. This is not news I pointed it out on the 1st post on this thread. So if Jack had so threatened the person who called child services you think he would have justified? Don't you think Jack's threat is further indication of his unsuitability to be a parent, especially a single parent? If you answered yes to my first two questions and ‘no’ to the third perhaps you deserve the ‘morally bankrupt’ title yourself
|
|
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 20, 2007 8:03:02 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Apr 20, 2007 8:37:54 GMT -4
What do you think 'game over' means? Maybe Jack was going to pwn him with his uber-1337 PlayStation skillz.
|
|
|
Post by ineluki on Apr 20, 2007 9:35:35 GMT -4
Jack's comments that his wife's death was fortuitous and God's will caused a JREF to become concerned about his kids welfare. They said they were going to contact social services and Jack got visited. There is no indication Roberts had anything to do with this. There is also no real evidence, that it actually was someone from JREF. It seems more likely that it was someone in the "real world" that was concerned about Jackchits attitude.
|
|
|
Post by papageno on Apr 20, 2007 15:40:56 GMT -4
What I'd like to know, first of all, is what happened to make Jack angry enough to post his threat to Roberts? Jack believes that Roberts tried to break up his family. What is known about this accusation? Did it arise in an earlier post? It's still a threat of violence, of course. But did it stem from an attempt by Roberts to break up Jack's family, as Jack has asserted? It is not a death threat. Thats' why it is so cold here! It's the wind from you trying to spin this story into a blame-the-(potential)-victim defense.
|
|