FlyerTalk Forums - View Single Post - Successful Attacks
View Single Post
Old Apr 3, 2011 | 7:00 am
  #22  
LuvAirFrance
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,051
When people start treating jihader speech as protected, I had to go to law.com and look up a couple of things:

assault

1) v. the threat or attempt to strike another, whether successful or not, provided the target is aware of the danger. The assaulter must be reasonably capable of carrying through the attack. In some states if the assault is with a deadly weapon (such as sniping with a rifle), the intended victim does not need to know of the peril. Other state laws distinguish between different degrees (first or second) of assault depending on whether there is actual hitting, injury or just a threat. "Aggravated assault" is an attack connected with the commission of another crime, such as beating a clerk during a robbery or a particularly vicious attack. 2) n. the act of committing an assault, as in "there was an assault down on Third Avenue." Assault is both a criminal wrong, for which one may be charged and tried, and civil wrong for which the target may sue for damages due to the assault, including for mental distress.
Now, to my knowledge, the speech part of assault is a felony. It isn't considered something one can say and then defend as a First Amendment right. Maybe there is case law where the Supreme Court has incorporated threatening words as "intended" by the writers of the Bill of Rights.

What Exactly Does "Making a Terrorist Threat" Mean?

The crime of "making a terrorist threat" is a recent creation enacted at both the state and federal levels after the terrorist attacks of 9/11. It is a very general law that can be used to prosecute terrorists, but has been used far more often to prosecute situations involving domestic violence, hate crimes, bomb threats, and school violence. Indeed, in many states, the term "terrorist" has been amended to mean simply "criminal."

Although the exact definition varies from state to state, generally one makes a terrorist threat if one threatens to commit a violent crime for the purpose of terrorizing another or of causing public panic. Some states laws are very narrow, meaning the threat must be very specific and direct, while other states adapt a looser approach, allowing even negligently made threats to be prosecutable.
http://www.legalmatch.com/law-librar...st-threat.html

To me, this is really just some sort of refinement of assault. But again, it seems to me clear that, again, jihaders' tendency to shoot their mouths off makes them prima facie criminal's in western law. So it isn't like they haven't been told that they are in legal jeopardy. And it also isn't like I'm hatching new concepts in saying they are suspects by virtue of the groups they belong to.
LuvAirFrance is offline