You were spot on my dude.
looked at the article,
apparently they had to euthanize about 90 baby rabbits, because she took the moms
not sure if they could tried and saved the baby rabbits, but i don't know anything about how that would have worked.
nypost dot com /2019/09/09/vegan-activist-who-rescued-16-rabbits-killed-over-100-in-the-process-report/
Im not the one who thinks it's alright to kill something meaningless cause there are lots of it, you are.
So go alone, I rather not to be around the like of you
That is a damn threat dude. I'd be careful with those words of yours
(Referring to i_, not you rosie, though telling someone to kill themselves isnt exactly kind either)
Rabbits are invasive. Badly invasive according to most sources. Apparently URLs aren't allowed in comments anymore, so feel free to google "are rabbits invasive". Feel better now?
Also beth and dr, no they're not. A threat has to be credible, which is why I haven't gone crying to my local police about how I'm being bullied online because I'm not.
"Use of the internet to threaten “the person of another” constitutes a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 875 ( interstate communication of threat to injure) If it is communicated interstate, federal jurisdiction is created."
True threat: a threat that a reasonable person would interpret as a real and serious communication of an intent to inflict harm (Merriam-Webster's legal definition)
So either you're picking a fight for no god damn reason, or you're being a pusillanimous toad.
I'm sorry, I shouldn't say you're picking a fight for no reason.
You probably believe at least one of the following:
1. I'm coming off too aggressively and need to tone it down
2. I'm being bullied and need to be protected
to which I respond
(1) I really don't think I've said anything terribly harsh. In fact, I think I'm rather reasonable in understanding that we're trading shit talk and nothing more. If I chose, I could totally interpret ros as being a massive cunt but I've been on the internet long enough to understand that this probably isn't the intention
(2) Thank you but that's probably more insulting than you intended, and I'm gonna ask you politely to fuck off; I can take care of myself in any verbal spar.
"(c) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."
thats the actual law word for word. No where within does it say anything about "credible."
the act of threatening another with injury no matter if possible or credible is illegal.
Walk me through your reasoning for your argument that a threat doesn’t have to be credible. I’m having a very hard time imaging you’re one of those retards who are too stupid to realize that if you’re gonna argue law, you need to use the legal definitions.
"Watts argued the statement "did not constitute a 'threat' within the language of the statute." On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia rejected this argument, finding that the statement violated the statute even if Watts had no intention of carrying out his threat, and affirmed the lower court's judgment."
copy pasted the important bit for you @i_
Virginia v black makes it illegal to cross burn if intent to intimidate is proven. Extrapolate this to speech in general being illegal if there is (intent to) intimidate, which under the original context of this is still not applicable.
hmm i probably am a stupid cunt cuz i had made the conclusion after reading this that watts v united states defended your argument. anyways dude, both you and ros should not have made those aggressive comments. one, arguing about why you shouldn't threaten people on the internet over whether baby bunnies should die or not based on how the human population is growing is the most stupid fucking argument i've had to witness. Especially when you're arguing about the credibility of those threats. Honestly who knows what both of you could do, the credibility is so hard to verify on here.
@i_ thats not how legal precedent works.
The ruling wasn't about the law regarding potus it was regarding the definition of a threat which they ruled didnt require any intent or actionability. That definition of threat isnt specific to any given law, thats not how legal definitions work. Their ruling on this case where someone broke X law can be used as precedent for every other law that regards the usage of the the legal term "threat"
Yes @cryoenthusiast it is a stupid fucking argument which is why I have no fucking idea why you morons hopped in to begin with; this was solely between me and @rosalinas. I have every right to be aggressive, perhaps even more so than I already am, because of you fucks who for some unfathomable reason are unable to detect basic written sarcasm.
And you @bethorien, let's do a little exercise in critical thinking that I'm sure even your mind can handle. The basic concept of this exercise is to take a probably retarded idea and litmus test it to see if it is in fact retarded or if it holds weight. This process basically tries to see if a parallel and similar circumstance also fits within the rule.
Possibly retarded idea: Martial artists who have achieved the rank of black belt in a formally recognized art must register themselves as lethal weapons.
I can think of three ways off the top of my head to test this (besides the obvious answer of actually looking it up). Here's two hints for you.
1. I'm pretty sure in every state, the lethal length minimum for a knife is at most 4.5 inches. Most general purpose kitchen knives are ~6 inch blades. You can also purchase 28 inch machetes over the counter at most sporting good stores.
2. Not all formally recognized arts use the belt system.
Have you come up with an answer?
The answer is not simply that martial artists must register themselves, it's that there isn't a fucking lethal weapons register to begin with. The entire premise of the idea is bullshit.
Alright, so what does this have to do with the initial argument?
It is a premise of law that all people must follow the law (with exceptions like diplomats and saudis) regardless of citizenship, as long as you are within an entity's territory. Let's test the idea that threatening people is illegal (in general).
There is a movie called The Interview. Google it. In it, Kim Jong Un dies a very tragic death due to intentional actions of Americans. Is this movie illegal due to American citizens, portraying Americans, killing a depiction of a real life, well known individual? No it's fucking not.
Let's do another such test, much simpler. Who the fuck is in prison for offhand comments such as the one I made? Fucking nobody. If it was illegal, I'd have enough time racked up to justify the incarcerations of every single black in the history of the US plus more. You're fucking wrong.
"If it was illegal, I'd have enough time racked up to justify the incarcerations of every single black in the history of the US plus more. You're fucking wrong. "
pirating is illegal but 99% of people that do it dont get charged for it. Not worth the courts time. Not getting arrested and charged for a crime is not proof that it isn't illegal.
-
"Is this movie illegal due to American citizens, portraying Americans, killing a depiction of a real life, well known individual? No it's fucking not. "
comparing something that is legally defined as an artistic work with saying "id gladly take you with me" is disingenuous and not legally sound. Posts on a public forum are more than enough for a court of law in america to charge someone.
-
you act all holier than thou and get so heated and think yelling louder makes you right even tho your arguments are completely irrelevant and have absolutely no meaning.
-
false equivalences and illogical ranting does not an point make.
looked at the article,
apparently they had to euthanize about 90 baby rabbits, because she took the moms
not sure if they could tried and saved the baby rabbits, but i don't know anything about how that would have worked.
nypost dot com /2019/09/09/vegan-activist-who-rescued-16-rabbits-killed-over-100-in-the-process-report/
So go alone, I rather not to be around the like of you
(Referring to i_, not you rosie, though telling someone to kill themselves isnt exactly kind either)
Also beth and dr, no they're not. A threat has to be credible, which is why I haven't gone crying to my local police about how I'm being bullied online because I'm not.
So either you're picking a fight for no god damn reason, or you're being a pusillanimous toad.
You probably believe at least one of the following:
1. I'm coming off too aggressively and need to tone it down
2. I'm being bullied and need to be protected
to which I respond
(1) I really don't think I've said anything terribly harsh. In fact, I think I'm rather reasonable in understanding that we're trading shit talk and nothing more. If I chose, I could totally interpret ros as being a massive cunt but I've been on the internet long enough to understand that this probably isn't the intention
(2) Thank you but that's probably more insulting than you intended, and I'm gonna ask you politely to fuck off; I can take care of myself in any verbal spar.
thats the actual law word for word. No where within does it say anything about "credible."
the act of threatening another with injury no matter if possible or credible is illegal.
copy pasted the important bit for you @i_
There is a single specific law against threatening the POTUS. Now find me one that applies in general that disregards context/intent.
The ruling wasn't about the law regarding potus it was regarding the definition of a threat which they ruled didnt require any intent or actionability. That definition of threat isnt specific to any given law, thats not how legal definitions work. Their ruling on this case where someone broke X law can be used as precedent for every other law that regards the usage of the the legal term "threat"
Possibly retarded idea: Martial artists who have achieved the rank of black belt in a formally recognized art must register themselves as lethal weapons.
I can think of three ways off the top of my head to test this (besides the obvious answer of actually looking it up). Here's two hints for you.
1. I'm pretty sure in every state, the lethal length minimum for a knife is at most 4.5 inches. Most general purpose kitchen knives are ~6 inch blades. You can also purchase 28 inch machetes over the counter at most sporting good stores.
2. Not all formally recognized arts use the belt system.
The answer is not simply that martial artists must register themselves, it's that there isn't a fucking lethal weapons register to begin with. The entire premise of the idea is bullshit.
Alright, so what does this have to do with the initial argument?
It is a premise of law that all people must follow the law (with exceptions like diplomats and saudis) regardless of citizenship, as long as you are within an entity's territory. Let's test the idea that threatening people is illegal (in general).
There is a movie called The Interview. Google it. In it, Kim Jong Un dies a very tragic death due to intentional actions of Americans. Is this movie illegal due to American citizens, portraying Americans, killing a depiction of a real life, well known individual? No it's fucking not.
pirating is illegal but 99% of people that do it dont get charged for it. Not worth the courts time. Not getting arrested and charged for a crime is not proof that it isn't illegal.
-
"Is this movie illegal due to American citizens, portraying Americans, killing a depiction of a real life, well known individual? No it's fucking not. "
comparing something that is legally defined as an artistic work with saying "id gladly take you with me" is disingenuous and not legally sound. Posts on a public forum are more than enough for a court of law in america to charge someone.
-
you act all holier than thou and get so heated and think yelling louder makes you right even tho your arguments are completely irrelevant and have absolutely no meaning.
-
false equivalences and illogical ranting does not an point make.