Justincase
.308 Win
Agreed. I heard that too. Just ignore the attention whores. Treat them like that annoying little kid who does stupid shit to get attention. Nothing would piss them off more.
Just got a news alert that erie county NY has curfew 10:30 to 7:00am
- Thread starter Saltwater60
- Start date
Agreed. I heard that too. Just ignore the attention whores. Treat them like that annoying little kid who does stupid shit to get attention. Nothing would piss them off more.
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
LOL, your talking to the right guys. They are not what you would call, politically correct. I know a lot of they're sons , they are not going to like this.
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
Im in walking distance, not even a mile away. I know they broke a lot of windows up and down Hertel when it first began. . I drove up and down Hertle in the morning I didnt see anything odd.
I'm assuming the guy in the white shirt is the bar owner (says he's running a business). Yeah, not to smart to threaten to kill someone (39:45 in the video), especially with the cops standing there.
Also, at like 38 mins in the same guy starts whining about them shouting on public property because his customers don't like it? Well, too damn bad skeezak, people have a right to protest on public property, go have a cry about it.
Edit: at 45:45 they start chanting to defund BPD. They do realize BPD being there is why they didn't just get their asses kicked right?
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
Doesn't mean a thing unless he took overt action to do it.
It's reasonable for someone to fear death or injury (ie. be terrorized) if someone tells you they are going to kill you, especially when the perpetrator does it right in front of the police. Making a death threat to someone while a cop is watching to me indicates the person is mentally unhinged and just might try to follow through.
Last edited:
Elwood
.223 Rem
All I saw in that video were some fugly white people
screaming and making jackasses of themselves. They shout about “revolution”, but will call for the police if their feelings get bruised. Real revolution is paid for in blood by unimaginable violence, something I highly doubt they will have the stomach for.
I sincerely hope things de-escalate before this gets completely out of control, because once the genies out of the bottle, they may not like having their wishes granted.
screaming and making jackasses of themselves. They shout about “revolution”, but will call for the police if their feelings get bruised. Real revolution is paid for in blood by unimaginable violence, something I highly doubt they will have the stomach for.
I sincerely hope things de-escalate before this gets completely out of control, because once the genies out of the bottle, they may not like having their wishes granted.
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
You need to re-read that son. There is no threat of terrorism .
See thats the problem with you BLM guys, you dont know the law.
intimidate or coerce a civilian population
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
Yeah where did he do that?
It's tried law..... a threat to kill someone DOES satisfy that element. I think I need to forward the video and tried case law over to John Flynn, thanks for making me look a bit more into this. That bar owner really needs to be held accountable for his crimes.
Dennis K. McDermott, J.
The defendant has been indicted and charged with a single count of making a terroristic threat, a class D violent felony (Penal Law § 490.20).
The defendant must threaten "to commit or cause to be committed a specified offense" (Penal Law § 490.20 [1]). The term "specified offense" is defined in Penal Law § 490.05 (3) (a) and includes, inter alia, any class A felony offense other than one defined in Penal Law article 220 ("Controlled Substances Offenses"). Thus, a threat to commit murder, in either the first or second degree (Penal Law §§ 125.27, 125.25), would satisfy this element of the crime.
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
Nope. 2nd element
B) The Intent:
The statute provides that the threat must be made with any one of three different intentions: (1) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, (2) to influence the policy of a unit of government by intimidation or coercion, or (3) to affect the conduct of a unit of government by murder, assassination or kidnapping.
He did none of the above.
You cited a completely un-related case , thanks for playing.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. James H. VanPATTEN, Appellant.
Decided: December 27, 2007
In July 2004, Donald Cerio, the District Attorney for Madison County, received a letter threatening his life and the lives of his wife and children, as well as the lives of several county employees, unless Cerio ceased any prosecutions involving violations of Penal Law article 49, which prohibits, among other things, making terroristic threats. The letter was signed “James” and included defendant's full name, prison identification number and the address of the detention facility where defendant was held on unrelated parole violation charges. The letter further indicated that the Madison County Courthouse and the County Department of Social Services would “look like the Olklahoma [sic ] City federal” building. The sole relevant prosecution pending at the time involved defendant's biological father, Donald Jenner (see People v. Jenner, 39 A.D.3d 1083, 835 N.Y.S.2d 501 [2007], lv. denied 9 N.Y.3d 845, 840 N.Y.S.2d 772, 872 N.E.2d 885 [2007] ).
Elements of the Offense
The statute requires three elements to be proved: an act, an intent, and a result.
(A) THE ACT:
The defendant must threaten “to commit or cause to be committed a specified offense ․”. The term “specified offense” is defined in Penal Law § 490.05(3)(a) and includes, inter alia, any class A felony offense other than one defined in Penal Law Article 220 (“Controlled Substances Offenses”). Thus, a threat to commit murder, in either the first or second degree (Penal Law §§ 125.27, 125.25), would satisfy this element of the crime.
It is not necessary that the defendant threaten to commit the specified offense personally. A threat to cause the specified offense to be committed by another is sufficient.
(B) THE INTENT:
The statute provides that the threat must be made with any one of three different intentions: (1) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, (2) to influence the policy of a unit of government by intimidation or coercion, or (3) to affect the conduct of a unit of government by murder, assassination or kidnapping.
(C) THE RESULT:
The threat, made with the requisite intent, must cause “a reasonable expectation or fear of the imminent commission of such offense.”
This element has two components. The commission of the threatened conduct must appear to be imminent, and the expectation or fear thereof must be reasonable. Thus, there is an objective standard to be applied in the analysis. (Donnino, 2001 Supp. Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons. Laws of N.Y., Book 39, Penal Law 490, 2005 Pocket Part, at 155).
B) The Intent:
The statute provides that the threat must be made with any one of three different intentions: (1) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, (2) to influence the policy of a unit of government by intimidation or coercion, or (3) to affect the conduct of a unit of government by murder, assassination or kidnapping.
He did none of the above.
You cited a completely un-related case , thanks for playing.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. James H. VanPATTEN, Appellant.
Decided: December 27, 2007
In July 2004, Donald Cerio, the District Attorney for Madison County, received a letter threatening his life and the lives of his wife and children, as well as the lives of several county employees, unless Cerio ceased any prosecutions involving violations of Penal Law article 49, which prohibits, among other things, making terroristic threats. The letter was signed “James” and included defendant's full name, prison identification number and the address of the detention facility where defendant was held on unrelated parole violation charges. The letter further indicated that the Madison County Courthouse and the County Department of Social Services would “look like the Olklahoma [sic ] City federal” building. The sole relevant prosecution pending at the time involved defendant's biological father, Donald Jenner (see People v. Jenner, 39 A.D.3d 1083, 835 N.Y.S.2d 501 [2007], lv. denied 9 N.Y.3d 845, 840 N.Y.S.2d 772, 872 N.E.2d 885 [2007] ).
Elements of the Offense
The statute requires three elements to be proved: an act, an intent, and a result.
(A) THE ACT:
The defendant must threaten “to commit or cause to be committed a specified offense ․”. The term “specified offense” is defined in Penal Law § 490.05(3)(a) and includes, inter alia, any class A felony offense other than one defined in Penal Law Article 220 (“Controlled Substances Offenses”). Thus, a threat to commit murder, in either the first or second degree (Penal Law §§ 125.27, 125.25), would satisfy this element of the crime.
It is not necessary that the defendant threaten to commit the specified offense personally. A threat to cause the specified offense to be committed by another is sufficient.
(B) THE INTENT:
The statute provides that the threat must be made with any one of three different intentions: (1) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, (2) to influence the policy of a unit of government by intimidation or coercion, or (3) to affect the conduct of a unit of government by murder, assassination or kidnapping.
(C) THE RESULT:
The threat, made with the requisite intent, must cause “a reasonable expectation or fear of the imminent commission of such offense.”
This element has two components. The commission of the threatened conduct must appear to be imminent, and the expectation or fear thereof must be reasonable. Thus, there is an objective standard to be applied in the analysis. (Donnino, 2001 Supp. Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons. Laws of N.Y., Book 39, Penal Law 490, 2005 Pocket Part, at 155).
Last edited:
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
Thats why your friends keep getting shot. They ""Think they know""
Threatening to kill a protester because you don't like what they are saying could meet, "to intimidate or coerce a civilian population". If the protesters felt intimidated about exercising their constitutionally protected 1st amendment rights in that location, it would be deprivation of those rights and thus intimidating a civilian population.
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
no. Your trying to tell me that the guy out in front of his bar is a terrorist? Is that what your saying?
Was there “a reasonable expectation or fear of the imminent commission of such offense.” ? (which is an overt act Like I stated earlier. )
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
$490 is in reference to terrorism. This has absolutely nothing to do with terrorism and is not applicable.
S 490.00 Legislative findings.
The devastating consequences of the recent barbaric attack on the
World Trade Center and the Pentagon underscore the compelling need for
legislation that is specifically designed to combat the evils of
terrorism. Indeed, the bombings of American embassies in Kenya and
Tanzania in 1998, the federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995, Pan Am
Flight number 103 in Lockerbie in 1988, the 1997 shooting atop the
Empire State Building, the 1994 murder of Ari Habersham on the Brooklyn
Bridge and the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, will forever
serve to remind us that terrorism is a serious and deadly problem that
disrupts public order and threatens individual safety both at home and
around the world. Terrorism is inconsistent with civilized society and
cannot be tolerated.
S 490.00 Legislative findings.
The devastating consequences of the recent barbaric attack on the
World Trade Center and the Pentagon underscore the compelling need for
legislation that is specifically designed to combat the evils of
terrorism. Indeed, the bombings of American embassies in Kenya and
Tanzania in 1998, the federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995, Pan Am
Flight number 103 in Lockerbie in 1988, the 1997 shooting atop the
Empire State Building, the 1994 murder of Ari Habersham on the Brooklyn
Bridge and the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, will forever
serve to remind us that terrorism is a serious and deadly problem that
disrupts public order and threatens individual safety both at home and
around the world. Terrorism is inconsistent with civilized society and
cannot be tolerated.
I'm saying he's attempting to intimidate a group or protesters because he doesn't like them in front of his bar in legally protected public spaces (at about 38 minutes you can watch him tell the people to go away). He then follows up that displeasure of them being there by threatening to kill people outside of his bar. The effect of this could reasonably be taken as intimidation of that civilian group exercising their 1st amendment right. Attempting to intimidate citizens from exercising their rights through threat of death is a terroistic act.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
Sounds like many of the protesters could be charged with this.
They probably don’t want to go down that route.
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
How about the group of protestors intimidateing patrons at the bar? does that count? they are the aggressors here . They organized and marched to his place.
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
No its not, cut it out. The cops didnt do anything because the owner didnt do anything. You can say anything you want That first amendment thingy. The law states that for a threat to be considered real. the person must make an overt act to fulfil it. Threats mean nothing . go back to school. people say Ill kill you ten times a day . Its bullshit and so is your argument.
No. Making a terroristic threat is not the same thing as actually or following through with it or even intending to follow through with it. That's why the penal code separates making terroistic threats and committing acts of terrorism. You see, one code is 490.20 Making a terroristic threat and the other is 490.25 Crime of terrorism. They aren't the same thing. 490.20 is constrained by "causes a reasonable expectation" and 490.25 is constrained by "commits a specified offense".
In regards to making a threat:
2. It shall be no defense to a prosecution pursuant to this section that the defendant did not have the intent or capability of committing the specified offense or that the threat was not made to a person who was a subject thereof.
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
Oh boy. I hope you are not a law student. Your never going to get a conviction ,let alone arrest on a bar owner protecting his property on a charge of terrorism.
If they go to a Trump rally, or a Trump rally passes by, etc. and threaten to kill them if they don't leave, sure then why not charge them. I hold no bias for them. The law should be applied equally. Full stop.
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
Can you see the difference?
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
This is the kind of shit that will get you in trouble. You think you know the law until you get into a courtroom and see how it really works.
The whole Idea is preposterous, and non applicable. The reason the man isn't charged with threating somebody is because , it is not against the law. Its a thought crime. Until some action is made , nothing can really be done.
I can say Im going to rob a bank tomorrow,. Not a crime. You can call the cops and tell them, but they cant do anything unless I do something in furtherance of the crime. Your going to charge me with thinking about robbing a bank? Same thing applies to a threat.
Your trying to apply a terrorism law , to a guy defending his business. Its not going to fly in any court , Im telling you.
Let me ask you if the 200 Marxists looked intimidated? Did they run? Did they leave?
The whole Idea is preposterous, and non applicable. The reason the man isn't charged with threating somebody is because , it is not against the law. Its a thought crime. Until some action is made , nothing can really be done.
I can say Im going to rob a bank tomorrow,. Not a crime. You can call the cops and tell them, but they cant do anything unless I do something in furtherance of the crime. Your going to charge me with thinking about robbing a bank? Same thing applies to a threat.
Your trying to apply a terrorism law , to a guy defending his business. Its not going to fly in any court , Im telling you.
Let me ask you if the 200 Marxists looked intimidated? Did they run? Did they leave?
Last edited:
Acer-m14
20×102mm Vulcan
LOL .. free Speech ...
Elwood
.223 Rem
The same could be said of the unruly mob gathering outside a private establishment, angrily shouting at the owner and his patrons, intimidation and coercion without a doubt. That whole eye for an eye thing. You still haven’t responded to the other thread as to why hidin’ Biden won’t crawl out of his basement to debate Trump for the TV cameras.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
What if they go on a national news program and threaten to burn down cities ?
Yep. Charge them with 490.20, assuming it's in NY. If the state they did it in has similar laws, charge them there.
Going by the NY standard, I'd say doing that is probably even a more clear case, as threatening to burn down buildings unless your political wants are met is pretty clearly a terroristic threat with intent to intimidate the populace and intimidate local govt policies.
Last edited:
