Is pointing out that you carry a legal threat?
- Thread starter The Exile
- Start date
- Status
Yes, there is the possibility of civil liability, in addition to criminal charges.
whughett
Member
If uttering “You know I carry” with out any other utterance or presentation is a prosecution offense in any state in this country then we have indeed entered the dark ages.
In Florida presentation of a weapon with out using it is a mandatory 2 year sentence. To prevent undue prosecution the state had to pass a law excluding accidental presentation.
In Florida presentation of a weapon with out using it is a mandatory 2 year sentence. To prevent undue prosecution the state had to pass a law excluding accidental presentation.
How long ago did what you consider to be such a transition occur?
whughett
Member
I’m not sure of your question. I wasn’t referring to any particular incident just a general observation of where freedom of speech leads to an offense.
I'll put it a different way. When was it that saying something that could reasonably be interpreted as a threat become a crime?
Hint: it was a very long time ago.
Do you think we have been in "the dark ages" for all that time?
whughett
Member
Was that individual prosecuted.?
What individual?
whughett
Member
The one featured in this thread. The one who apparently uttered the words” You do know I carry.”
Trunk Monkey
member
Section 18-3-206 of the Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S.) provides:
(1) A person commits the crime of menacing if, by any threat or physical action, he or she knowingly places or attempts to place another person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury. Menacing is a class 3 misdemeanor, but, it is a class 5 felony if committed:
(a) By the use of a deadly weapon or any article used or fashioned in a manner to cause a person to reasonably believe that the article is a deadly weapon; or
(b) By the person representing verbally or otherwise that he or she is armed with a deadly weapon.
Again, according to Colorado law what she did was menacing. If that incident had taken place in downtown Colorado Springs and she was charged and I was on the jury and they showed me that video I would vote to convict.
The point isn't whether or not my assessment is right or wrong the point is you don't do that s*** when you're carrying a gun because you just might get someone like me on your jury
She did so utter--it is on video.
Prosecuted? Dunno. But the statute of limitations has a long way to go
Countless people have been prosecuted for the Common Law offense of assault or the equivalent in statute. It goes back to almost 1066 AD, and on this side of the pond, from the time the first English colonists disembarked.
There are, of course, legal defenses against the charge.
This is not something to be taken lightly.
Trunk Monkey
member
^^^^^^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^^^^
This is the part that people don't understand. This isn't a joke they really will arrest you for doing that stuff. The fact that she didn't get arrested this time is irrelevant.
She's done it before. There are other videos of her doing the exact same thing. Sooner or later somebody's going to prosecute her or punch in the face and when they do I bet telling the cops that she said she had a gun and showing them the video will lead to all charges being dropped.
Trunk Monkey
member
You do know we're talkin about The Kent State Gun Girl right? I don't think I would have any problem convincing a jury that any reasonable person would believe that she meant she was carrying a gun.
Trunk Monkey
member
This goes back to what I was talking about earlier I'm not going to argue a bunch of ridiculous hypotheticals with you just so you can prove that you're right.
Enjoy the rest of your day
JERRY
Member
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2003
- Messages
- 3,830
no idea who she is. the OP didn't have a video link of the incident. I'm having a good day, thanks. oh, and you do know I carry, right?
while I don't agree with saying that you are carrying a concealed gun presumably legally as that defeats the purpose of concealing it, how is it different from open carrying where anyone can see that you are carrying?
Oh heavens! Hasn't hat been made crystal clear by now?
whughett
Member
Well mr Moderator and others. If indeed the utterance of such benign words or even those containing , kill, mess up, hurt cripple f—k up, blah blah with no overt physical action results in incarceration then indeed we are in the dark ages, such as those that existed in the days of the gulag in the Stalinist era of a foreign country.
I’ll borrow a technique used in these forums and lock my self out of further response.
I’ll borrow a technique used in these forums and lock my self out of further response.
Elkins45
Member
Well mr Moderator and others. If indeed the utterance of such benign words or even those containing , kill, mess up, hurt cripple f—k up, blah blah with no overt physical action results in incarceration then indeed we are in the dark ages, such as those that existed in the days of the gulag in the Stalinist era of a foreign country.
I’ll borrow a technique used in these forums and lock my self out of further response.
Making reference to the implement of death you have within immediate reach doesn't strike me as "benign." If you refused to give a bum a dollar and in response he said "You do know I carry, right?" I doubt you would consider them benign as well.
She needs to be charged with serial public stupidity if nothing else. I wish her 15 minutes were over already.
FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANYONE ELSE WHO MAY NOT HERETOFORE HAVE BEEN AWARE OF THIS:
Knowingly putting someone in reasonable fear of harm has been unlawful for hundreds of years. There are both criminal and civil risks.
There are legal defenses against the charge--think necessity.
However, even if the defendant is entirely in the right, proving such could be a very costly, alarming, and time consuming ordeal.
And the probability of an unsuccessful defense is greater than zero.
I think that's incredibly fair. If some lowlife calls up his ex and tells her "you better get right with god because I'm gonna pay you a visit tonight!" it doesn't really matter if he claims to just be bluffing, at least I would suspect not. It'd be enough to get him in a court and probably for her to press charges; maybe not for a conviction but that's up to the jury and the lawyers.
TX law spells things out very clearly so it can be helpful to look at it from that perspective.
Under TX law, I can legally wear a holstered handgun openly as long as I have a permit. I need no legal justification at all to display a handgun in this manner.
Under TX law, I can also legally display a handgun to give another person the impression that I will use it if I need to. BUT I can only do that if I am justified in using force against that person. Now, under TX law, simple 'force' is a step down from 'deadly force', but it still requires legal justification. The law says that displaying a handgun to create the apprehension that deadly force may be used is considered to be equivalent to actually using force. Basically what it comes down to is that THREATENING someone with a handgun requires the same legal justification as actually USING force. Absent that legal justification, it is a crime.
Note that in both cases (open carry and displaying to threaten), the handgun is displayed, but only one case requires legal justification. Only one of those actions is a crime if it is done without the proper legal justification.
So there's a progression and a clear difference.
Threatening someone with a deadly weapon is a crime unless the proper legal justification exists. Period.
Note that the requirement for legal justification hinges on intent. Intent will be determined by OTHERS based on the evidence. You can state your intent; but it won't mean anything if the evidence causes the judge/jury to believe that your intent was to threaten/intimidate. Don't fall into the trap of believing that you will be the final authority on whether or not something you do constitutes threatening someone with a firearm; that's a huge mistake. The courts will decide that based on the evidence presented.
Under TX law, I can legally wear a holstered handgun openly as long as I have a permit. I need no legal justification at all to display a handgun in this manner.
Under TX law, I can also legally display a handgun to give another person the impression that I will use it if I need to. BUT I can only do that if I am justified in using force against that person. Now, under TX law, simple 'force' is a step down from 'deadly force', but it still requires legal justification. The law says that displaying a handgun to create the apprehension that deadly force may be used is considered to be equivalent to actually using force. Basically what it comes down to is that THREATENING someone with a handgun requires the same legal justification as actually USING force. Absent that legal justification, it is a crime.
Note that in both cases (open carry and displaying to threaten), the handgun is displayed, but only one case requires legal justification. Only one of those actions is a crime if it is done without the proper legal justification.
So there's a progression and a clear difference.
- Legal open carry in which a handgun is displayed but there is no intent to intimidate or threaten. No justification is required.
- Displaying a handgun such that a person is given the impression that deadly force may be used. Requires the same legal justification as actually using force (not deadly force--but simple force).
- Actual use of a handgun for deadly force. Requires that deadly force is justified.
Threatening someone with a deadly weapon is a crime unless the proper legal justification exists. Period.
Note that the requirement for legal justification hinges on intent. Intent will be determined by OTHERS based on the evidence. You can state your intent; but it won't mean anything if the evidence causes the judge/jury to believe that your intent was to threaten/intimidate. Don't fall into the trap of believing that you will be the final authority on whether or not something you do constitutes threatening someone with a firearm; that's a huge mistake. The courts will decide that based on the evidence presented.
FlSwampRat
Member
I find it ironic in the extreme that this was at Kent State where on May 4th 1970 four students were shot to death by the Ohio National Guard.
Not to be argumentative, but I wonder about someone who was black belt in martial arts or a master at MMA, would they be in trouble for warning someone who was acting in a threatening manner toward them that they were so trained. When does a warning transcend into being a threat? Just asking rhetorically.
The issue is whether or not the statements or conduct of the actor appear intended to influence the actions of someone else by causing that person to fear a violent response from the actor.
Trunk Monkey
member
In you educated opinion does the fact that we're talking about a person who is notorious specifically for being a Second Amendment activist who carries a gun have any bearing on my decision?
- Status