"A person commits the offense of terroristic threatening in the first degree if… [with] the purpose of terrorizing another person, the person threatens to cause death or serious physical injury or substantial property damage to another person"
Terroristic threats can kind of be a misnomer. Back in my youth, my buddies were driving in a jeep and ended up getting in a scuffle with another truck drive. My friend threw an empty Gatorade bottle at the driver and he followed them while calling the police. The cops charged my buddy with terroristic threats.
They definitely deserved a charge, but I always thought Terroristic Threats was a strange one to choose.
> They definitely deserved a charge, but I always thought Terroristic Threats was a strange one to choose.
Is this a case where meanings have diverged? In modern colloquial speech "terrorism" means certain kinds of extreme political violence (e.g. bombings) especially that committed by Islamists (e.g. al Qaeda and ISIS). "Terroristic threats" feels like it's legal jargon that may predate that by quite a bit.
Terroristic threats are those made that threaten violent bodily harm or death to recipients, causing them to be "terrorized". Doesn't have to do with political terrorism, but the result of terrorization of the victims.
What the COO did was the definition of a terroristic threat, threatening bodily harm with his actions and, potentially, his words.
Bail terms are based off how likely you are to flee, of which holdings can be a factor, but it's not the only factor.
He's a resident of the area, likely with substantial ties. It's a fairly low-level charge likely to result in probation and therapy. There's very little chance he'd flee.
Smaug123|3 years ago
"A person commits the offense of terroristic threatening in the first degree if… [with] the purpose of terrorizing another person, the person threatens to cause death or serious physical injury or substantial property damage to another person"
xeromal|3 years ago
They definitely deserved a charge, but I always thought Terroristic Threats was a strange one to choose.
tablespoon|3 years ago
Is this a case where meanings have diverged? In modern colloquial speech "terrorism" means certain kinds of extreme political violence (e.g. bombings) especially that committed by Islamists (e.g. al Qaeda and ISIS). "Terroristic threats" feels like it's legal jargon that may predate that by quite a bit.
heavyset_go|3 years ago
What the COO did was the definition of a terroristic threat, threatening bodily harm with his actions and, potentially, his words.
Ekaros|3 years ago
KennyBlanken|3 years ago
He's a resident of the area, likely with substantial ties. It's a fairly low-level charge likely to result in probation and therapy. There's very little chance he'd flee.