If somebody says “If you touch me, I’ll kill you,” is this a threat that would be against the law? It is contingent upon an action, rather than a direct threat. But, there is a threat in it. So, have there been any court rulings on this kind of statement?
Thanks,
hh
Great question. In a similar vein I always wondered if it is a “threat” to tell someone you hated that if you were to come across them at the scene of an accident that you would leave them there to die rather than help.
That might depend on whether the jurisdiction involved imposed a legal obligation on bystanders to assist accident victims.
Not my bailiwick, and tort classes were multiple decades ago, but my answer is that it depends on the specific fact situation, and the reasonableness of the threat perceived.
I believe the tort involved would be assault (as opposed to battery, which generally requires a threat + and unpermitted touching).
So - to identify some extremes - if an unarmed little kid across the street says he’s gonna kill you, a decision-maker might find you had less reason to fear than if a huge escaped violent felon is in your face screaming it while brandishing a knife.
I also believe that under common law bystanders generally are presumed to have no duty to assist injured parties.
But again, these are not my area of expertise (to the extent that I have ANY), and I probably know little more about such things than folks who watch legal dramas on TV.
In the most lay sense, doesn’t a threat have to threatening?
(Kind of like the difference in semantics in the Army between saying, “You’re an bunghold, sergeant!” and “I think you’re a bunghole, sergeant!”)
Suggests another wrinkle, which involves the individual’s perception.
I could jokingly threaten to kill you and you might dismiss it a joke.
But if I said it to a very nervous person who proceeded to have a panic attack, he might might have enough of a prima facie case to bring a cause of action.
It all comes down to the facts of a particular case.
In Florida, for it to be criminal, there has to be a threat of “immediate violence” and you have to have the ability to carry out that threat, immediately.
So if I said “I am going to fucking kill you. I swear to god you’re dead. You better watch your back cause I’m going to blow you away with a shotgun”, and I dont have a shotgun in my hand, then there is no crime.
If I said, “I’m going to kill you, tomorrow.” There is no criminal threat.
If I said “I’m going to stab you with a knife right now!”, but I didn’t have a knife, then there is no criminal threat.
If I pointed a weapon (knife, club, pistol) at you and said “I’m going to kill you!!” Then that’s a threat.
But if I pointed the same weapon at you and said “I’m going to kill you, in 20 minutes!!”, then there’s no crime.
Ummm, I’m no lawyer here, but wouldn’t simply pointing a gun at somebody in most situations qualify as an immediate threat, verbal time limits notwithstanding?
Yeah - I wouldn’t believe all threats need to be verbally communicated.
Also, as with many legal questions, folks may wish to distinguish between civil and criminal law.
OK, next time Bush is in town go ahead and say that to him and let us know about how the police didn’t touch you because you didn’t commit a crime.
We are getting away from the OP which asked about a conditional threat. Something like “If you touch me I’ll rip your head off”, or “Toucha my car I smasha your face”.
Also would there be a difference if the condition wasn’t an illegal act, wince if someone touches you on purpose that is arguably assault, but I don’t think touching someones car (as long as no damage occurs) is illegal.
Would “I’ll count to 10, and if you are still here I’ll break your neck” count as an illegal threat, what about “If you insult her again, I’ll break both your legs.”
Threats against the President are a violation of a particular Federal law. It is entirely possible to violate that law, but not the Florida statute.
So, what’s a pobe?
::d&r::
You’re right. Simply pointing a gun at someone qualifies as an immediate threat. But in the scenario I gave, the person did MORE than simply point a gun at someone. He pointed it and gave a specific time (not the present) that he’d harm the victim. Had he just pointed the gun and said nothing, the scneario changes.
Either way, the scenarios are highly unlikely in their specifics. Who the hell would say “I’m going to kill you… tomorrow afternoon!” while holding a machete? They’re just teaching scenarios that people come up with to explain the law and discuss elements of a crime. My law instructor at the Police Academy had thousands of them.
Sorry, I guess I wasn’t clear in that regard. The whole “IF, THEN” statement is not an immediate threat. It’s more like a warning or an ultimatum. That isn’t a criminal assault.
Are you being intentionally obtuse?
First of all, though I said “there would be no crime”, I guess I would have been more clear had I said “there is no crime of assault. There is no threat”. I thought it was pretty obvious what I meant. There could be other crimes, like reckless display of a firearm, illegal possession of a firearm… that kind of thing. But the OP is talking about threats.
Now as far as the President is concerned. That’s a whole different animal. Just writing a letter to him saying that you’re going to kill him in a year will probably send you to jail for a while. But there are specific federal laws against plots or attempts to kill or harm the president. So it doesn’t have to fit Florida’s definition of “assault” or “threat”. Hell, the statement “I’m going to kill you tomorrow, Mr. President” is probably enough to send you to prison. But I bet the crime is something other than “assault”. I bet it’s like “plotting assassination”, “conspiracy to harm the president” or some cramp like that.
No. and No.
Well, I’d like for our lawyers to chime in, but the criminal defense lawyers at this office all agree that the act of pointing a gun constitutes as reasonable fear of imminent danger, whether or not the person says “in 20 minutes” or not. Without the pulling of the gun, though, it’s not assault.
That should be “other lawyers.”
The point is, regardless of what is said afterwards, I believe that the act of pointing a gun at a person would cause a reasonable person to feel threatened.
Of course not. I’m not even being obtuse by accident.
I’m just reading the words. In the situation you described, there was no firearm, so I don’t see how there could be other crimes.
I don’t dispute your description of Florida law. I can understand why it would be a federal crime to threaten the president, although I’m a little baffled that it’s not a crime to threaten anyone else.
If the type of threat[sup]1[/sup] you described is not a crime in Florida, is there no recourse by the victim of repeated threats of this kind? (Hope this isn’t getting too far afield of the OP.)
- By “threat” I mean verbal expression of a desire or intent to do harm, rather than the apparent imminent action of harm. I have no idea what the legal meaning of “threat” is.
Lighten up, Francis.
Er, the above post was a pop culture reference with regard to the OP. Since I don’t often post in General Questions, I’m not sure if that was cool or not. If not, sorry. If okay, then kudos to whomever gets it first.
Stripes (Sgt. Hulka)