The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > General Questions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-09-2010, 06:50 PM
Sailboat Sailboat is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Is it legal to threaten someone?

I just got into an argument with someone who insists forcefully that it's perfectly legal to threaten somebody else -- the exact words were "you can tell someone you're going to kill him; you can tell him HOW you're going to kill him; and you can follow him around on the street."

I tried to argue otherwise, but I lack the legal grounding to even know what to look up. But this sounds like complete crap to me. It seems self-evident that society would cease to function if it were true.

I've heard of "assault" being a threat the target believes may be imminently carried out (and assuming the person I was talking to is right and one CAN threaten people legally as long as one follows certain rules, I'm not sure how one could threaten to kill someone without running the risk they'd believe it was "imminent" and thus blundering into "assault.")

I've heard of convictions for "making a terroristic threat"; my disputant claimed that was only if one threatens to use explosives.

I've heard of "putting in fear" but don't know what the distinction is.

Presumably these would be state offenses, not federal, if threatening is (as I suspect) an offense at all; and this vary by jurisdiction? Still, it seems implausible to me that it's legal to go around publicly threatening to kill people. My jurisdiction would be the greater Washington DC area (including Maryland and Virginia).

My thinking is that the person I was talking to has seen to many cases dropped for lack of evidence, or too many "he said/she said" arguments, and made the mistake of assuming that because it was not considered a solid enough case to prove in court, it is "permitted."

I tried to search the Straight Dope, but putting a phrase in quotes does not seem to work; it found any post with "legal" in it even without "threaten", and vice-versa.

I looked through a website on Virginia code, but I was doing a lot of scrolling without seeing anything that directly addressed one person threatening the life or limb of another; I was wandering through property law, evictions, and that sort of thing.

If there's a better/easier way to find out this sort of thing, please educate me.

In the meantime, what's the Straight Dope on the legality of threats and following/harassing/scaring people?
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 03-09-2010, 06:54 PM
Hairy Bob Hairy Bob is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
No idea about your country, but in the UK it is a crime to make threats to kill, I've read of a case or two where it was mentioned as a charge. Wouldn't know about general threatening though.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-09-2010, 06:56 PM
KneadToKnow KneadToKnow is offline
Voodoo Adult (Slight Return)
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Charlotte, NC, USA
Posts: 23,187
It's a misdemeanor in North Carolina:

Quote:
Originally Posted by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-277.1.
Communicating threats. (1999)

(a) A person is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor if without lawful authority:

(1) He willfully threatens to physically injure the person or that person's child, sibling, spouse, or dependent or willfully threatens to damage the property of another;

(2) The threat is communicated to the other person, orally, in writing, or by any other means;

(3) The threat is made in a manner and under circumstances which would cause a reasonable person to believe that the threat is likely to be carried out; and

(4) The person threatened believes that the threat will be carried out.

(b) A violation of this section is a Class 1 misdemeanor.
This is not legal advice.

Last edited by KneadToKnow; 03-09-2010 at 06:57 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-09-2010, 07:01 PM
Oakminster Oakminster is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
I am not licensed in Virginia, but a quick google found this:

18.2-60 Virginia Criminal Code

It seems to require some form of writing unless directed at a school official, but I suspect there may be other code sections dealing with oral threats.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-09-2010, 07:08 PM
Oakminster Oakminster is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
I'll likely miss the edit window, so here's more:

18.2-416

If any person shall, in the presence or hearing of another, curse or abuse such other person, or use any violent abusive language to such person concerning himself or any of his relations, or otherwise use such language, under circumstances reasonably calculated to provoke a breach of the peace, he shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor.

And a link to a table of contents for Virginia's Criminal Code:

found here
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-09-2010, 07:47 PM
Mean Mr. Mustard Mean Mr. Mustard is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Threatening to harm someone is assault.

Harming someone is battery.

(U.S., here)

Quote:
In the meantime, what's the Straight Dope on the legality of threats and following/harassing/scaring people?
Edit: Taking any action that makes a person feel threatened is, by definition, assault (as I understand it).

Last edited by Mean Mr. Mustard; 03-09-2010 at 07:49 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-09-2010, 08:18 PM
susan susan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
In Oregon, someone in a car threatened to mow me down. I called 911, who told me that this was not illegal.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-09-2010, 09:16 PM
PatriotGrrrl PatriotGrrrl is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Its not legal in NH:
Quote:
631:4 Criminal Threatening. –
I. A person is guilty of criminal threatening when:
(a) By physical conduct, the person purposely places or attempts to place another in fear of imminent bodily injury or physical contact; or
(b) The person places any object or graffiti on the property of another with a purpose to coerce or terrorize any person; or
(c) The person threatens to commit any crime against the property of another with a purpose to coerce or terrorize any person; or
(d) The person threatens to commit any crime against the person of another with a purpose to terrorize any person; or
(e) The person threatens to commit any crime of violence, or threatens the delivery or use of a biological or chemical substance, with a purpose to cause evacuation of a building, place of assembly, facility of public transportation or otherwise to cause serious public inconvenience, or in reckless disregard of causing such fear, terror or inconvenience; or
(f) The person delivers, threatens to deliver, or causes the delivery of any substance the actor knows could be perceived as a biological or chemical substance, to another person with the purpose of causing fear or terror, or in reckless disregard of causing such fear or terror.
II. (a) Criminal threatening is a class B felony if the person:
(1) Violates the provisions of subparagraph I(e); or
(2) Uses a deadly weapon as defined in RSA 625:11, V in the violation of the provisions of subparagraph I(a), I(b), I(c), or I(d).
(b) All other criminal threatening is a misdemeanor.
III. (a) As used in this section, ""property'' has the same meaning as in RSA 637:2, I; ""property of another'' has the same meaning as in RSA 637:2, IV.
(b) As used in this section, ""terrorize'' means to cause alarm, fright, or dread; the state of mind induced by the apprehension of hurt from some hostile or threatening event or manifestation.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-09-2010, 09:31 PM
MPB in Salt Lake MPB in Salt Lake is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 4,331
Quote:
Originally Posted by susan View Post
In Oregon, someone in a car threatened to mow me down. I called 911, who told me that this was not illegal.
Just because a 911 dispatcher (many who probably make 9 or 10 bucks an hour, none of whom have been to law school) tells you something, I am sure that you know it dosent make it factually true.

I would bet that threatening to run someone over with an automobile is a crime in all 50 states in the USA..............
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-09-2010, 09:46 PM
Maserschmidt Maserschmidt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 3,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by MPB in Salt Lake View Post
Just because a 911 dispatcher (many who probably make 9 or 10 bucks an hour, none of whom have been to law school) tells you something, I am sure that you know it dosent make it factually true.

I would bet that threatening to run someone over with an automobile is a crime in all 50 states in the USA..............
I think this is exactly correct.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 03-09-2010, 10:07 PM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 25,464
The precise law will be different in each state, but I believe that in most cases it will hinge on whether the threatened person reasonably believes that the threat will be carried out.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-09-2010, 11:02 PM
pravnik pravnik is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: TX
Posts: 13,331
Texas:


Quote:
§ 22.07. TERRORISTIC THREAT. (a) A person commits an
offense if he threatens to commit any offense involving violence to
any person or property with intent to:
(1) cause a reaction of any type to his threat by an
official or volunteer agency organized to deal with emergencies;
(2) place any person in fear of imminent serious
bodily injury;
(3) prevent or interrupt the occupation or use of a
building, room, place of assembly, place to which the public has
access, place of employment or occupation, aircraft, automobile, or
other form of conveyance, or other public place;
(4) cause impairment or interruption of public
communications, public transportation, public water, gas, or power
supply or other public service;
(5) place the public or a substantial group of the
public in fear of serious bodily injury; or
(6) influence the conduct or activities of a branch or
agency of the federal government, the state, or a political
subdivision of the state.
(b) An offense under Subsection (a)(1) is a Class B
misdemeanor.
(c) An offense under Subsection (a)(2) is a Class B
misdemeanor, except that the offense is a Class A misdemeanor if the
offense:
(1) is committed against a member of the person's
family or household or otherwise constitutes family violence; or
(2) is committed against a public servant.
(d) An offense under Subsection (a)(3) is a Class A
misdemeanor, unless the actor causes pecuniary loss of $1,500 or
more to the owner of the building, room, place, or conveyance, in
which event the offense is a state jail felony.
(e) An offense under Subsection (a)(4), (a)(5), or (a)(6) is
a felony of the third degree.
(f) In this section:
(1) "Family" has the meaning assigned by Section
71.003, Family Code.
(2) "Family violence" has the meaning assigned by
Section 71.004, Family Code.
(3) "Household" has the meaning assigned by Section
71.005, Family Code.
(g) For purposes of Subsection (d), the amount of pecuniary
loss is the amount of economic loss suffered by the owner of the
building, room, place, or conveyance as a result of the prevention
or interruption of the occupation or use of the building, room,
place, or conveyance.
Or:

Quote:
§ 42.072. STALKING. (a) A person commits an offense if
the person, on more than one occasion and pursuant to the same
scheme or course of conduct that is directed specifically at
another person, knowingly engages in conduct, including following
the other person, that:
(1) the actor knows or reasonably believes the other
person will regard as threatening:
(A) bodily injury or death for the other person;
(B) bodily injury or death for a member of the
other person's family or household; or
(C) that an offense will be committed against the
other person's property;
(2) causes the other person or a member of the other
person's family or household to be placed in fear of bodily injury
or death or fear that an offense will be committed against the other
person's property; and
(3) would cause a reasonable person to fear:
(A) bodily injury or death for himself or
herself;
(B) bodily injury or death for a member of the
person's family or household; or
(C) that an offense will be committed against the
person's property.
(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the third
degree, except that the offense is a felony of the second degree if
the actor has previously been convicted under this section.
(c) In this section, "family," "household," and "member of a
household" have the meanings assigned by Chapter 71, Family Code.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-10-2010, 12:25 AM
The Second Stone The Second Stone is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2008
Threatening someone is the crime of assault and the tort of assault. The tort of assault is a civil matter. Supposedly this requires putting someone in immediate fear of harm, but a judge and jury would probably count phone calls and letters as within the definition and be upheld by a modern appellate court.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03-10-2010, 02:07 AM
Northern Piper Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The Glitter Palace
Posts: 16,688
It appears to be a federal crime in the United States.

For example, in December, a well-known neo-Nazi was convicted on four counts of threatening individuals, as summarised here: Virginia Neo-Nazi Convicted on Threat Charges:

Quote:
A Roanoke, Virginia, man has been convicted in U.S. District Court on four counts of threatening and intimidating people located in the United States and Canada.

On December 18, 2009, a jury convicted neo-Nazi leader Bill White, 32, on charges relating to threatening or intimidating four individuals. Specifically, White was found to have threatened a Citibank employee in Kansas City, Missouri; intimidated tenants in a Virginia Beach, Virginia, apartment complex, in an attempt to scare them from testifying in a housing discrimination case; threatened a University of Delaware administrator; and threatened a Canadian human rights attorney.
And, the jury is currently deliberating in a federal District Court in New Jersey, where a radio show "shock jock" is facing charges of threatening three federal judges in Chicago: U.S. Judges Testify in a Death Threat Case.

Quote:
The witness — Richard A. Posner, one of the most prolific members of the federal judiciary and a judge in the federal appeals court in Chicago — kicked off a highly unusual day in United States District Court in Brooklyn. He and three other sitting judges from the same court in Chicago were prosecution witnesses.

Their appearances created a stir on the second day of the second trial of Harold C. Turner, the incendiary Internet broadcaster, known as Hal, who is charged with making death threats against Judge Posner, Judge William J. Bauer and Judge Frank H. Easterbrook, after they upheld a handgun ban in Chicago.

The three judges appeared one after the other to discuss their reactions to a blog written by Mr. Turner in June, which said “these judges deserve to be killed” and included their photos and work addresses. “If they are allowed to get away with this by surviving, other judges will act the same way,” he wrote.

Judge Posner testified, “It’s obviously a threat.”
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 03-10-2010, 05:46 AM
BwanaBob BwanaBob is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New York & Maryland
Posts: 3,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by acsenray View Post
The precise law will be different in each state, but I believe that in most cases it will hinge on whether the threatened person reasonably believes that the threat will be carried out.
I've asked this before with no reasonable response. What if the threat is conditional and "reasonable"? For instance, someone may have been menacing your child. You say, "If I see you touch my child again, I will beat you up.

AFAIC, this should be perfectly legal to say.

However, saying, "If you wear a blue shirt, I will beat you up" shouldn't be legal.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 03-10-2010, 06:01 AM
flurb flurb is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
It appears to be a federal crime in the United States.
Simple assault is not a federal crime, but certain circumstances can involve federal jurisdiction. Threats against the federal judiciary, for instance.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 03-10-2010, 06:23 AM
Wakinyan Wakinyan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
It is illegal in Sweden too, to threaten somebody. As far as I know, as of recently, it is illegal to indirectly threaten somebody in some circumstances; for instance, if a couple of guys from Hells Angels put on their vests and ring somebody's door bell and says that so-and-so wants the money you owe him, it is a considered a threat. If the same guys leaves the vests at home, it is not.

Last edited by Wakinyan; 03-10-2010 at 06:24 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 03-10-2010, 07:09 AM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 25,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by BwanaBob View Post
I've asked this before with no reasonable response. What if the threat is conditional and "reasonable"? For instance, someone may have been menacing your child. You say, "If I see you touch my child again, I will beat you up.

AFAIC, this should be perfectly legal to say.

However, saying, "If you wear a blue shirt, I will beat you up" shouldn't be legal.
I don't see the difference here. In both cases you're threatening someone with an illegal act.

You can threaten something legal - "I'll call thecops" or " I'll sue"
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 03-10-2010, 07:42 AM
boytyperanma boytyperanma is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by BwanaBob View Post
I've asked this before with no reasonable response. What if the threat is conditional and "reasonable"? For instance, someone may have been menacing your child. You say, "If I see you touch my child again, I will beat you up.

AFAIC, this should be perfectly legal to say.

However, saying, "If you wear a blue shirt, I will beat you up" shouldn't be legal.
We have a court system that involves juries and judges to determine these legalities.

If you can convince a jury saying 'If I see you touch my child again, I will beat you up.' is a reasonable thing to say it is not a crime.

If a prosecutor can convince the jury saying "If you wear a blue shirt, I will beat you up" is a crime you will be sentenced for it.

Someone on this board explained very simply 'law is not an algebraic equation.' If you do x the result is not always y. Our trial by peers determines what the results of x will be on a case by case basis.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 03-10-2010, 08:08 AM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 25,464
That's a pretty serious misunderstanding of the jury system.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 03-10-2010, 09:24 AM
FalconFinder FalconFinder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
I was threatened by a total psycho that they were going to turn me "into ground beef".

I went to the local police to file a report because I really felt the guy doing the threatening meant what he said.

He's well known to the police and no one in the town likes the guy, but because I wasn't related to him, or sleeping with him, I had no recourse.

I had checked the laws at the time for Order of Protection and it is true that I was not eligible for said Order. I was furious. If someone threatens my life and it appears to be serious enough to scare the crap out of a person, one should be able to get protection!!

The police could do nothing but take my statement. According to what I was told, he had to actually do something to me physically in order for them to do anything.

This is in Illinois and a year ago, by the way.

Last edited by FalconFinder; 03-10-2010 at 09:25 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 03-10-2010, 09:33 AM
BwanaBob BwanaBob is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New York & Maryland
Posts: 3,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by acsenray View Post
I don't see the difference here. In both cases you're threatening someone with an illegal act.

You can threaten something legal - "I'll call thecops" or " I'll sue"
I see a big difference.
In one instance I'm trying to dissuade someone from doing something they are not legally allowed to do.

In the other case, I have no right to force someone to not wear a particular garment, so at threat in that instance is obviously inappropriate.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 03-10-2010, 09:35 AM
BwanaBob BwanaBob is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New York & Maryland
Posts: 3,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by FalconFinder View Post
I was threatened by a total psycho that they were going to turn me "into ground beef".

I went to the local police to file a report because I really felt the guy doing the threatening meant what he said.

He's well known to the police and no one in the town likes the guy, but because I wasn't related to him, or sleeping with him, I had no recourse.

I had checked the laws at the time for Order of Protection and it is true that I was not eligible for said Order. I was furious. If someone threatens my life and it appears to be serious enough to scare the crap out of a person, one should be able to get protection!!

The police could do nothing but take my statement. According to what I was told, he had to actually do something to me physically in order for them to do anything.

This is in Illinois and a year ago, by the way.
So the bully is legally allowed to put you in a state of fear - but if you dared counter threaten by saying something like - lay a finger on me and I'll club you - oh dear - you're the criminal. What horseshit the law can be sometimes.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 03-10-2010, 10:01 AM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 25,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by BwanaBob View Post
I see a big difference.
In one instance I'm trying to dissuade someone from doing something they are not legally allowed to do.

In the other case, I have no right to force someone to not wear a particular garment, so at threat in that instance is obviously inappropriate.
Assuming that "menacing a kid" is something illegal (which isn't clear to me at all), In both cases you're threatening battery, which is illegal.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 03-10-2010, 10:33 AM
Darth Panda Darth Panda is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by FalconFinder View Post
I was threatened by a total psycho that they were going to turn me "into ground beef".

I went to the local police to file a report because I really felt the guy doing the threatening meant what he said.

He's well known to the police and no one in the town likes the guy, but because I wasn't related to him, or sleeping with him, I had no recourse.

I had checked the laws at the time for Order of Protection and it is true that I was not eligible for said Order. I was furious. If someone threatens my life and it appears to be serious enough to scare the crap out of a person, one should be able to get protection!!

The police could do nothing but take my statement. According to what I was told, he had to actually do something to me physically in order for them to do anything.

This is in Illinois and a year ago, by the way.
Cops are not attorneys. You should always seek legal advice from attorneys - not cops (and not random people on the web).

Illinois criminal code:

(720 ILCS 5/12‑1) (from Ch. 38, par. 12‑1)
Sec. 12‑1. Assault.
(a) A person commits an assault when, without lawful authority, he engages in conduct which places another in reasonable apprehension of receiving a battery.

Oregon criminal code:

163.190 Menacing. (1) A person commits the crime of menacing if by word or conduct the person intentionally attempts to place another person in fear of imminent serious physical injury.

(2) Menacing is a Class A misdemeanor. [1971 c.743 §95]

911 operators are also not attorneys.

As to threatening people who mess with your kid:

Juries are meant to determine questions of fact, not law. The law may be worded in a way that makes determining whether it was reasonable at the time to threaten someone if they menace your child - in this case the jury could decide that question of fact. However, this is an unlikely scenario - typically, this would be a question of law, to be determined by a judge. More likely, you could attempt a defense of duress in the situation, but you would have to convince a jury that you thought your child was in imminent danger. The law typically tries to avoid encouraging vigilante justice or the threat thereof, as it is anathema to the law itslef - so it really isn't on your side when you do something illegal for a good reason.

I am not a licensed attorney and this is not legal advice.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 03-10-2010, 10:46 AM
Elendil's Heir Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: At the Diogenes Club
Posts: 45,310
Very good points, Darth Panda. I agree.

FalconFinder's problems may have stemmed from him (or her?) seeking a protection order under the law of whatever state he lives in. All states permit any person to file a criminal complaint or police report; not all states allow non-relatives or non-household members to seek a protection order.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 03-10-2010, 10:51 AM
TerpBE TerpBE is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by susan View Post
In Oregon, someone in a car threatened to mow me down. I called 911, who told me that this was not illegal.
I think the legality is partially dependent on whether or not you are a lawn.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 03-10-2010, 11:12 AM
md2000 md2000 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Panda View Post
Juries are meant to determine questions of fact, not law. The law may be worded in a way that makes determining whether it was reasonable at the time to threaten someone if they menace your child - in this case the jury could decide that question of fact. However, this is an unlikely scenario - typically, this would be a question of law, to be determined by a judge. More likely, you could attempt a defense of duress in the situation, but you would have to convince a jury that you thought your child was in imminent danger. The law typically tries to avoid encouraging vigilante justice or the threat thereof, as it is anathema to the law itslef - so it really isn't on your side when you do something illegal for a good reason.

I am not a licensed attorney and this is not legal advice.
IANAL either, but a jury can decide anything it wants to for whatever reasons it wants to (which is a whole new thread). They also do not give detailed reasons for their decisions. When you do something that is likely against the law and serious enough to involve the legal system, you run the risk that anything may happen. At the end of it, you could be free, you could be in jail. If it's serious enough, most likely you will be broke.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 03-10-2010, 11:41 AM
Darth Panda Darth Panda is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
A jury can return any verdict for any reason, but if they blatantly disregard the law then the judge has some options.

It's much simpler in a civil case, where the judge can simply enter a judgment not withstanding the verdict - which is basically a judgment as a matter of law. This is the simplest way of dealing with juries who want to deal with issues of law rather than fact.

Criminal cases are more difficult for various reasons. If the jury wants to convict someone when the law indicates otherwise, the judge can order a directed verdict. Obviously, state criminal procedure varies wildly, but a judge could grant a motion to set aside the judgment or even raise one sua sponte if the jury overstepped its role.

However, the most important role the judge plays is simply explaining to the jury that their role is that of fact finder, and not one of making the law. In fact, juries are clearly limited in their role - they cannot convict people of crimes that they weren't charged with and they can't convict someone of a crime but dictate that the crime should be a misdemeanor instead of a felony and so forth. They don't decide the law.

If only it were that simple...

At first, John Jay stated "It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision... you [juries] have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy".

And the 4th circuit had this to say in US v. Moylan:

"If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the right to acquit, and the courts must abide that decision."

But in Sparf v. US, the Supreme Court ruled that the courts have no obligation to inform the jury of their right of nullification (they never do, and they usually lead them to believe that they are only fact finders). The 2nd circuit has ruled that a juror may be removed if the court feels that he or she intends to nullify the law (US v. Thomas).

But all of this is to find someone not guily or acquit - a jury can't change the law for a conviction - the judge can direct an acquital - and the judge can completely take over in a civil case. Of course, if it's in equity, you don't even need a jury. And if at law and in equity, we get to talk about the Dairy Queen doctrine, which is beautifully complicated...

Last edited by Darth Panda; 03-10-2010 at 11:43 AM.. Reason: spelling/inserted quotes
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 03-10-2010, 03:11 PM
Teacake Teacake is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: London
Posts: 1,244
The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 section 4, which I was forced to quote at school only the other day when a parent asked me what harm her (14 year old) son had done by repeatedly threatening to fuck me up.

UK, obviously.

Last edited by Teacake; 03-10-2010 at 03:12 PM.. Reason: Rearranged the sentence I have
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 03-10-2010, 03:36 PM
sweeteviljesus sweeteviljesus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
In my CHL classes in Texas, we learned that the threat of deadly force was justified only when the actual use of deadly force would be justified.

Rob
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 03-11-2010, 08:12 PM
FalconFinder FalconFinder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elendil's Heir View Post
Very good points, Darth Panda. I agree.

FalconFinder's problems may have stemmed from him (or her?) seeking a protection order under the law of whatever state he lives in. All states permit any person to file a criminal complaint or police report; not all states allow non-relatives or non-household members to seek a protection order.
Just to clarify, I'm a she.

If I understand Darth Panda right, I should have skipped the police and contacted lawyer? The cops are there to uphold the law. They are the first line of defense and people are going to go to them for help.

Regardless, the guy could have easily killed me and nothing could have been done to protect me. I find that totally insane.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 03-11-2010, 09:18 PM
Acsenray Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 25,464
You don't know thatnothing can be done to help you until you've consulted a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.