When do threats become "threats"?

[BwanaBob]

Inspired by Hulk Hogan’s rant about going O.J. on his wife.

At what point does a threat become real?

For instance, say you have a neighbor who is nasty to children. Would one get in trouble with a conditional threat such as “If I ever see you physically touch my child I will kill you on the spot.” I think this sort of statement should be allowable, versus an unconditional or guaranteed threat such as “The next time I see you I will beat you to a pulp”.

I’m not planning any threats but I’m still curious as to what I can safely say.

[Indistinguishable]

Why should it be more allowable just because it has a condition in it? It seems just as sincere (if anything, moreso) a declaration of criminally violent intent.

[Bijou_Drains]

I guess it depends on the laws in your state and also whether the DA thinks you should be prosecuted for it.

[BwanaBob]

Maybe my example was too vague.
Use the same nasty neighbor. The statement is “If I ever catch you breaking into my house I will shoot you.”

The neighbor is in full control here. If he never breaks in, he has nothing to fear.
That is what I feel distinguishes this “threat” from one with no conditions.
The neighbor has no right to feel safe while breaking into my home. I want him to have the fear of god put in him with regards to peforming criminal acts on my property. Why is this not justified? Wouldn’t a policeman just laugh if he calls them and says “My neighbor says he’ll kill me if I break into his house”. My response would be “Don’t break in”.

[Indistinguishable]

Well, as a matter of law, you generally don’t have the right to kill someone just for physically touching your child or breaking into your house. Sure, this only comes into effect after they commit an initial unwarranted transgression, but your subsequently murdering them remains, as well, a further criminal act. It’s not open season on all infractions.

(I’m not saying this implies anything about whether your “threats” would be legal or not. I’m just saying it casts aspersions on your reasoning that they should be)

[Nametag]

IANAL, but I think I remember that threats are only illegal when they arise to the level of assault – that is, when they would convey to a reasonable person an immediate fear of bodily harm. Thus, conditional threats are OK, as are statements concerning a distant future (“one of these days”). For example, a case in California identified the following elements of “criminal threat”:

•willful threat of a crime which would result in great bodily injury;
•specific intent that the statement be taken as a threat, whether or not the perpetrator intended to carry it out;
•the threat, under the circumstances, conveyed a “gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat”;
•the threat actually caused the person threatened to be in sustained fear; and
•the threatened person’s fear was reasonable under the circumstances.

[BwanaBob]

Of course I can’t kill the neighbor without impunity.

The concept here is to put fear into the neighbor so that he would never choose to commit a crime against me.

Sounds like Nametag’s info is answering my question.

[Indistinguishable]

Sure, that’s what you hope to accomplish with the threat. Why would that intent bolster the legality of your actions (in making the threat), though?

[BwanaBob]

But it looks like in California, I could make such statements to keep menacing bad neighbors at bay (assuming they believe I’d carry out my “threat”).

[Indistinguishable]

How do you conclude that? It seems to me plausible that your making such a threat could satisfy all the conditions Nametag gives for criminality. Where do you think you would get off?

[BwanaBob]

The overall idea is to put the fear back where it belongs - with the criminal.
I would find it refreshing that there would be something I could legally say to a potential criminal that would really make him take pause from committing a crime.

Stuff like “I’ll call the cops on you” is laughable. Promising bodily harm sounds right.

[BwanaBob]

@Indistinguishable

How do you conclude that? It seems to me plausible that your making such a threat could satisfy all the conditions Nametag gives for criminality. Where do you think you would get off?

Maybe I’m reading his list wrong; I assumed you had to meet all the conditions to be illegal. Since my threat is conditional, there is no “immediate” threat.

[ClintPhoenix]

I remember when studying torts there was a case somewhat on point - I guess it was involving the tort of assault, but I don’t remember too well and it’s not my field - Anyway, a guy with a sword gets into an argument with another guy with a sword and says “if it were not assize-time*, I’d run you through!” The other guy sues him in assault. I’m not going to get into what is assault for the purpose of torts, but it can be made out by a threat. In this case the court determined that this was not a threat, because the condition preceding the threat wasn’t true - it was assizes time, so the guy was in fact saying that he would not stab the other guy.

*assize-time was, iirc, when the courts were in session. They used to only be open for certain periods of the year.

[ClintPhoenix]

On re-reading, I realize that I didn’t explicitly connect the test from that case (I think it is Wilk’s case) to the question [and I missed the edit window]. The test taken from that case is that for a threat to be an assault, the words must advance a present intention to cause harm. This supports your feeling about what constitutes a threat. It’s likely that the “next time I see you, I’m gonna pummel you” would also qualify, as the intent is unconditional.

[ClintPhoenix]

I keep thinking of things too late. Sheesh.

I just want to add that I’m not giving you advice here, I just wanted to tell the story of this very old English case that seemed to be related. The criminal law in your jurisdiction would supercede the ancient common law. So please, don’t sue me if you get charged with making threats. Enough disclaimer?

[hobscrk777]

@BwanaBob

The overall idea is to put the fear back where it belongs - with the criminal.
I would find it refreshing that there would be something I could legally say to a potential criminal that would really make him take pause from committing a crime.

Forgive me, but I laughed out loud at this. You seem to have a lot of bluster to let out. In another post you talked about putting the “fear of god” into your neighbor to dissuade him from breaking into your home. Now you want to issue a stern lecture to a would-be-criminal?

Words are just words. I don’t doubt that you may discourage some criminals by making overt threats, but what have you got to prove you’ll follow through? I doubt anyone who is discouraged from committing a crime against you (or anyone else shooting off threats) is going to walk away trembling in their boots unless weapons are brandished or some degree of violence is initiated. In the case of these latter two possibilities, however, the situation becomes vastly different from a legal standpoint.

[Gfactor]

It gets complicated:

The defendant is charged [in Count ] with assault
committed by a conditional threat to use force.
To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime, the People must
prove that:

1. The defendant willfully threatened to use force on another
   person unless that person immediately did an act that the
   defendant demanded;
2. The defendant intended to use force immediately to compel
   the other person to do the act;
3. The defendant had no right to demand that the other
   person do the act;
4. When the defendant made the threat, (he/she) had the
   present ability to use force on the other person;
   [AND]
5. The defendant placed (himself/herself) in a position to
   compel performance of the act (he/she) demanded and took
   all steps necessary to carry out (his/her) intention(;/.)

Site Has Moved

An assault by conditional threat requires a present threat to commit violence or force upon the victim unless the victim immediately does an act that the defendant has no right to command, while the defendant has an intent and present ability to carry out the threat.

People v. Sorrell (Cal. Ct. App 2008), unpublished.

In Moore v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 95 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 531, 505 A.2d 1366 (1986), appeal denied, 516 Pa. 619, 531 A.2d 1121 (1987), the board recommitted the petitioner because he sent threatening letters and made threatening telephone calls while on parole. The petitioner in Moore contended that the letters and telephone calls constituted mere threats, and not “assaultive behavior,” because he never acted on those threats.

This court determined that “assaultive behavior” included “a willful offer with force or violence to do hurt to another.” Moore, 95 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. at 535 n. 4, 505 A.2d at 1367 n. 4. Moreover, in affirming the board’s recommittal order, this court stated that:

We fail to see how petitioner's conduct could be defined as anything but assaultive in nature. The letters and telephone calls contain repeated statements that the victim was going to be slashed, mutilated, and brutally raped. Such conduct  would clearly evoke a reasonable apprehension of bodily harm in any individual. Whether or not the conduct would fall into  the definition of "assault" under the Crimes Code is not definitive of the issue herein involved. (Emphasis added.)

Moore, 95 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. at 535, 505 A.2d at 1367.

On the other hand, the court in General Machine Corp. v. Feldman, 352 Pa.Superior Ct. 180, 507 A.2d 831 (1986), determined that a conditional threat of violence did not constitute an “assault.” In that case, an attorney refused to return a client’s file and made physical threats to the client if he attempted to recover the file. The client then brought suit against the attorney for assault, and the court stated that:

The court below dismissed this count noting that [the attorney's] threatening words alone were insufficient to  place [the client] in reasonable apprehension of physical injury or offensive touching. After careful review of this matter, we agree with the trial court that the alleged threat here was conditional and thus did not reflect a present purpose to do harm. According to our supreme court's decision in Cucinotti v. Ortmann, "HN6Go to this Headnote in the case.threatening words alone are insufficient to put a person into reasonable apprehension of physical injury of offensive touching; rather, the actor must be in a position to carry out threats immediately and must take some affirmative action to do so."

General Machine, 352 Pa.Superior Ct. at 185, 507 A.2d at 833-34. (Citations omitted.)

Although Dunkleberger’s statement may be considered a conditional threat under the general definition of “assault,” we conclude that his statement fits HN7Go to this Headnote in the case.the “assaultive behavior” definition under § 37.4(5)(iii) because his statement constituted “a willful offer with force or violence to do hurt to another.” Moore.

Unlike in General Machine, where the outcome of the conditional threat depended upon the client’s action to recover his file, Dunkleberger stated that he would kill Reber if anything happened to their unborn child. Thus, according to the statement, events beyond Reber’s control could have triggered violence from Dunkleberger.

Dunkleberger v. Commonwealth, 132 Pa. Commw. 600; 573 A.2d 1173; 1990 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 247 (1990)

In our view, the evidence is factually sufficient both to prove a threat of imminent harm and to establish the machete was a deadly weapon. Appellant mistakenly equates a conditional threat with a future threat. The fact that the threat is conditional does not keep it from being imminent. See Green v. Sate, 567 S.W.2d 211, 213 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (conditional threat, “If you don’t give me the money, I’m going to cave your head in,” sufficient to prove threat of [*6] imminent bodily injury); Garcia v. State, 819 S.W.2d 634, 636 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1991, no pet.) (conditional threat, “I’m going to get you if you don’t come out,” coupled with defendant holding shotgun, was sufficient to prove threat of imminent bodily injury). According to the evidence, when appellant threatened Franklin he was in a highly emotional, agitated state, and held the machete in the air in a menacing manner. He was in close proximity to Franklin because the two were in the same room, and appellant had the apparent means to carry through on his threat. On the basis of the evidence, the jury could conclude any reasonable person would feel themselves to be in imminent danger of death or serous bodily injury under similar circumstances. A threatened injury is “imminent” if it is “near at hand” or “on the verge of happening.” Devine v. State, 786 S.W.2d 268, 270, (Tex. Crim. App. 1989); Hill v. State, 844 S.W.2d 937, 938 (Tex. App.-Eastland 1992, no pet.). There was ample evidence from which the jury could conclude this was the case here.

Money v. State, 2001 Tex. App. LEXIS 2

The plaintiff claimed that the defendant committed an assault when in June of 1971, she went to see him and tried to get him to get an annulment, he said “If you take me to court, I will kill you.”; and again in October, 1971, after she had filed the instant suit on September 29, 1971, when he went to her apartment and beat on the door, tried to pry it open, and said again, “If you take me to court, I will kill you.” (The complaint was amended to include this act.) The defendant claims this in no way can constitute an assault, because it was merely a conditional threat of violence and because no overt act was involved. In order to safeguard freedom from apprehension of harm or offensive conduct, the law provides an individual with a remedy at law. See Prosser, Law of Torts, page 37 (4th Ed. 1971).

An assault consists of " . . . an intentional, unlawful, offer to touch the person of another in a rude or angry manner under such circumstances as to create in the mind of the party alleging the assault a well-founded fear of an imminent battery, coupled with the apparent present ability to effectuate the attempt, if not prevented." Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Hill, 25 Ala.App. 540, 542, 150 So. 709, 710 (1933).

While words standing alone cannot constitute an assault, they may give meaning to an act and both, taken together, may constitute an assault. Prosser, supra (2nd Ed. 1955). In addition, words may negative an act in a manner that apprehension in such a case would be unreasonable. “On the other hand, a show of force accompanied by an unlawful or unjustifiable demand, compliance with which will avert the threatened battery, is an assault.” 1 Harper & James, The Law of Torts, page 223 (1956). " . . . the defendant is not free to compel the plaintiff to buy his safety by compliance with a condition which there is no legal right to impose." Prosser, supra, page 40 (4th Ed. 1971). It is obvious that the defendant in the instant case had no right to impose the condition he did on the plaintiff; and we cannot say that this condition explained away his threat to harm her.

The defendant says his conduct cannot constitute an assault because there was no overt action taken by him. The evidence from the plaintiff was that the defendant was pounding on her door making every effort to get into the apartment, and threatening to kill her if she persisted in “taking him to court.” We cannot say, as a matter of law, that this was not sufficient to arouse an apprehension of harm or offensive conduct. We think it was a jury question, as was the question of whether the defendant had the apparent ability to effectuate the threatened act.

Holcombe v. Whitaker, 294 Ala. 430; 318 So. 2d 289; 1975 Ala. LEXIS 1221 (Ala. 1975)

[BwanaBob]

@hobscrk777

Forgive me, but I laughed out loud at this. You seem to have a lot of bluster to let out. In another post you talked about putting the “fear of god” into your neighbor to dissuade him from breaking into your home. Now you want to issue a stern lecture to a would-be-criminal?

Words are just words. I don’t doubt that you may discourage some criminals by making overt threats, but what have you got to prove you’ll follow through? I doubt anyone who is discouraged from committing a crime against you (or anyone else shooting off threats) is going to walk away trembling in their boots unless weapons are brandished or some degree of violence is initiated. In the case of these latter two possibilities, however, the situation becomes vastly different from a legal standpoint.

Glad you were amused. All of this is hypothetical (I have nice neighbors).

I have heard of many instances of bullying and I wondered to what level words could be used as a counterweapon. You may have a scrawny kid who get picked on. If said kid tells a threatening bully, “If you ever touch me again, I’ll pay a bigger kid to break your arm.” This meets the conditional clause outlined by others and the condition is one a person has a right to make (“don’t touch me”).
Such a threat might give a bully pause; question is does the bully have legal leg to stand on and claim he was threatened.

[ParentalAdvisory]

I don’t see how saying you understand something is some how a threat. I understand school shootings, but I’m not going to shoot up a school.

[Uncommon_Sense]

@BwanaBob

Maybe I’m reading his list wrong; I assumed you had to meet all the conditions to be illegal. Since my threat is conditional, there is no “immediate” threat.

Kinda like placing a sign in your window that reads “House Protected by Smith and Wesson” with picture of a .45 revolver underneath the wording. How is that any different from the verbal threat? Assuming the sign is in plain view of the neighbor.