by Jack Lee
Is it free speech or dangerous threats? When does one cross the line with a threat and the police begin to investigate? Given the adversarial climate we live in its probably good to know the answer.
Starting at the top, the Secret Service is obliged to investigate all threats, including veiled threats, to the President, the Vice President or to whomever the president shall deem is in need of their protective service. If you were to yell at the President, “Some day I’m going to kill you you rotten SOB!” This is a direct threat and subject to investigation. If you yell, “Some day I’m going to load my pistol and when I do I’ll be thinkin of you!” This is an indirect or veiled threat, but both are subject to investigation. Number one will get you busted. Number two could get you busted if there are extenuating circumstances, i.e., you’re a member of an organization known for violence and/or you have made similar statements before.
In all cases law enforcement uses basically the same litmus test to determine if they have a real threat or not. This means threats must be weighed against the prudent man rule, and this calls for the question, would an average person feel threatened by this threat and the circumstances surrounding it? For instance, the person stating the threat is confined to a wheel chair and has no ability and no opportunity to actually follow through with the threat. The prudent man rule would say okay, lets move on, we’ve just got another crackpot. But, if there is an ability and opportunity, then you (law enforcement) have to weigh that threat in a different light and act accordingly.
As a former criminal investigator and knowing many other investigators, some in high places such as Secret Service and the FBI, I can assure you that a fair number of threats are nothing more than setups. They were threats falsely reported or staged for some desired effect by the alleged victim to meet their own hidden agenda.
Motives for such cases might be political revenge, sympathy, derailing someone’s career, political aspirations or just self promotion. This type of threat more often manifests itself in an accusation (he said she said), but sometimes it comes in the form of terrorist type of threat.
Recently we read about the female professor who claimed she was attacked and her car was vandalized by someone with anti-Islamic feelings. It turned out she did it; the motives in that case were somewhat obscure but it is believed she was trying to evoke sympathy for people of Arabic ancestry. Let’s say, a cross is burned in a black candidates lawn and suddenly he is the benefactor of a lot of medial attention. We have civil rights leaders come to town and protest racism. He suddenly gains a lot of sympathy and his opponent may even be seen in less than favorable terms now…but the investigation leads to the victim being the suspect. It happens folks, but it’s not always made public because even though the police may be confident they have solved the case they are denied prosecution because they lack a preponderance of evidence to convince the jury. Now this was just a made up example of course, but you might be surprised to know things like this do happen.
You should also know that states require different levels of proof and what might be an illegal threat in one state is not necessarily illegal in all states. Maryland for instance pushes the limits of the 1st amendment and almost no threat is ever prosecuted. The logic behind this is to allow people to blow off steam and make poorly-thought out statements made in anger without having to be punished every time.
Email threats are common, so common they often go unchallenged. But, don’t count on that if you send a veiled threat to the President. Other agencies may lack the technical expertise or manpower to follow-up on email threats, even though email is relatively easy to trace.
Terroristic threats are defined by Title 22 of the United States Code, Section 2656f(d). In California Section 422 states in abbreviated form: Any person who willfully threatened to commit a crime that will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, with the specific intent that the statement is to be taken as a threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out, which, on it’s face and under the circumstances in which it is made is so unconditional and immediate that it causes the person to fear for their own safety or immediate family’s safety. So you see in California we take threats more seriously than other states.
Be careful out here and play nice.