Six Words That Can Get You Jailed

[Certaindeaf]

Just look at how much the PTB already mess with our First amendment rights! many have been jailed for not even saying that same kind of thing in person, but online just like this forum. Using text, digital text, to jail someone. Regardless to me is a First amendment abridgement. Even in person my god! how many have said similar? Sorry but as a Patriot and someone who knows what's going on.... I'm not going to just jump on the ban wagon. For liberty is too important. And yes letting someone say something stupid like that and not reporting him/her would be that..... Liberty.
Maybe next time just keep driving instead of a snitch.

How much did you get fined? lol

 

[PaulB47]

should have learned to mind their own business

Yeah, that's the other thing. Something worth keeping in mind as we go about our business.

Don't snitch.

Yet another great point.

Laissez-faire, folks. Leave people alone.

 

[0GRE]

I was surprised, after reading through the posts, that no one cited actual Oregon law to clarify when speech leaves the realm of Constitutional protection and becomes criminal. According to the events eliduc described, the Klamath County detective was most likely investigating eliduc having been the victim of the crime of Menacing (ORS 163.190).

(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]

In general, the key phrases in that offense are "intentionally attempts," "imminent," and "serious physical injury." Law enforcement and prosecutors must make a case to show a suspect/defendant tried to place someone else in fear for their own safety. In eliduc's case, both the male's words and female's conduct read as fitting the definition of Menacing. Someone dancing with a sword in public (as a form of self-expression) may be committing some form of criminal offense but, without intent to place someone else in fear for his/her safety, that crime would not be Menacing. "Imminent" means immediately so it doesn't count if the armed individual is either five states away or says, "I'm going to shoot you two weeks from now." Oregon law defines "serious physical injury" in ORS 161.015 as:

(8) Serious physical injury means physical injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious and protracted disfigurement, protracted impairment of health or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ.

I know this is an absurd example but it would be much harder to argue the case for Menacing if the pair had been holding ostrich feathers instead of firearms.

There are a few other finer points that play into an air-tight prosecution of Menacing but I think talking more about them would take us off into the weeds to split hairs.

--------

Fun fact:

The only other time speech, by itself, can be criminal in Oregon is described in Disorderly Conduct in the 1st Degree:

(1) A person commits the crime of disorderly conduct in the first degree if, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or knowingly creating a risk thereof, the person initiates or circulates a report, knowing it to be false:

(a) Concerning an alleged hazardous substance or an alleged or impending fire, explosion, catastrophe or other emergency; AND

(b) Stating that the hazardous substance, fire, explosion, catastrophe or other emergency is located in or upon a school as defined in ORS 339.315 ...

 

[WinstonSmith]

you are forgetting something VERY serious here.... re-read that Second Article of Ammendment. It clearly places the burden of "the security of a free state" on the shoulders of... not military, law enforcement, government, militia.... but of THE PEOPLE... we who comprise the militia. In other words, "the security of a free state" is OUR BUSINESS. The reason we are in the mess we presently find is that we, the people, have abdicated that rsponsibility to others.... and thus the level of security has fallen to the point where many are harmed on a regular basis in places where such harm was unthinkable fifty, an hundred years ago..

This man who saw a dangerous situation compromising "the security of a free state" (other motorists could easily have been harmed by these two apparently careless numbskulls, shooting from and along the road right of way. He took the responsibilityu assigned us for "the security of a free state", and took appropriate action. Hsts off to this man. I wish a few hundred thousand more citizens would take a similar view toward our collective responsibility to preserve "the security of a free state". We'd ALL be a lot safer. Just think... had that neighbour in San Bernardino spoken up BEFORE the jihadi shootem up that killed nearly three dozen, none might have been killed or harmed..... or if ONE of those at that church in the Carolinas had taken "the security of a free state" upon himself, it is likely at least eight of those people would yet be alive.

Very well said...

MYOB sounds a little too much like "look the other way and don't stick your neck out" in far too many of the these posts.

I can't say what I would have done in this situation, no one here can - because they weren't there.

Brightest move in the world? Maybe, maybe not. The OP may or may not have done the smartest thing, but he had enough ballz to do what HE thought was the right thing at the time.

 

[csa_ap_hill]

How much did you get fined? lol

never have. just saying it's getting way to easy to say threat and get someone into trouble. 99% of the time most people don't' really mean it especially online people serving 7 years felony for lame arsed remarks. stupid yeah; especially after something happened but still in my opinion should be protected speech until they go to act on it. especially if statements are really ambiguous statements, because, one has to exist before the other and if that don't exist then the other can't or more likely wont happen. I'm sure the guy would not have actually done so especially on a older guy. Then since he got out of the way and left then no big deal.
One guy lately is under investigation just because he made statements online, and I read them and even though they could imply violent intent they don't' actually say he is or was going to he just said he think they should have this happen. Or some other case I read recently where the guy didn't even threaten violence just said he'd do some none violent peaceful protests, but said he knew their address, but still did not imply any violence.
I just say people get too babyish and need to just let certain things go. Especially since any more people are using political agendas to get people into trouble.

 

[csa_ap_hill]

I was surprised, after reading through the posts, that no one cited actual Oregon law to clarify when speech leaves the realm of Constitutional protection and becomes criminal. According to the events eliduc described, the Klamath County detective was most likely investigating eliduc having been the victim of the crime of Menacing (ORS 163.190).

(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]

In general, the key phrases in that offense are "intentionally attempts," "imminent," and "serious physical injury." Law enforcement and prosecutors must make a case to show a suspect/defendant tried to place someone else in fear for their own safety. In eliduc's case, both the male's words and female's conduct read as fitting the definition of Menacing. Someone dancing with a sword in public (as a form of self-expression) may be committing some form of criminal offense but, without intent to place someone else in fear for his/her safety, that crime would not be Menacing. "Imminent" means immediately so it doesn't count if the armed individual is either five states away or says, "I'm going to shoot you two weeks from now." Oregon law defines "serious physical injury" in ORS 161.015 as:

(8) Serious physical injury means physical injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious and protracted disfigurement, protracted impairment of health or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ.

I know this is an absurd example but it would be much harder to argue the case for Menacing if the pair had been holding ostrich feathers instead of firearms.

There are a few other finer points that play into an air-tight prosecution of Menacing but I think talking more about them would take us off into the weeds to split hairs.

--------

Fun fact:

The only other time speech, by itself, can be criminal in Oregon is described in Disorderly Conduct in the 1st Degree:

(1) A person commits the crime of disorderly conduct in the first degree if, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or knowingly creating a risk thereof, the person initiates or circulates a report, knowing it to be false:

(a) Concerning an alleged hazardous substance or an alleged or impending fire, explosion, catastrophe or other emergency; AND

(b) Stating that the hazardous substance, fire, explosion, catastrophe or other emergency is located in or upon a school as defined in ORS 339.315 ...

That's actually pretty interesting to know. kind of sounds like even if charged the guy would only get a misdemeanor and or a small fine then. but mainly sounds like nothing much would be done.

 

[0GRE]

That's actually pretty interesting to know. kind of sounds like even if charged the guy would only get a misdemeanor and or a small fine then. but mainly sounds like nothing much would be done.

Yup, actions speak louder than words. Therefore, actual physical violence is punished more strictly than face-to-face verbal threats accompanied by weapons. However, I would wager a Klamath County court would deal out a stiffer penalty for a misdemeanor conviction involving a firearm than any court in Multnomah County.

 

[PiratePast40]

Interesting that so many here are willing to look the other way if they're not directly affected. Yet, the same people will belch out their rambling rants about how ranchers starting a backfire, after meeting with the sheriff and fire chief, should be held to the same standard as Taliban in GITMO.

It's no wonder that our 2A rights are being eroded when these supposed 2A advocates won't lift a hand when they're not specifically targeted.

 

[cascadianliberty2012]

I find it pathetic that not even TV-14 language is permitted on this site, especially when taken in the context of a quotation, as opposed to insults.

 

[csa_ap_hill]

you mean like bastardized Govt?

 

[PaulB47]

Yet, the same people will belch out their rambling rants about how ranchers starting a backfire, after meeting with the sheriff and fire chief, should be held to the same standard as Taliban in GITMO.

What makes you think it's the same people? My guess it's exactly the opposite.

 

[csa_ap_hill]

What makes you think it's the same people? My guess it's exactly the opposite.

You haven't been to some of the sites I've been then. People calling themselves patriots and or Conservatives will depending on the issue will applaud Govt. One or two I've seen just on this have on other topics stated they were against our liberties being taken, but then applaud here.
I try vey hard not to be a hypocrite, and not naming names, but liberty is all inclusive not just our gun rights. Notice that quote isn't form me either.
But my point is, I've been on many a site where on one story so called Patriots were all pro second amendment, but let the topic change and that same person will be all they deserve it or something. Deeper though needs to be done by people before they reply, or just go along with the status quoe.

 

[PaulB47]

OK, I see your point. It's true. I have sometimes told people I could never be a conservative, because conservatives love government far too much for my taste.

 

[csa_ap_hill]

that's why I have this: lol

 

[csa_ap_hill]

lol yep the truth. which is why I liked Ron Paul, and or Rand, but he's out now.

 

[Law of Self Defense]

Would adding I think or my opinion negate any of the liability?

Such as: In my opinion you should leave before someone gets an bubblegum kicking...


Or: I think If I were you then Id leave real fast before getting my bubblegum kicked...

If the person against whom the remark was directed reasonably perceived a threat of imminent harm, it's assault. If they reasonably perceived a threat of death or grave bodily injury and/or a threat involving a weapon capable of causing death or grave bodily injury, it's aggravated assault.

Worth keeping in mind for those of us who CCW. If you threaten someone with your sidearm, you've committed aggravated assault--and presumably seeking to justify the conduct as self-defense. Nevertheless, if you're charged, aggravated assault is likely to be the charge. Aggravated assault is good for 10 to 15 in most states, sometimes longer if the state has firearm sentencing enhancements and you use your concealed handgun.

Pulling that smoke stick carries serious potential consequences. Pays to make sure you have a good reason.

 

[Joe13]

If the person against whom the remark was directed reasonably perceived a threat of imminent harm, it's assault. If they reasonably perceived a threat of death or grave bodily injury and/or a threat involving a weapon capable of causing death or grave bodily injury, it's aggravated assault.

Worth keeping in mind for those of us who CCW. If you threaten someone with your sidearm, you've committed aggravated assault--and presumably seeking to justify the conduct as self-defense. Nevertheless, if you're charged, aggravated assault is likely to be the charge. Aggravated assault is good for 10 to 15 in most states, sometimes longer if the state has firearm sentencing enhancements and you use your concealed handgun.

Pulling that smoke stick carries serious potential consequences. Pays to make sure you have a good reason.

Great points.

I'm not sure if I am old school or what but my gun and knife are the last things I think about in any confrontation. Thankfully so because brandishing or using a weapon to avoid a fight is asking for trouble as you said.

If I ever have to defend a life, mine or someone near me, then the gloves come off so to speak and they will be bleading before they know I've pulled a weapon to defend myself - otherwise I'm game to brawl if it's some drunk punk feeling his oats as my grandpa would say.

While I'm willing to fight, my history has shown that I will do just about anything to avoid the fight to start with. @6'1" and 250+ I can intimidate without brandishing or threatening which has kept me out of my many possible altercations. That and I don't bar crawl so I'm not faced with belligerent people very often.

I was just curious of loop holes, I.e. You can't call a LEO an A-hole (something about verbal abuse) but you can say I think your acting like an A-hole (if your inclined to make your situation worse lol). At least that was my understanding.




Side note sort of - you can be charged with a hate crime for calling someone a name reffering to thier ethnicity, race, color, sexual preference etc. BUT the 2 words an American women will go nuclear over, the big B and C words (gawd I hate having to elude to a word but not be able to say it) is perfectly legal. I've had to loose some of my more colorful words and force myself to only fall back on those two and the F & S words to avoid jail time for "free speach".

 

[Martini_Up]

in my youth i was taught martial arts. one of the very first things that was instilled in me is to walk away from fights. with that comes the discipline of shutting your mouth while the idiot in front of you blabbers on.

this mental attitude carried over very well into my young adulthood when I began carrying firearms.

 

[Joe13]

in my youth i was taught martial arts. one of the very first things that was instilled in me is to walk away from fights. with that comes the discipline of shutting your mouth while the idiot in front of you blabbers on.

this mental attitude carried over very well into my young adulthood when I began carrying firearms.

Yea, I think kids should have to have MA training from K-12 mandatory for graduation and taught at public schools IMO.

World might be a better place if everyone #1 had that disapline and #2 you had a good chance of getting your behind kicked if you start crap.

 

[Flopsweat]

So was the guy charged with assault or shooting across a roadway? My guess would be whichever would stick better.