Quote:
|
Originally Posted by unregistered
no
Subdivision 1. Threaten violence; intent to terrorize.
Whoever threatens, directly or indirectly,
to commit any crime of violence with purpose to terrorize
another or . . . . "
That’s all it takes, police officers, on or off duty - not relevant at all
was the intent to terrorize ?
mx6 is dead in the water (he stated that was his intent !)
|
I can understand that the statute says....but what has happened under judicial review? The courts have likely narrowed this very broad wording down to specific instances such as officers on duty etc... The fact is we have a mixed legal system and the reason for lawyers is that the law is never cut and dry. State laws HAVE to hold up in federal courts. State legislatures pass all kinds of laws that are deemed unconstitutional. Or have there scope narrowed to meet Constitutional interpretation. One its face, under your Minnesota statute I could be in violation for threading to spank my kids.
Let’s take the Constitution as an Example
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
On its face this says that NO law can limit speech but the Supreme Court has said under certain very narrow conditions speech may be limited. For example you can not yell "fire in a movie theater"
Alright I'm done...I use to have to explain this same thing to Colonels...if the law was as straight forward as you think it is then you wouldn't need lawyers.