To: cripplecreek
It appears to me that the guy didn't make a direct threat. This is a matter of fact finding. Presumably that lower court determined that this was indeed a threat under the law.
It is my understanding that the findings of fact of lower courts are not subject to judicial review.
Therefore, without reading the appellate opinion, I have to believe that it was not based on finding that the language was NOT a threat, but on some other flimsy, legalistic grounds.
To: John Valentine
You may be right but I'm just looking at the bare minimum of facts that are available.
46 posted on
04/08/2005 5:20:23 PM PDT by
cripplecreek
(I'm apathetic but really don't care.)
To: John Valentine
This is a matter of fact finding. Presumably that lower court determined that this was indeed a threat under the law.
Legally, the only way a threat can be proven under the law, if it wasn't made directly (example: "I am going to kill you"), would be for the prosecution to prove that the accused had some ability to make the threat a reality. In this case, the guy stating his joy that Al Queda is going to kill Bush doesn't qualify as a direct threat (unless he's an Al Queda operative). Without that, the prosecution would have to show that he could somehow influence Al Queda's ability or willingness to kill the president.
The guy's a slimeball, but the judgement is probably correct.
To: John Valentine
These are the same guys who said the website showing abortionists still in practice, or who died, or who had retired was, in fact, a threat!
63 posted on
04/08/2005 6:39:10 PM PDT by
muawiyah
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson