I have been reading this thread for a long time as I am hoping to build my
own airplane when I retire in 18 months.
There have been numerous times that I felt compelled to stick my nose, or
opinion, into a thread but I didn't have a dog in the fight. By in large I
have enjoyed the banter and I have learned quite a bit "lurking" as you all
say. This thread however, got to me. I hate to have my first post probably
be my last but "pac plyer" hit the nail on the head.
I have been a police officer for 29 years and I still marvel at the
lengthens people will go to when someone hurts their feelings. It almost
sounds like kids sometimes, "Mommy, he pushed me"!
In Indiana we have a law called intimidation.
IC 35-45-2-1
Intimidation
Sec. 1. (a) A person who communicates a threat to another person, with
the intent:
(1) that the other person engage in conduct against the other
person's will;
(2) that the other person be placed in fear of retaliation for a
prior lawful act; or
(3) of causing:
(A) a dwelling, a building, or another structure; or
(B) a vehicle;
to be evacuated;
commits intimidation, a Class A misdemeanor.
(b) However, the offense is a:
(1) Class D felony if:
(A) the threat is to commit a forcible felony;
(B) the person to whom the threat is communicated:
(i) is a law enforcement officer;
(ii) is a judge or bailiff of any court;
(iii) is a witness (or the spouse or child of a witness) in
any pending criminal proceeding against the person making the threat; or
(iv) is an employee of a school corporation;
(C) the person has a prior unrelated conviction for an offense
under this section concerning the same victim; or
(D) the threat is communicated using property, including
electronic equipment or systems, of a school corporation or other
governmental entity; and
(2) Class C felony if, while committing it, the person draws or uses
a deadly weapon.
(c) "Threat" means an expression, by words or action, of an intention
to:
(1) unlawfully injure the person threatened or another person, or
damage property;
(2) unlawfully subject a person to physical confinement or
restraint;
(3) commit a crime;
(4) unlawfully withhold official action, or cause such withholding;
(5) unlawfully withhold testimony or information with respect to
another person's legal claim or defense, except for a reasonable claim for
witness fees or expenses;
(6) expose the person threatened to hatred, contempt, disgrace, or
ridicule;
(7) falsely harm the credit or business reputation of the person
threatened; or
(8) cause the evacuation of a dwelling, a building, another
structure, or a vehicle.
I have seen conduct less threatening result in a warrant or protective order
issued by the court.
Something else I have learned during my career is that sometimes if you just
leave it alone it will go away. If you respond, read stir it, it just smells
worse. In harassing communications complainants you would be surprised at
the number of people that actually respond to the persons harassing them.
That's exactly what they want and what blows their skirt up. I bet that
sentence set off an alarm or two.
Lastly, I am trying very hard to be a Christian but I fail everyday. One
should lead by example thru their actions, not by words.
Please realize what a great thing we have here in RAH and be considerate of
others and just let some of the petty stuff roll off. Let it go Jim, show
them your class as you did in your apology.
Signed, Old Cop
"pac plyer" wrote in message
om...
"anon" sniveled like a coward and wrote:
Tell me exactly how that button could be construed as threatnening?
(did you even bother to follow the link & look at it?)
pac sez:
Yes I did. Did you even bother to read the entire thread, you
anonymous wonder of Usenet? Was it in fact: "threatnening" (sic) as
you slurred?
Jim Weir was upset by it, and I agree that sending a jibe concerning
lethal force in the middle of a disagreement is mean spirited and
intended to intimidate. Now tell me exactly why you post short
unsophisticated tripe such as this that adds nothing to the subject.
pacplyer - out
|