Kansas court strikes down part of law criminalizing threats

[Disir]

TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — Kansas legislators went too far by criminalizing violent language not backed up by an intent to act, the state’s highest court ruled Friday in striking down part of a law that it says violates free speech rights.

The Kansas Supreme Court kept in place portions of the 2010 law banning “true threats” but struck down the provision making it a felony for someone to be “reckless” in using threatening language that makes others afraid, even if the person making the comments doesn’t intend violence.

The justices said that part of the law is so broad that it might apply to the speech of political protesters, violating the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The court said the state still can prosecute people who intentionally threaten of violence.
Kansas court strikes down part of law criminalizing threats

And there goes that law. So, when is I will kill you and burn down your property to be taken seriously?

 

[Crepitus]

TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — Kansas legislators went too far by criminalizing violent language not backed up by an intent to act, the state’s highest court ruled Friday in striking down part of a law that it says violates free speech rights.

The Kansas Supreme Court kept in place portions of the 2010 law banning “true threats” but struck down the provision making it a felony for someone to be “reckless” in using threatening language that makes others afraid, even if the person making the comments doesn’t intend violence.

The justices said that part of the law is so broad that it might apply to the speech of political protesters, violating the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The court said the state still can prosecute people who intentionally threaten of violence.
Kansas court strikes down part of law criminalizing threats

And there goes that law. So, when is I will kill you and burn down your property to be taken seriously?

The problem here is how do you determine intent?

 

[Disir]

TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — Kansas legislators went too far by criminalizing violent language not backed up by an intent to act, the state’s highest court ruled Friday in striking down part of a law that it says violates free speech rights.

The Kansas Supreme Court kept in place portions of the 2010 law banning “true threats” but struck down the provision making it a felony for someone to be “reckless” in using threatening language that makes others afraid, even if the person making the comments doesn’t intend violence.

The justices said that part of the law is so broad that it might apply to the speech of political protesters, violating the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The court said the state still can prosecute people who intentionally threaten of violence.
Kansas court strikes down part of law criminalizing threats

And there goes that law. So, when is I will kill you and burn down your property to be taken seriously?

The problem here is how do you determine intent?

The same as you would in a domestic violence case. The same as you would before a school shooting, no?

 

[Crepitus]

TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — Kansas legislators went too far by criminalizing violent language not backed up by an intent to act, the state’s highest court ruled Friday in striking down part of a law that it says violates free speech rights.

The Kansas Supreme Court kept in place portions of the 2010 law banning “true threats” but struck down the provision making it a felony for someone to be “reckless” in using threatening language that makes others afraid, even if the person making the comments doesn’t intend violence.

The justices said that part of the law is so broad that it might apply to the speech of political protesters, violating the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The court said the state still can prosecute people who intentionally threaten of violence.
Kansas court strikes down part of law criminalizing threats

And there goes that law. So, when is I will kill you and burn down your property to be taken seriously?

The problem here is how do you determine intent?

The same as you would in a domestic violence case. The same as you would before a school shooting, no?

Apparently not.

 

[Pete7469]

TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — Kansas legislators went too far by criminalizing violent language not backed up by an intent to act, the state’s highest court ruled Friday in striking down part of a law that it says violates free speech rights.

The Kansas Supreme Court kept in place portions of the 2010 law banning “true threats” but struck down the provision making it a felony for someone to be “reckless” in using threatening language that makes others afraid, even if the person making the comments doesn’t intend violence.

The justices said that part of the law is so broad that it might apply to the speech of political protesters, violating the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The court said the state still can prosecute people who intentionally threaten of violence.
Kansas court strikes down part of law criminalizing threats

And there goes that law. So, when is I will kill you and burn down your property to be taken seriously?

When you're caught with a can of fuel outside the victim's house.

 

[Disir]

TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — Kansas legislators went too far by criminalizing violent language not backed up by an intent to act, the state’s highest court ruled Friday in striking down part of a law that it says violates free speech rights.

The Kansas Supreme Court kept in place portions of the 2010 law banning “true threats” but struck down the provision making it a felony for someone to be “reckless” in using threatening language that makes others afraid, even if the person making the comments doesn’t intend violence.

The justices said that part of the law is so broad that it might apply to the speech of political protesters, violating the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The court said the state still can prosecute people who intentionally threaten of violence.
Kansas court strikes down part of law criminalizing threats

And there goes that law. So, when is I will kill you and burn down your property to be taken seriously?

The problem here is how do you determine intent?

The same as you would in a domestic violence case. The same as you would before a school shooting, no?

Apparently not.

Pattern of behavior in domestic violence one would think.

Out of luck for the school shooting. And definitely if you were looking at identifying a mass shooter.

 

[Disir]

TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — Kansas legislators went too far by criminalizing violent language not backed up by an intent to act, the state’s highest court ruled Friday in striking down part of a law that it says violates free speech rights.

The Kansas Supreme Court kept in place portions of the 2010 law banning “true threats” but struck down the provision making it a felony for someone to be “reckless” in using threatening language that makes others afraid, even if the person making the comments doesn’t intend violence.

The justices said that part of the law is so broad that it might apply to the speech of political protesters, violating the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The court said the state still can prosecute people who intentionally threaten of violence.
Kansas court strikes down part of law criminalizing threats

And there goes that law. So, when is I will kill you and burn down your property to be taken seriously?

When you're caught with a can of fuel outside the victim's house.

Too late.

 

[RodISHI]

TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — Kansas legislators went too far by criminalizing violent language not backed up by an intent to act, the state’s highest court ruled Friday in striking down part of a law that it says violates free speech rights.

The Kansas Supreme Court kept in place portions of the 2010 law banning “true threats” but struck down the provision making it a felony for someone to be “reckless” in using threatening language that makes others afraid, even if the person making the comments doesn’t intend violence.

The justices said that part of the law is so broad that it might apply to the speech of political protesters, violating the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The court said the state still can prosecute people who intentionally threaten of violence.
Kansas court strikes down part of law criminalizing threats

And there goes that law. So, when is I will kill you and burn down your property to be taken seriously?

When son was nineteen he'd pissed off some other nineteen year old that called at 3 AM demanding I wake son up and get him on the phone. This little creep started telling me he was going to blow up my house and all sorts of whacked out crap. After listening to him for a few minutes and was asking him calmly what his problem for I could determine if it was worth waking son up the creep just got more intense in his threats. Finally Rod was up too and I told this little creep, "I'll tell you what. You come on down and I'll put on a pot of coffee and go wake *** up and we can all calmly discuss your issues." That invitation was repeated several times and his threats continued until he finally gave u and hung up the phone.

About three months later we were working to get several trailers unloaded and son says, "Hey mom I bet I could get *** down here to help unload trailers if I offer to pay him fifteen dollars an hour". I told son, "Oh yeah excellent idea". We are pretty sure this lil creep had trashed our little pickup son had been driving when it broke down one night on his way home from work. Son had just caught a ride and wad going to take big truck and trailer to get it in morning. He found the pickup totally vandalized next morning. Anyhow lil creep jumped at the chance to make some money.

Son told him "Let's go see mom before we get started and make sure she wants you to work for her". Once at the porch the guy that worked for me, my fifteen year old nephew, Rod and son all surrounded the guy and son yelled for me to come out. I went out and walked around the lil creep reminding him of all those threats he made to me in the middle of the night months before and then turned and went back into the house. Rod told the guy since he was so inclined to fight someone here he could choose any one of them to do that with including the fifteen year old nephew who was much smaller in stature than creep. The guy bolted and took off running. Son said, "You should have seen him mom. I would have not believe it if I hadn't seen it myself. He jumped clear across the ditch" (at least 20 feet where banks are very steep from small creek).

Are all threats credible? I don't think so some people are total chicken shits when it comes to the actual task. The next day the town cop inquired about the ordeal. He said *** ******* was throwing up and shaking and sweating like nothing he'd ever seen. He wanted to know what happen and asked son, "What did you do to him?" Son replied, "No one laid a finger on him" and that was that. Cop knew the creep was a local Meth head before son knew that. That little creep still goes around today telling people we pulled a gun on him yet no guns on the property back then.

 

[RodISHI]

TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — Kansas legislators went too far by criminalizing violent language not backed up by an intent to act, the state’s highest court ruled Friday in striking down part of a law that it says violates free speech rights.

The Kansas Supreme Court kept in place portions of the 2010 law banning “true threats” but struck down the provision making it a felony for someone to be “reckless” in using threatening language that makes others afraid, even if the person making the comments doesn’t intend violence.

The justices said that part of the law is so broad that it might apply to the speech of political protesters, violating the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The court said the state still can prosecute people who intentionally threaten of violence.
Kansas court strikes down part of law criminalizing threats

And there goes that law. So, when is I will kill you and burn down your property to be taken seriously?

The problem here is how do you determine intent?

The same as you would in a domestic violence case. The same as you would before a school shooting, no?

Apparently not.

Pattern of behavior in domestic violence one would think.

Out of luck for the school shooting. And definitely if you were looking at identifying a mass shooter.

They know the patterns of true violent criminal generally.

 

[Pete7469]

When you're caught with a can of fuel outside the victim's house.

Too late.

There are a lot of nuances and circumstances. "Threats" or someone talking out of their ass, statements taken out of context or made while drunk should not have someone in prison.

If someone lacks the capacity to do any harm, can you actually take their threats seriously?

.

 

[Moonglow]

TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — Kansas legislators went too far by criminalizing violent language not backed up by an intent to act, the state’s highest court ruled Friday in striking down part of a law that it says violates free speech rights.

The Kansas Supreme Court kept in place portions of the 2010 law banning “true threats” but struck down the provision making it a felony for someone to be “reckless” in using threatening language that makes others afraid, even if the person making the comments doesn’t intend violence.

The justices said that part of the law is so broad that it might apply to the speech of political protesters, violating the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The court said the state still can prosecute people who intentionally threaten of violence.
Kansas court strikes down part of law criminalizing threats

And there goes that law. So, when is I will kill you and burn down your property to be taken seriously?

The problem here is how do you determine intent?

The same as you would in a domestic violence case. The same as you would before a school shooting, no?

Kansas stopped sending cops to domestic spats also..

 

[Disir]

TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — Kansas legislators went too far by criminalizing violent language not backed up by an intent to act, the state’s highest court ruled Friday in striking down part of a law that it says violates free speech rights.

The Kansas Supreme Court kept in place portions of the 2010 law banning “true threats” but struck down the provision making it a felony for someone to be “reckless” in using threatening language that makes others afraid, even if the person making the comments doesn’t intend violence.

The justices said that part of the law is so broad that it might apply to the speech of political protesters, violating the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The court said the state still can prosecute people who intentionally threaten of violence.
Kansas court strikes down part of law criminalizing threats

And there goes that law. So, when is I will kill you and burn down your property to be taken seriously?

The problem here is how do you determine intent?

The same as you would in a domestic violence case. The same as you would before a school shooting, no?

Apparently not.

Pattern of behavior in domestic violence one would think.

Out of luck for the school shooting. And definitely if you were looking at identifying a mass shooter.

They know the patterns of true violent criminal generally.

Yep. But, when you have the victim in court saying that's what families do to each other then you have a whole different can of worms.

 

[RodISHI]

The problem here is how do you determine intent?

The same as you would in a domestic violence case. The same as you would before a school shooting, no?

Apparently not.

Pattern of behavior in domestic violence one would think.

Out of luck for the school shooting. And definitely if you were looking at identifying a mass shooter.

They know the patterns of true violent criminal generally.

Yep. But, when you have the victim in court saying that's what families do to each other then you have a whole different can of worms.

Agreed but that is where we should have people with common sense in positions to deal with situations where violence can come into play. This guy Rod knew growing up locally was charged with beating up his live in. Fact was she beat him into a pulp and then would called the cops on him. She had been charged previously with violence and he had not but again both were druggies. He wasn't a violent type but both were addicts. I've also seen cops fully ignore when a guy beats a woman up when the guy should have been hauled in. People can be a mess at times but laws can also be abused.

Mom knew a very petite gal that wrapped her drunken husband in a bed sheet and beat him with a cast iron pan til he was bruised all over. Mom said he treated her like a queen after that and never laid a hand on her again but today she may be the one charged for taking matters into her own hands on a deal like that.

 

[Disir]

The same as you would in a domestic violence case. The same as you would before a school shooting, no?

Apparently not.

Pattern of behavior in domestic violence one would think.

Out of luck for the school shooting. And definitely if you were looking at identifying a mass shooter.

They know the patterns of true violent criminal generally.

Yep. But, when you have the victim in court saying that's what families do to each other then you have a whole different can of worms.

Agreed but that is where we should have people with common sense in positions to deal with situations where violence can come into play. This guy Rod knew growing up locally was charged with beating up his live in. Fact was she beat him into a pulp and then would called the cops on him. She had been charged previously with violence and he had not but again both were druggies. He wasn't a violent type but both were addicts. I've also seen cops fully ignore when a guy beats a woman up when the guy should have been hauled in. People can be a mess at times but laws can also be abused.

Mom knew a very petite gal that wrapped her drunken husband in a bed sheet and beat him with a cast iron pan til he was bruised all over. Mom said he treated her like a queen after that and never laid a hand on her again but today she may be the one charged for taking matters into her own hands on a deal like that.

It is common sense.

Yes, there are nitwits out there that abuse the situation, lie etc. The answer can't be a victim saying.........I just want to teach you a lesson for a little while.

That's deadly.

 

[Ringel05]

TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — Kansas legislators went too far by criminalizing violent language not backed up by an intent to act, the state’s highest court ruled Friday in striking down part of a law that it says violates free speech rights.

The Kansas Supreme Court kept in place portions of the 2010 law banning “true threats” but struck down the provision making it a felony for someone to be “reckless” in using threatening language that makes others afraid, even if the person making the comments doesn’t intend violence.

The justices said that part of the law is so broad that it might apply to the speech of political protesters, violating the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The court said the state still can prosecute people who intentionally threaten of violence.
Kansas court strikes down part of law criminalizing threats

And there goes that law. So, when is I will kill you and burn down your property to be taken seriously?

The problem here is how do you determine intent?

The same as you would in a domestic violence case. The same as you would before a school shooting, no?

There are distinct differences between those and this "threatening language" aspect of the law. With the former two it's generally much easier to determine intent by associated evidence, former documented abuse for the first, definitive (provable pre-planning) evidence of the second.
With threatening language on the other hand intent would be almost impossible to determine in 99.9% of all cases.
Our laws are set up primarily the deal with actions after the fact, "guaranteed security" is one of the things we give up for the freedoms we enjoy.

 

[Disir]

TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — Kansas legislators went too far by criminalizing violent language not backed up by an intent to act, the state’s highest court ruled Friday in striking down part of a law that it says violates free speech rights.

The Kansas Supreme Court kept in place portions of the 2010 law banning “true threats” but struck down the provision making it a felony for someone to be “reckless” in using threatening language that makes others afraid, even if the person making the comments doesn’t intend violence.

The justices said that part of the law is so broad that it might apply to the speech of political protesters, violating the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The court said the state still can prosecute people who intentionally threaten of violence.
Kansas court strikes down part of law criminalizing threats

And there goes that law. So, when is I will kill you and burn down your property to be taken seriously?

The problem here is how do you determine intent?

The same as you would in a domestic violence case. The same as you would before a school shooting, no?

There are distinct differences between those and this "threatening language" aspect of the law. With the former two it's generally much easier to determine intent by associated evidence, former documented abuse for the first, definitive (provable pre-planning) evidence of the second.
With threatening language on the other hand intent would be almost impossible to determine in 99.9% of all cases.
Our laws are set up primarily the deal with actions after the fact, "guaranteed security" is one of the things we give up for the freedoms we enjoy.

Getting people to walk in the door to leave a paper trail is difficult. What we essentially did is give up the luxury of playing vigilante.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — Kansas legislators went too far by criminalizing violent language not backed up by an intent to act, the state’s highest court ruled Friday in striking down part of a law that it says violates free speech rights.

The Kansas Supreme Court kept in place portions of the 2010 law banning “true threats” but struck down the provision making it a felony for someone to be “reckless” in using threatening language that makes others afraid, even if the person making the comments doesn’t intend violence.

The justices said that part of the law is so broad that it might apply to the speech of political protesters, violating the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The court said the state still can prosecute people who intentionally threaten of violence.
Kansas court strikes down part of law criminalizing threats

And there goes that law. So, when is I will kill you and burn down your property to be taken seriously?

When speech advocates for imminent violence or lawlessness.

R. A. V. v. City of St. Paul (1992) is an example of hate speech entitled to Constitutional protections.

Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993) is an example of hate speech not entitled to Constitutional protections.