|
thunder wrote: On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 11:18:47 -0700, atl_man2 wrote: I just KNEW I'd have to explain it ad nauseum to YOU!! The charge!!!! The CHARGE!!! It is a charge that is NOT a state law, BUT IS a Federal charge under the DHS. Jeesh......like trying to get a cat to understand the theory of relativity. Sorry, but many states have a "Terroristic Threat" Law. Most are related to terrorizing a person, and predate Homeland Security. New Jersey's is typical: Terroristic threats 2C:12-3. Terroristic threats a. A person is guilty of a crime of the third degree if he threatens to commit any crime of violence with purpose to terrorize another or to cause evacuation of a building, place of assembly, or facility of public transportation, or otherwise to cause serious public inconvenience, or in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience. b. A person is guilty of a crime of the third degree if he threatens to kill another with purpose to put him in imminent fear of death under circumstances reasonably causing the victim to believe the immediacy of the threat and the likelihood that it will be carried out. L.1978, c. 95, s. 2C:12-3, eff. Sept. 1, 1979; L.1981, c. 290, s. 15, eff. Sept. 24, 1981. http://www.jfrlaw.com/criminal_statutes/2c123.htm Georgia isn't New Jersey. |
Tim wrote: They were sitting on a small hill by a state hwy. and took a couple of shots at passing cars with a Daisy BB gun! No big deal unless that BB hit you, right? Hell, we used to have BB gun wars on my uncle's farm! |
John Jay wrote: Kevin, I know you know people could be prosecuted for terrorist acts way before their was a Homeland Security Act. What makes you think this crime and the prosecution of this crime has anything to do with the Homeland Security Act? It's simple, try to follow along, okay? The Homeland Security Act simply made it easier to convict persons. Do you HONESTLY think that before the act, that they would arrest a couple of kids sitting on a hill with a damned BB gun shooting at the sides of cars with TERRORISTIC acts? Come on!!!!! You must make liberals cringe whenever you open you mouth. You are an embarrassment to liberals all over the world. And because of your narrow mindedness, you're an embarrassment to yourself! But, the Right Wing Circle Jerk Club will love you for it! |
Larry wrote: On 17 Jun 2005 04:53:32 -0700, wrote: Tim wrote: They were sitting on a small hill by a state hwy. and took a couple of shots at passing cars with a Daisy BB gun! No big deal unless that BB hit you, right? Hell, we used to have BB gun wars on my uncle's farm! Have 2 eyes now? If so, you are lucky. Other's were not. Like I said, kids shooting bb guns has ruined a man's life. It is inexcusable to shoot at passing cars. So, you agree that they should be charged with Terroristic acts???? Hmm, I find it odd that you right wingers are pro gun, except when it comes to something personal. And sure, it's wrong to shoot at passing cars, who said it wasn't? But, I'll tell you this, with a little Daisy, by the time that bb gets to the car, it's going REAL SLOW. Should we outlaw sticks, too? They've been known to take people's eyes out. Hell, maybe even more eyes have been lost to sticks. The Consumer Product Safety Commission estimates that in 2003, there were 550,000 to 600,000 injuries associated with bicycles and 97,640 injuries from skateboards that required emergency room treatment, compared with 19,504 for air guns -- including the high-powered air guns. |
Kevin,
Do you feel silly not understanding Terroristic Threat Laws have been around for years before 9/11? Here is the Georgia Law concerning Terroristic Threats, and the law has been in effect for many many years before the Homeland Security Act. Terroristic Threats in the Official Code of Georgia Section 16-11-37: (a) A person commits the offense of a terroristic threat when he or she threatens to commit any crime of violence, to release any hazardous substance, as such term is defined in Code Section 12-8-92, or to burn or damage property with the purpose of terrorizing another or of causing the evacuation of a building, place of assembly, or facility of public transportation or otherwise causing serious public inconvenience or in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience. No person shall be convicted under this subsection on the uncorroborated testimony of the party to whom the threat is communicated. (b) A person commits the offense of a terroristic act when: (1) He or she uses a burning or flaming cross or other burning or flaming symbol or flambeau with the intent to terrorize another or another's household; (2) While not in the commission of a lawful act, he or she shoots at or throws an object at a conveyance which is being operated or which is occupied by passengers; or (3) He or she releases any hazardous substance or any simulated hazardous substance under the guise of a hazardous substance for the purpose of terrorizing another or of causing the evacuation of a building, place of assembly, or facility of public transportation or otherwise causing serious public inconvenience or in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience. (c) A person convicted of the offense of a terroristic threat shall be punished by a fine of not more than $ 1,000.00 or by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than five years, or both. A person convicted of the offense of a terroristic act shall be punished by a fine of not more than $ 5,000.00 or by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than ten years, or both; provided, however, that if any person suffers a serious physical injury as a direct result of an act giving rise to a conviction under this Code section, the person so convicted shall be punished by a fine of not more than $ 250,000.00 or imprisonment for not less than five nor more than 40 years, or both. (d) A person who commits or attempts to commit a terroristic threat or act with the intent to retaliate against any person for: (1) Attending a judicial or administrative proceeding as a witness, attorney, judge, or party or producing any record, document, or other object in a judicial or official proceeding; or (2) Providing to a law enforcement officer, adult or juvenile probation officer, prosecuting attorney, or judge any information relating to the commission or possible commission of an offense under the laws of this state or of the United States or a violation of conditions of bail, pretrial release, probation, or parole shall be guilty of the offense of a terroristic threat or act and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished, for a terroristic threat, by imprisonment for not less than five nor more than ten years or by a fine of not less than $ 50,000.00, or both, and, for a terroristic act, by imprisonment for not less than five nor more than 20 years or by a fine of not less than $ 100,000.00, or both. wrote in message oups.com... thunder wrote: On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 11:18:47 -0700, atl_man2 wrote: |
wrote in message oups.com... Hell, we used to have BB gun wars on my uncle's farm! Why does that not surprise me? |
Kevin,
Yes they would have arrested anyone who shot at passing cars with any gun, they would have arrested anyone who dropped something off a bridge on passing cars. The law they charge the person with is "Terroristic Threats". They have arrested and charged and people have been found guilty of such crimes for many years. I can remember in the 60's when kids were arrested and charged for Terroristic Threats for dropping pebbles off a bridge onto passing cars. I can also remember a time in the 70's when people were convicted of shooting a BB gun at the LI express. The fact you do not believe the police would charge kids or anyone else for shooting at cars with a BB gun speaks volumes about you. Anyone with a brain are glad the police do not allow kids to shot BB guns at passing cars. wrote in message oups.com... John Jay wrote: Kevin, I know you know people could be prosecuted for terrorist acts way before their was a Homeland Security Act. What makes you think this crime and the prosecution of this crime has anything to do with the Homeland Security Act? It's simple, try to follow along, okay? The Homeland Security Act simply made it easier to convict persons. Do you HONESTLY think that before the act, that they would arrest a couple of kids sitting on a hill with a damned BB gun shooting at the sides of cars with TERRORISTIC acts? Come on!!!!! You must make liberals cringe whenever you open you mouth. You are an embarrassment to liberals all over the world. And because of your narrow mindedness, you're an embarrassment to yourself! But, the Right Wing Circle Jerk Club will love you for it! |
Kevin,
No one is saying you should not be able to own a BB gun. No one is saying you should not be able to pick up a stick. They are saying you should not be able to shot a cars with a BB gun. They are saying you should not be able to hit anyone with stick. While you can be fun to play with, when you make it so easy, and you fail to see the obvious, it can get old. wrote in message oups.com... Larry wrote: On 17 Jun 2005 04:53:32 -0700, wrote: Tim wrote: They were sitting on a small hill by a state hwy. and took a couple of shots at passing cars with a Daisy BB gun! No big deal unless that BB hit you, right? Hell, we used to have BB gun wars on my uncle's farm! Have 2 eyes now? If so, you are lucky. Other's were not. Like I said, kids shooting bb guns has ruined a man's life. It is inexcusable to shoot at passing cars. So, you agree that they should be charged with Terroristic acts???? Hmm, I find it odd that you right wingers are pro gun, except when it comes to something personal. And sure, it's wrong to shoot at passing cars, who said it wasn't? But, I'll tell you this, with a little Daisy, by the time that bb gets to the car, it's going REAL SLOW. Should we outlaw sticks, too? They've been known to take people's eyes out. Hell, maybe even more eyes have been lost to sticks. The Consumer Product Safety Commission estimates that in 2003, there were 550,000 to 600,000 injuries associated with bicycles and 97,640 injuries from skateboards that required emergency room treatment, compared with 19,504 for air guns -- including the high-powered air guns. |
|
wrote in message Whew, you ARE stupid, aren't you? Am I? You're the one who lives in Georgia and thinks Mark Morford is a legitimate commentator. :-) |
Hell, we used to have BB gun wars on my uncle's farm!
Very safe fun, and brilliantly smart. Duh |
Hmm, I find it odd that you right wingers are pro gun, except when it
comes to something personal. When it comes to somthing personal???? I'm deffinately pro-gun. ALL firearms ( that includes BB and pellet OR maybe you exclude those) should be used in a legal, lawful manner. |
On 17 Jun 2005 09:05:35 -0700, "Tim" wrote:
Hell, we used to have BB gun wars on my uncle's farm! Very safe fun, and brilliantly smart. Duh Piffle. Really smart people use bottle rockets. |
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 07:57:35 -0400, HarryKrause wrote:
wrote: Tim wrote: They were sitting on a small hill by a state hwy. and took a couple of shots at passing cars with a Daisy BB gun! No big deal unless that BB hit you, right? Hell, we used to have BB gun wars on my uncle's farm! We used to have blackberry fights on my mother's aunt's farm somewhere near Revere, Massachusetts. That's about all I remember of that place. Harry, it is obvious from remarks you've made that you care a great deal for basskisser, so why don't you tell him to email prospective posts to you for review before he makes a fool of himself? -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
John H wrote: On 17 Jun 2005 05:48:03 -0700, wrote: Larry wrote: On 17 Jun 2005 04:53:32 -0700, wrote: Tim wrote: They were sitting on a small hill by a state hwy. and took a couple of shots at passing cars with a Daisy BB gun! No big deal unless that BB hit you, right? Hell, we used to have BB gun wars on my uncle's farm! Have 2 eyes now? If so, you are lucky. Other's were not. Like I said, kids shooting bb guns has ruined a man's life. It is inexcusable to shoot at passing cars. So, you agree that they should be charged with Terroristic acts???? Hmm, I find it odd that you right wingers are pro gun, except when it comes to something personal. And sure, it's wrong to shoot at passing cars, who said it wasn't? But, I'll tell you this, with a little Daisy, by the time that bb gets to the car, it's going REAL SLOW. Should we outlaw sticks, too? They've been known to take people's eyes out. Hell, maybe even more eyes have been lost to sticks. The Consumer Product Safety Commission estimates that in 2003, there were 550,000 to 600,000 injuries associated with bicycles and 97,640 injuries from skateboards that required emergency room treatment, compared with 19,504 for air guns -- including the high-powered air guns. I know, I shouldn't say anything to you, so I'll be nice. Even if the bb is going 'very' slow, wouldn't the speed of the car still be able to cause the impact to be severe? Did you ever see what a small rock, going very slow, does to the windshield of a car going 60mph? Oh, ****!!!! I spilled my water bottle laughing at that!!! Hmm, that would mean that the kids would have to be in FRONT of the vehicle. If they were behind then the car could be going faster than the bb. Would that make the driver of the CAR guilty of terroristic threats? The law in Georgia specifies terroristic acts. I didn't say "terroristic acts", it's great how you twist things to make it sound like you know what you're talking about. I said "terroristic THREATS". Show me that GA law. Are you asking for agreement/disagreement with the laws of Georgia? Why? So your slam at DHS will make sense? How about just saying, "OK, I made a mistake." -- John H Yes, how about saying just that, John. You made a mistake. |
John H wrote: On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 07:57:35 -0400, HarryKrause wrote: wrote: Tim wrote: They were sitting on a small hill by a state hwy. and took a couple of shots at passing cars with a Daisy BB gun! No big deal unless that BB hit you, right? Hell, we used to have BB gun wars on my uncle's farm! We used to have blackberry fights on my mother's aunt's farm somewhere near Revere, Massachusetts. That's about all I remember of that place. Harry, it is obvious from remarks you've made that you care a great deal for basskisser, so why don't you tell him to email prospective posts to you for review before he makes a fool of himself? -- John H How have I done so, John? You've got "acts" mixed up with "threats", for starters. |
John Jay wrote: Kevin, Yes they would have arrested anyone who shot at passing cars with any gun, they would have arrested anyone who dropped something off a bridge on passing cars. The law they charge the person with is "Terroristic Threats". They have arrested and charged and people have been found guilty of such crimes for many years. I can remember in the 60's when kids were arrested and charged for Terroristic Threats for dropping pebbles off a bridge onto passing cars. I can also remember a time in the 70's when people were convicted of shooting a BB gun at the LI express. Oh, horse****! I lived in those days too, and never heard of such ****. Have any proof? Oh, and please, try to act like you know something, I'm not Kevin. The fact you do not believe the police would charge kids or anyone else for shooting at cars with a BB gun speaks volumes about you. Please show where I ever said such a thing! Quite the opposite. I said that they would charge someone with something, but NOT TERRORISTIC THREATS....please, try to follow.... Anyone with a brain are glad the police do not allow kids to shot BB guns at passing cars. Again, try to follow a train of thought, okay? Where to HELL did I say that kids should "be allowed" to shoot bb guns at passing cars? Oh, and it IS SHOOT, not shot. wrote in message oups.com... John Jay wrote: Kevin, I know you know people could be prosecuted for terrorist acts way before their was a Homeland Security Act. What makes you think this crime and the prosecution of this crime has anything to do with the Homeland Security Act? It's simple, try to follow along, okay? The Homeland Security Act simply made it easier to convict persons. Do you HONESTLY think that before the act, that they would arrest a couple of kids sitting on a hill with a damned BB gun shooting at the sides of cars with TERRORISTIC acts? Come on!!!!! You must make liberals cringe whenever you open you mouth. You are an embarrassment to liberals all over the world. And because of your narrow mindedness, you're an embarrassment to yourself! But, the Right Wing Circle Jerk Club will love you for it! |
wrote in message oups.com... John H wrote: On 17 Jun 2005 05:48:03 -0700, wrote: Larry wrote: On 17 Jun 2005 04:53:32 -0700, wrote: Tim wrote: They were sitting on a small hill by a state hwy. and took a couple of shots at passing cars with a Daisy BB gun! No big deal unless that BB hit you, right? Hell, we used to have BB gun wars on my uncle's farm! Have 2 eyes now? If so, you are lucky. Other's were not. Like I said, kids shooting bb guns has ruined a man's life. It is inexcusable to shoot at passing cars. So, you agree that they should be charged with Terroristic acts???? Hmm, I find it odd that you right wingers are pro gun, except when it comes to something personal. And sure, it's wrong to shoot at passing cars, who said it wasn't? But, I'll tell you this, with a little Daisy, by the time that bb gets to the car, it's going REAL SLOW. Should we outlaw sticks, too? They've been known to take people's eyes out. Hell, maybe even more eyes have been lost to sticks. The Consumer Product Safety Commission estimates that in 2003, there were 550,000 to 600,000 injuries associated with bicycles and 97,640 injuries from skateboards that required emergency room treatment, compared with 19,504 for air guns -- including the high-powered air guns. I know, I shouldn't say anything to you, so I'll be nice. Even if the bb is going 'very' slow, wouldn't the speed of the car still be able to cause the impact to be severe? Did you ever see what a small rock, going very slow, does to the windshield of a car going 60mph? Oh, ****!!!! I spilled my water bottle laughing at that!!! Hmm, that would mean that the kids would have to be in FRONT of the vehicle. If they were behind then the car could be going faster than the bb. Would that make the driver of the CAR guilty of terroristic threats? The law in Georgia specifies terroristic acts. I didn't say "terroristic acts", it's great how you twist things to make it sound like you know what you're talking about. I said "terroristic THREATS". Show me that GA law. No? I guess you don't even know what you initially posted. Here is one sentence from that post of yours: "Now, a couple of young boys in northern GA were arrested for "terroristic acts"." Idiot. Are you asking for agreement/disagreement with the laws of Georgia? Why? So your slam at DHS will make sense? How about just saying, "OK, I made a mistake." -- John H Yes, Good. Time to move on Kevin. |
wrote in message oups.com... John H wrote: On 17 Jun 2005 05:48:03 -0700, wrote: Larry wrote: On 17 Jun 2005 04:53:32 -0700, wrote: Tim wrote: They were sitting on a small hill by a state hwy. and took a couple of shots at passing cars with a Daisy BB gun! No big deal unless that BB hit you, right? Hell, we used to have BB gun wars on my uncle's farm! Have 2 eyes now? If so, you are lucky. Other's were not. Like I said, kids shooting bb guns has ruined a man's life. It is inexcusable to shoot at passing cars. So, you agree that they should be charged with Terroristic acts???? Hmm, I find it odd that you right wingers are pro gun, except when it comes to something personal. And sure, it's wrong to shoot at passing cars, who said it wasn't? But, I'll tell you this, with a little Daisy, by the time that bb gets to the car, it's going REAL SLOW. Should we outlaw sticks, too? They've been known to take people's eyes out. Hell, maybe even more eyes have been lost to sticks. The Consumer Product Safety Commission estimates that in 2003, there were 550,000 to 600,000 injuries associated with bicycles and 97,640 injuries from skateboards that required emergency room treatment, compared with 19,504 for air guns -- including the high-powered air guns. I know, I shouldn't say anything to you, so I'll be nice. Even if the bb is going 'very' slow, wouldn't the speed of the car still be able to cause the impact to be severe? Did you ever see what a small rock, going very slow, does to the windshield of a car going 60mph? Oh, ****!!!! I spilled my water bottle laughing at that!!! Hmm, that would mean that the kids would have to be in FRONT of the vehicle. If they were behind then the car could be going faster than the bb. Would that make the driver of the CAR guilty of terroristic threats? The kid could be on the side of the road in front of the vehicle, on an overpass in front of the vehicle. I had a company car that got hit by a quart bottle of liquid dropped from an overpass and there was major damage to the window frame where it hit. Lucked out that he was a second slow in dropping or it would have come through the windshield. We have had people killed by people rocks dropped off overpasses, as well as snipers have killed people. Is a serious case of terrorism to the drivers when there is a sniper loose. |
Kevin,
You have not heard of many things, you really are the king wrote in message oups.com... John Jay wrote: Kevin, Yes they would have arrested anyone who shot at passing cars with any gun, they would have arrested anyone who dropped something off a bridge on passing cars. The law they charge the person with is "Terroristic Threats". They have arrested and charged and people have been found guilty of such crimes for many years. I can remember in the 60's when kids were arrested and charged for Terroristic Threats for dropping pebbles off a bridge onto passing cars. I can also remember a time in the 70's when people were convicted of shooting a BB gun at the LI express. Oh, horse****! I lived in those days too, and never heard of such ****. Have any proof? Oh, and please, try to act like you know something, I'm not Kevin. The fact you do not believe the police would charge kids or anyone else for shooting at cars with a BB gun speaks volumes about you. Please show where I ever said such a thing! Quite the opposite. I said that they would charge someone with something, but NOT TERRORISTIC THREATS....please, try to follow.... Anyone with a brain are glad the police do not allow kids to shot BB guns at passing cars. Again, try to follow a train of thought, okay? Where to HELL did I say that kids should "be allowed" to shoot bb guns at passing cars? Oh, and it IS SHOOT, not shot. wrote in message oups.com... John Jay wrote: Kevin, I know you know people could be prosecuted for terrorist acts way before their was a Homeland Security Act. What makes you think this crime and the prosecution of this crime has anything to do with the Homeland Security Act? It's simple, try to follow along, okay? The Homeland Security Act simply made it easier to convict persons. Do you HONESTLY think that before the act, that they would arrest a couple of kids sitting on a hill with a damned BB gun shooting at the sides of cars with TERRORISTIC acts? Come on!!!!! You must make liberals cringe whenever you open you mouth. You are an embarrassment to liberals all over the world. And because of your narrow mindedness, you're an embarrassment to yourself! But, the Right Wing Circle Jerk Club will love you for it! |
Here is the law about Terrorist threats: Terroristic Threats in the
Official Code of Georgia Section 16-11-37: (a) A person commits the offense of a terroristic threat when he or she threatens to commit any crime of violence, to release any hazardous substance, as such term is defined in Code Section 12-8-92, or to burn or damage property with the purpose of terrorizing another or of causing the evacuation of a building, place of assembly, or facility of public transportation or otherwise causing serious public inconvenience or in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience. No person shall be convicted under this subsection on the uncorroborated testimony of the party to whom the threat is communicated. (b) A person commits the offense of a terroristic act when: (1) He or she uses a burning or flaming cross or other burning or flaming symbol or flambeau with the intent to terrorize another or another's household; (2) While not in the commission of a lawful act, he or she shoots at or throws an object at a conveyance which is being operated or which is occupied by passengers; or (3) He or she releases any hazardous substance or any simulated hazardous substance under the guise of a hazardous substance for the purpose of terrorizing another or of causing the evacuation of a building, place of assembly, or facility of public transportation or otherwise causing serious public inconvenience or in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience. (c) A person convicted of the offense of a terroristic threat shall be punished by a fine of not more than $ 1,000.00 or by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than five years, or both. A person convicted of the offense of a terroristic act shall be punished by a fine of not more than $ 5,000.00 or by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than ten years, or both; provided, however, that if any person suffers a serious physical injury as a direct result of an act giving rise to a conviction under this Code section, the person so convicted shall be punished by a fine of not more than $ 250,000.00 or imprisonment for not less than five nor more than 40 years, or both. (d) A person who commits or attempts to commit a terroristic threat or act with the intent to retaliate against any person for: (1) Attending a judicial or administrative proceeding as a witness, attorney, judge, or party or producing any record, document, or other object in a judicial or official proceeding; or (2) Providing to a law enforcement officer, adult or juvenile probation officer, prosecuting attorney, or judge any information relating to the commission or possible commission of an offense under the laws of this state or of the United States or a violation of conditions of bail, pretrial release, probation, or parole shall be guilty of the offense of a terroristic threat or act and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished, for a terroristic threat, by imprisonment for not less than five nor more than ten years or by a fine of not less than $ 50,000.00, or both, and, for a terroristic act, by imprisonment for not less than five nor more than 20 years or by a fine of not less than $ 100,000.00, or both. wrote in message oups.com... John H wrote: On 17 Jun 2005 05:48:03 -0700, wrote: Larry wrote: On 17 Jun 2005 04:53:32 -0700, wrote: Tim wrote: They were sitting on a small hill by a state hwy. and took a couple of shots at passing cars with a Daisy BB gun! No big deal unless that BB hit you, right? Hell, we used to have BB gun wars on my uncle's farm! Have 2 eyes now? If so, you are lucky. Other's were not. Like I said, kids shooting bb guns has ruined a man's life. It is inexcusable to shoot at passing cars. So, you agree that they should be charged with Terroristic acts???? Hmm, I find it odd that you right wingers are pro gun, except when it comes to something personal. And sure, it's wrong to shoot at passing cars, who said it wasn't? But, I'll tell you this, with a little Daisy, by the time that bb gets to the car, it's going REAL SLOW. Should we outlaw sticks, too? They've been known to take people's eyes out. Hell, maybe even more eyes have been lost to sticks. The Consumer Product Safety Commission estimates that in 2003, there were 550,000 to 600,000 injuries associated with bicycles and 97,640 injuries from skateboards that required emergency room treatment, compared with 19,504 for air guns -- including the high-powered air guns. I know, I shouldn't say anything to you, so I'll be nice. Even if the bb is going 'very' slow, wouldn't the speed of the car still be able to cause the impact to be severe? Did you ever see what a small rock, going very slow, does to the windshield of a car going 60mph? Oh, ****!!!! I spilled my water bottle laughing at that!!! Hmm, that would mean that the kids would have to be in FRONT of the vehicle. If they were behind then the car could be going faster than the bb. Would that make the driver of the CAR guilty of terroristic threats? The law in Georgia specifies terroristic acts. I didn't say "terroristic acts", it's great how you twist things to make it sound like you know what you're talking about. I said "terroristic THREATS". Show me that GA law. Are you asking for agreement/disagreement with the laws of Georgia? Why? So your slam at DHS will make sense? How about just saying, "OK, I made a mistake." -- John H Yes, how about saying just that, John. You made a mistake. |
*JimH* wrote: wrote in message oups.com... John H wrote: On 17 Jun 2005 05:48:03 -0700, wrote: Larry wrote: On 17 Jun 2005 04:53:32 -0700, wrote: Tim wrote: They were sitting on a small hill by a state hwy. and took a couple of shots at passing cars with a Daisy BB gun! No big deal unless that BB hit you, right? Hell, we used to have BB gun wars on my uncle's farm! Have 2 eyes now? If so, you are lucky. Other's were not. Like I said, kids shooting bb guns has ruined a man's life. It is inexcusable to shoot at passing cars. So, you agree that they should be charged with Terroristic acts???? Hmm, I find it odd that you right wingers are pro gun, except when it comes to something personal. And sure, it's wrong to shoot at passing cars, who said it wasn't? But, I'll tell you this, with a little Daisy, by the time that bb gets to the car, it's going REAL SLOW. Should we outlaw sticks, too? They've been known to take people's eyes out. Hell, maybe even more eyes have been lost to sticks. The Consumer Product Safety Commission estimates that in 2003, there were 550,000 to 600,000 injuries associated with bicycles and 97,640 injuries from skateboards that required emergency room treatment, compared with 19,504 for air guns -- including the high-powered air guns. I know, I shouldn't say anything to you, so I'll be nice. Even if the bb is going 'very' slow, wouldn't the speed of the car still be able to cause the impact to be severe? Did you ever see what a small rock, going very slow, does to the windshield of a car going 60mph? Oh, ****!!!! I spilled my water bottle laughing at that!!! Hmm, that would mean that the kids would have to be in FRONT of the vehicle. If they were behind then the car could be going faster than the bb. Would that make the driver of the CAR guilty of terroristic threats? The law in Georgia specifies terroristic acts. I didn't say "terroristic acts", it's great how you twist things to make it sound like you know what you're talking about. I said "terroristic THREATS". Show me that GA law. No? I guess you don't even know what you initially posted. Here is one sentence from that post of yours: "Now, a couple of young boys in northern GA were arrested for "terroristic acts"." Idiot. Are you asking for agreement/disagreement with the laws of Georgia? Why? So your slam at DHS will make sense? How about just saying, "OK, I made a mistake." -- John H Yes, Good. Time to move on Kevin. Oh, Jim, can you possibly get more childish?? I thought that sort of **** was beneath you, and I was certainly correct in my assumptions that you've reverted back to your childish actions. You should be ashamed of yourself. You deliberately snipped my reply to make it sound like I was admitting something. I thought for awhile that you'd changed, but by doing the above childish actions, you've proven yourself worthy of Fritz's charms. Too bad you don't have the mental capacity to debate something without stooping so damned low. |
John Jay wrote: Kevin, Do you feel silly not understanding Terroristic Threat Laws have been around for years before 9/11? Here is the Georgia Law concerning Terroristic Threats, and the law has been in effect for many many years before the Homeland Security Act. Terroristic Threats in the Official Code of Georgia Section 16-11-37: (a) A person commits the offense of a terroristic threat when he or she threatens to commit any crime of violence, to release any hazardous substance, as such term is defined in Code Section 12-8-92, or to burn or damage property with the purpose of terrorizing another or of causing the evacuation of a building, place of assembly, or facility of public transportation or otherwise causing serious public inconvenience or in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience. No person shall be convicted under this subsection on the uncorroborated testimony of the party to whom the threat is communicated. (b) A person commits the offense of a terroristic act when: (1) He or she uses a burning or flaming cross or other burning or flaming symbol or flambeau with the intent to terrorize another or another's household; (2) While not in the commission of a lawful act, he or she shoots at or throws an object at a conveyance which is being operated or which is occupied by passengers; or (3) He or she releases any hazardous substance or any simulated hazardous substance under the guise of a hazardous substance for the purpose of terrorizing another or of causing the evacuation of a building, place of assembly, or facility of public transportation or otherwise causing serious public inconvenience or in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience. (c) A person convicted of the offense of a terroristic threat shall be punished by a fine of not more than $ 1,000.00 or by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than five years, or both. A person convicted of the offense of a terroristic act shall be punished by a fine of not more than $ 5,000.00 or by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than ten years, or both; provided, however, that if any person suffers a serious physical injury as a direct result of an act giving rise to a conviction under this Code section, the person so convicted shall be punished by a fine of not more than $ 250,000.00 or imprisonment for not less than five nor more than 40 years, or both. (d) A person who commits or attempts to commit a terroristic threat or act with the intent to retaliate against any person for: (1) Attending a judicial or administrative proceeding as a witness, attorney, judge, or party or producing any record, document, or other object in a judicial or official proceeding; or (2) Providing to a law enforcement officer, adult or juvenile probation officer, prosecuting attorney, or judge any information relating to the commission or possible commission of an offense under the laws of this state or of the United States or a violation of conditions of bail, pretrial release, probation, or parole shall be guilty of the offense of a terroristic threat or act and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished, for a terroristic threat, by imprisonment for not less than five nor more than ten years or by a fine of not less than $ 50,000.00, or both, and, for a terroristic act, by imprisonment for not less than five nor more than 20 years or by a fine of not less than $ 100,000.00, or both. Nice try....site? |
John Jay wrote: Kevin, Do you feel silly not understanding Terroristic Threat Laws have been around for years before 9/11? Here is the Georgia Law concerning Terroristic Threats, and the law has been in effect for many many years before the Homeland Security Act. Terroristic Threats in the Official Code of Georgia Section 16-11-37: (a) A person commits the offense of a terroristic threat when he or she threatens to commit any crime of violence, to release any hazardous substance, as such term is defined in Code Section 12-8-92, or to burn or damage property with the purpose of terrorizing another or of causing the evacuation of a building, place of assembly, or facility of public transportation or otherwise causing serious public inconvenience or in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience. No person shall be convicted under this subsection on the uncorroborated testimony of the party to whom the threat is communicated. (b) A person commits the offense of a terroristic act when: (1) He or she uses a burning or flaming cross or other burning or flaming symbol or flambeau with the intent to terrorize another or another's household; (2) While not in the commission of a lawful act, he or she shoots at or throws an object at a conveyance which is being operated or which is occupied by passengers; or (3) He or she releases any hazardous substance or any simulated hazardous substance under the guise of a hazardous substance for the purpose of terrorizing another or of causing the evacuation of a building, place of assembly, or facility of public transportation or otherwise causing serious public inconvenience or in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience. (c) A person convicted of the offense of a terroristic threat shall be punished by a fine of not more than $ 1,000.00 or by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than five years, or both. A person convicted of the offense of a terroristic act shall be punished by a fine of not more than $ 5,000.00 or by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than ten years, or both; provided, however, that if any person suffers a serious physical injury as a direct result of an act giving rise to a conviction under this Code section, the person so convicted shall be punished by a fine of not more than $ 250,000.00 or imprisonment for not less than five nor more than 40 years, or both. (d) A person who commits or attempts to commit a terroristic threat or act with the intent to retaliate against any person for: (1) Attending a judicial or administrative proceeding as a witness, attorney, judge, or party or producing any record, document, or other object in a judicial or official proceeding; or (2) Providing to a law enforcement officer, adult or juvenile probation officer, prosecuting attorney, or judge any information relating to the commission or possible commission of an offense under the laws of this state or of the United States or a violation of conditions of bail, pretrial release, probation, or parole shall be guilty of the offense of a terroristic threat or act and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished, for a terroristic threat, by imprisonment for not less than five nor more than ten years or by a fine of not less than $ 50,000.00, or both, and, for a terroristic act, by imprisonment for not less than five nor more than 20 years or by a fine of not less than $ 100,000.00, or both. Nice try.....cite? |
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 12:46:00 -0400, HarryKrause wrote:
John H wrote: On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 07:57:35 -0400, HarryKrause wrote: wrote: Tim wrote: They were sitting on a small hill by a state hwy. and took a couple of shots at passing cars with a Daisy BB gun! No big deal unless that BB hit you, right? Hell, we used to have BB gun wars on my uncle's farm! We used to have blackberry fights on my mother's aunt's farm somewhere near Revere, Massachusetts. That's about all I remember of that place. Harry, it is obvious from remarks you've made that you care a great deal for basskisser, so why don't you tell him to email prospective posts to you for review before he makes a fool of himself? John: You're a retired officer and therefore I assume you have some expertise with firearms. Why not drive around to the houses of the various Conservatrashers who post here, and show them how to put themselves out of their misery? I don't think you need to take that extreme with beekay. Just show him the error of his ways, in a nice way of course. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
On 17 Jun 2005 10:23:21 -0700, wrote:
John H wrote: On 17 Jun 2005 05:48:03 -0700, wrote: Larry wrote: On 17 Jun 2005 04:53:32 -0700, wrote: Tim wrote: They were sitting on a small hill by a state hwy. and took a couple of shots at passing cars with a Daisy BB gun! No big deal unless that BB hit you, right? Hell, we used to have BB gun wars on my uncle's farm! Have 2 eyes now? If so, you are lucky. Other's were not. Like I said, kids shooting bb guns has ruined a man's life. It is inexcusable to shoot at passing cars. So, you agree that they should be charged with Terroristic acts???? Hmm, I find it odd that you right wingers are pro gun, except when it comes to something personal. And sure, it's wrong to shoot at passing cars, who said it wasn't? But, I'll tell you this, with a little Daisy, by the time that bb gets to the car, it's going REAL SLOW. Should we outlaw sticks, too? They've been known to take people's eyes out. Hell, maybe even more eyes have been lost to sticks. The Consumer Product Safety Commission estimates that in 2003, there were 550,000 to 600,000 injuries associated with bicycles and 97,640 injuries from skateboards that required emergency room treatment, compared with 19,504 for air guns -- including the high-powered air guns. I know, I shouldn't say anything to you, so I'll be nice. Even if the bb is going 'very' slow, wouldn't the speed of the car still be able to cause the impact to be severe? Did you ever see what a small rock, going very slow, does to the windshield of a car going 60mph? Oh, ****!!!! I spilled my water bottle laughing at that!!! Hmm, that would mean that the kids would have to be in FRONT of the vehicle. If they were behind then the car could be going faster than the bb. Would that make the driver of the CAR guilty of terroristic threats? The law in Georgia specifies terroristic acts. I didn't say "terroristic acts", it's great how you twist things to make it sound like you know what you're talking about. I said "terroristic THREATS". Show me that GA law. Are you asking for agreement/disagreement with the laws of Georgia? Why? So your slam at DHS will make sense? How about just saying, "OK, I made a mistake." -- John H Yes, how about saying just that, John. You made a mistake. Trying to talk in a rational, non-threatening, non-namecalling manner with you was a mistake. I should have kept my mouth shut. You are correct - I made a boo boo! You're an 'engineer'? -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
Kevin,
Are you really too stupid to figure out how to use Google? http://www.abtlaw.com/violent-crime-definitions.html http://www.ganet.org/cgi-bin/pub/oco...de/G/16/11/160 wrote in message oups.com... John Jay wrote: Kevin, Do you feel silly not understanding Terroristic Threat Laws have been around for years before 9/11? Here is the Georgia Law concerning Terroristic Threats, and the law has been in effect for many many years before the Homeland Security Act. Terroristic Threats in the Official Code of Georgia Section 16-11-37: (a) A person commits the offense of a terroristic threat when he or she threatens to commit any crime of violence, to release any hazardous substance, as such term is defined in Code Section 12-8-92, or to burn or damage property with the purpose of terrorizing another or of causing the evacuation of a building, place of assembly, or facility of public transportation or otherwise causing serious public inconvenience or in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience. No person shall be convicted under this subsection on the uncorroborated testimony of the party to whom the threat is communicated. (b) A person commits the offense of a terroristic act when: (1) He or she uses a burning or flaming cross or other burning or flaming symbol or flambeau with the intent to terrorize another or another's household; (2) While not in the commission of a lawful act, he or she shoots at or throws an object at a conveyance which is being operated or which is occupied by passengers; or (3) He or she releases any hazardous substance or any simulated hazardous substance under the guise of a hazardous substance for the purpose of terrorizing another or of causing the evacuation of a building, place of assembly, or facility of public transportation or otherwise causing serious public inconvenience or in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience. (c) A person convicted of the offense of a terroristic threat shall be punished by a fine of not more than $ 1,000.00 or by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than five years, or both. A person convicted of the offense of a terroristic act shall be punished by a fine of not more than $ 5,000.00 or by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than ten years, or both; provided, however, that if any person suffers a serious physical injury as a direct result of an act giving rise to a conviction under this Code section, the person so convicted shall be punished by a fine of not more than $ 250,000.00 or imprisonment for not less than five nor more than 40 years, or both. (d) A person who commits or attempts to commit a terroristic threat or act with the intent to retaliate against any person for: (1) Attending a judicial or administrative proceeding as a witness, attorney, judge, or party or producing any record, document, or other object in a judicial or official proceeding; or (2) Providing to a law enforcement officer, adult or juvenile probation officer, prosecuting attorney, or judge any information relating to the commission or possible commission of an offense under the laws of this state or of the United States or a violation of conditions of bail, pretrial release, probation, or parole shall be guilty of the offense of a terroristic threat or act and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished, for a terroristic threat, by imprisonment for not less than five nor more than ten years or by a fine of not less than $ 50,000.00, or both, and, for a terroristic act, by imprisonment for not less than five nor more than 20 years or by a fine of not less than $ 100,000.00, or both. Nice try....site? |
wrote in message oups.com... John Jay wrote: Kevin, Do you feel silly not understanding Terroristic Threat Laws have been around for years before 9/11? Here is the Georgia Law concerning Terroristic Threats, and the law has been in effect for many many years before the Homeland Security Act. Terroristic Threats in the Official Code of Georgia Section 16-11-37: (a) A person commits the offense of a terroristic threat when he or she threatens to commit any crime of violence, to release any hazardous substance, as such term is defined in Code Section 12-8-92, or to burn or damage property with the purpose of terrorizing another or of causing the evacuation of a building, place of assembly, or facility of public transportation or otherwise causing serious public inconvenience or in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience. No person shall be convicted under this subsection on the uncorroborated testimony of the party to whom the threat is communicated. (b) A person commits the offense of a terroristic act when: (1) He or she uses a burning or flaming cross or other burning or flaming symbol or flambeau with the intent to terrorize another or another's household; (2) While not in the commission of a lawful act, he or she shoots at or throws an object at a conveyance which is being operated or which is occupied by passengers; or (3) He or she releases any hazardous substance or any simulated hazardous substance under the guise of a hazardous substance for the purpose of terrorizing another or of causing the evacuation of a building, place of assembly, or facility of public transportation or otherwise causing serious public inconvenience or in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience. (c) A person convicted of the offense of a terroristic threat shall be punished by a fine of not more than $ 1,000.00 or by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than five years, or both. A person convicted of the offense of a terroristic act shall be punished by a fine of not more than $ 5,000.00 or by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than ten years, or both; provided, however, that if any person suffers a serious physical injury as a direct result of an act giving rise to a conviction under this Code section, the person so convicted shall be punished by a fine of not more than $ 250,000.00 or imprisonment for not less than five nor more than 40 years, or both. (d) A person who commits or attempts to commit a terroristic threat or act with the intent to retaliate against any person for: (1) Attending a judicial or administrative proceeding as a witness, attorney, judge, or party or producing any record, document, or other object in a judicial or official proceeding; or (2) Providing to a law enforcement officer, adult or juvenile probation officer, prosecuting attorney, or judge any information relating to the commission or possible commission of an offense under the laws of this state or of the United States or a violation of conditions of bail, pretrial release, probation, or parole shall be guilty of the offense of a terroristic threat or act and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished, for a terroristic threat, by imprisonment for not less than five nor more than ten years or by a fine of not less than $ 50,000.00, or both, and, for a terroristic act, by imprisonment for not less than five nor more than 20 years or by a fine of not less than $ 100,000.00, or both. Nice try....site? Site? I think you mean *cite*. And you are making fun of others for typos? My my. BTW: I see you corrected your little mistake with another post. |
wrote in message ups.com... *JimH* wrote: wrote in message oups.com... John H wrote: On 17 Jun 2005 05:48:03 -0700, wrote: Larry wrote: On 17 Jun 2005 04:53:32 -0700, wrote: Tim wrote: They were sitting on a small hill by a state hwy. and took a couple of shots at passing cars with a Daisy BB gun! No big deal unless that BB hit you, right? Hell, we used to have BB gun wars on my uncle's farm! Have 2 eyes now? If so, you are lucky. Other's were not. Like I said, kids shooting bb guns has ruined a man's life. It is inexcusable to shoot at passing cars. So, you agree that they should be charged with Terroristic acts???? Hmm, I find it odd that you right wingers are pro gun, except when it comes to something personal. And sure, it's wrong to shoot at passing cars, who said it wasn't? But, I'll tell you this, with a little Daisy, by the time that bb gets to the car, it's going REAL SLOW. Should we outlaw sticks, too? They've been known to take people's eyes out. Hell, maybe even more eyes have been lost to sticks. The Consumer Product Safety Commission estimates that in 2003, there were 550,000 to 600,000 injuries associated with bicycles and 97,640 injuries from skateboards that required emergency room treatment, compared with 19,504 for air guns -- including the high-powered air guns. I know, I shouldn't say anything to you, so I'll be nice. Even if the bb is going 'very' slow, wouldn't the speed of the car still be able to cause the impact to be severe? Did you ever see what a small rock, going very slow, does to the windshield of a car going 60mph? Oh, ****!!!! I spilled my water bottle laughing at that!!! Hmm, that would mean that the kids would have to be in FRONT of the vehicle. If they were behind then the car could be going faster than the bb. Would that make the driver of the CAR guilty of terroristic threats? The law in Georgia specifies terroristic acts. I didn't say "terroristic acts", it's great how you twist things to make it sound like you know what you're talking about. I said "terroristic THREATS". Show me that GA law. No? I guess you don't even know what you initially posted. Here is one sentence from that post of yours: "Now, a couple of young boys in northern GA were arrested for "terroristic acts"." Idiot. Are you asking for agreement/disagreement with the laws of Georgia? Why? So your slam at DHS will make sense? How about just saying, "OK, I made a mistake." -- John H Yes, Good. Time to move on Kevin. Oh, Jim, can you possibly get more childish?? I thought that sort of **** was beneath you, and I was certainly correct in my assumptions that you've reverted back to your childish actions. You should be ashamed of yourself. You deliberately snipped my reply to make it sound like I was admitting something. I thought for awhile that you'd changed, but by doing the above childish actions, you've proven yourself worthy of Fritz's charms. Too bad you don't have the mental capacity to debate something without stooping so damned low. You are correct Kevin. I should not have called you an idiot for not knowing what you post within the same thread from one minute to another. I should not have called you an idiot for starting this thread. I should not have called you an idiot because you point out typos made by others when you don't know the difference between the words 'they're" and 'there'. Calling you an idiot was actually a compliment to you. I *should* have called you brainless. |
"*JimH*" wrote in message ... wrote in message ups.com... *JimH* wrote: wrote in message oups.com... John H wrote: On 17 Jun 2005 05:48:03 -0700, wrote: Larry wrote: On 17 Jun 2005 04:53:32 -0700, wrote: Tim wrote: They were sitting on a small hill by a state hwy. and took a couple of shots at passing cars with a Daisy BB gun! No big deal unless that BB hit you, right? Hell, we used to have BB gun wars on my uncle's farm! Have 2 eyes now? If so, you are lucky. Other's were not. Like I said, kids shooting bb guns has ruined a man's life. It is inexcusable to shoot at passing cars. So, you agree that they should be charged with Terroristic acts???? Hmm, I find it odd that you right wingers are pro gun, except when it comes to something personal. And sure, it's wrong to shoot at passing cars, who said it wasn't? But, I'll tell you this, with a little Daisy, by the time that bb gets to the car, it's going REAL SLOW. Should we outlaw sticks, too? They've been known to take people's eyes out. Hell, maybe even more eyes have been lost to sticks. The Consumer Product Safety Commission estimates that in 2003, there were 550,000 to 600,000 injuries associated with bicycles and 97,640 injuries from skateboards that required emergency room treatment, compared with 19,504 for air guns -- including the high-powered air guns. I know, I shouldn't say anything to you, so I'll be nice. Even if the bb is going 'very' slow, wouldn't the speed of the car still be able to cause the impact to be severe? Did you ever see what a small rock, going very slow, does to the windshield of a car going 60mph? Oh, ****!!!! I spilled my water bottle laughing at that!!! Hmm, that would mean that the kids would have to be in FRONT of the vehicle. If they were behind then the car could be going faster than the bb. Would that make the driver of the CAR guilty of terroristic threats? The law in Georgia specifies terroristic acts. I didn't say "terroristic acts", it's great how you twist things to make it sound like you know what you're talking about. I said "terroristic THREATS". Show me that GA law. No? I guess you don't even know what you initially posted. Here is one sentence from that post of yours: "Now, a couple of young boys in northern GA were arrested for "terroristic acts"." Idiot. Are you asking for agreement/disagreement with the laws of Georgia? Why? So your slam at DHS will make sense? How about just saying, "OK, I made a mistake." -- John H Yes, Good. Time to move on Kevin. Oh, Jim, can you possibly get more childish?? I thought that sort of **** was beneath you, and I was certainly correct in my assumptions that you've reverted back to your childish actions. You should be ashamed of yourself. You deliberately snipped my reply to make it sound like I was admitting something. I thought for awhile that you'd changed, but by doing the above childish actions, you've proven yourself worthy of Fritz's charms. Too bad you don't have the mental capacity to debate something without stooping so damned low. You are correct Kevin. I should not have called you an idiot for not knowing what you post within the same thread from one minute to another. I should not have called you an idiot for starting this thread. I should not have called you an idiot because you point out typos made by others when you don't know the difference between the words 'they're" and 'there'. Calling you an idiot was actually a compliment to you. I *should* have called you brainless. BTW I forgot to add: I should not have called you an idiot because you point out typos made by others when you don't know when to use the word *you're* instead of 'your'. |
John Gaquin wrote: wrote in message Whew, you ARE stupid, aren't you? Am I? You're the one who lives in Georgia and thinks Mark Morford is a legitimate commentator. What does living in Georgia have to do with anything? If you'd like to compare statistics, let's do so. I suppose, like so many other people that are ignorant of the facts, that you think that GA is full of inbred idiots, huh? Now, if you'd also like to debate Mark Morford, do tell, what do you know of his education? What do you know of his intellect? What do you know of his expertise in political reporting? What has he said do you disagree with and why? Be specific. Oh, and yes, you ARE stupid. |
Harry,
It really is sad to see Kevin make sure a fool out of himself. We really should feel sorry for him, and not point out his mistakes. I for one will try to do better. "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... *JimH* wrote: You are correct Kevin. I should not have called you an idiot for not knowing what you post within the same thread from one minute to another. I should not have called you an idiot for starting this thread. I should not have called you an idiot because you point out typos made by others when you don't know the difference between the words 'they're" and 'there'. Calling you an idiot was actually a compliment to you. I *should* have called you brainless. Don't you, Ftitz, Herring, Smithers, et al, have anything more useful to do with your time than continue your piling on Bass over and over and over and over? I mean, if any of you ever had anything clever to say, ok...but you four can't seem to write a witty topical sentence. Sheesh. -- If it is Bad for Bush, It is Good for the United States. |
Tim wrote: Hell, we used to have BB gun wars on my uncle's farm! Very safe fun, and brilliantly smart. Duh I take it you must have led a sheltered life under mommy's apron, huh? Was everything you done as a child "brilliantly smart"? If so, how did you ever learn anything? Or....perhaps you never DID learn anything. |
John Jay wrote: Here is the law about Terrorist threats: Terroristic Threats in the Official Code of Georgia Section 16-11-37: cite? |
"John Jay" wrote in message ... Kevin, Yes they would have arrested anyone who shot at passing cars with any gun, they would have arrested anyone who dropped something off a bridge on passing cars. The law they charge the person with is "Terroristic Threats". They have arrested and charged and people have been found guilty of such crimes for many years. I can remember in the 60's when kids were arrested and charged for Terroristic Threats for dropping pebbles off a bridge onto passing cars. I can also remember a time in the 70's when people were convicted of shooting a BB gun at the LI express. The fact you do not believe the police would charge kids or anyone else for shooting at cars with a BB gun speaks volumes about you. Anyone with a brain are glad the police do not allow kids to shot BB guns at passing cars. Don't you love the lame spin kevin is trying to put in play......now it is "easier to convict" what a mar00n LMAO wrote in message oups.com... John Jay wrote: Kevin, I know you know people could be prosecuted for terrorist acts way before their was a Homeland Security Act. What makes you think this crime and the prosecution of this crime has anything to do with the Homeland Security Act? It's simple, try to follow along, okay? The Homeland Security Act simply made it easier to convict persons. Do you HONESTLY think that before the act, that they would arrest a couple of kids sitting on a hill with a damned BB gun shooting at the sides of cars with TERRORISTIC acts? Come on!!!!! You must make liberals cringe whenever you open you mouth. You are an embarrassment to liberals all over the world. And because of your narrow mindedness, you're an embarrassment to yourself! But, the Right Wing Circle Jerk Club will love you for it! |
Since you are from upstate NY, and your mental problems are the result of
inbreeding (and FAS), you disprove the theory that only Georgia is full of inbreeds. When you consider how FAS added to your problems you should be proud of what you have accomplished. You are the best you can be. wrote in message oups.com... John Gaquin wrote: wrote in message Whew, you ARE stupid, aren't you? Am I? You're the one who lives in Georgia and thinks Mark Morford is a legitimate commentator. What does living in Georgia have to do with anything? If you'd like to compare statistics, let's do so. I suppose, like so many other people that are ignorant of the facts, that you think that GA is full of inbred idiots, huh? Now, if you'd also like to debate Mark Morford, do tell, what do you know of his education? What do you know of his intellect? What do you know of his expertise in political reporting? What has he said do you disagree with and why? Be specific. Oh, and yes, you ARE stupid. |
http://www.ganet.org/cgi-bin/pub/oco...ode/G/16/11/37
wrote in message ups.com... John Jay wrote: Kevin, Do you feel silly not understanding Terroristic Threat Laws have been around for years before 9/11? Here is the Georgia Law concerning Terroristic Threats, and the law has been in effect for many many years before the Homeland Security Act. Terroristic Threats in the Official Code of Georgia Section 16-11-37: (a) A person commits the offense of a terroristic threat when he or she threatens to commit any crime of violence, to release any hazardous substance, as such term is defined in Code Section 12-8-92, or to burn or damage property with the purpose of terrorizing another or of causing the evacuation of a building, place of assembly, or facility of public transportation or otherwise causing serious public inconvenience or in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience. No person shall be convicted under this subsection on the uncorroborated testimony of the party to whom the threat is communicated. (b) A person commits the offense of a terroristic act when: (1) He or she uses a burning or flaming cross or other burning or flaming symbol or flambeau with the intent to terrorize another or another's household; (2) While not in the commission of a lawful act, he or she shoots at or throws an object at a conveyance which is being operated or which is occupied by passengers; or (3) He or she releases any hazardous substance or any simulated hazardous substance under the guise of a hazardous substance for the purpose of terrorizing another or of causing the evacuation of a building, place of assembly, or facility of public transportation or otherwise causing serious public inconvenience or in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience. (c) A person convicted of the offense of a terroristic threat shall be punished by a fine of not more than $ 1,000.00 or by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than five years, or both. A person convicted of the offense of a terroristic act shall be punished by a fine of not more than $ 5,000.00 or by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than ten years, or both; provided, however, that if any person suffers a serious physical injury as a direct result of an act giving rise to a conviction under this Code section, the person so convicted shall be punished by a fine of not more than $ 250,000.00 or imprisonment for not less than five nor more than 40 years, or both. (d) A person who commits or attempts to commit a terroristic threat or act with the intent to retaliate against any person for: (1) Attending a judicial or administrative proceeding as a witness, attorney, judge, or party or producing any record, document, or other object in a judicial or official proceeding; or (2) Providing to a law enforcement officer, adult or juvenile probation officer, prosecuting attorney, or judge any information relating to the commission or possible commission of an offense under the laws of this state or of the United States or a violation of conditions of bail, pretrial release, probation, or parole shall be guilty of the offense of a terroristic threat or act and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished, for a terroristic threat, by imprisonment for not less than five nor more than ten years or by a fine of not less than $ 50,000.00, or both, and, for a terroristic act, by imprisonment for not less than five nor more than 20 years or by a fine of not less than $ 100,000.00, or both. Nice try.....cite? |
http://www.ganet.org/cgi-bin/pub/oco...ode/G/16/11/37
wrote in message oups.com... John Jay wrote: Kevin, Do you feel silly not understanding Terroristic Threat Laws have been around for years before 9/11? Here is the Georgia Law concerning Terroristic Threats, and the law has been in effect for many many years before the Homeland Security Act. Terroristic Threats in the Official Code of Georgia Section 16-11-37: (a) A person commits the offense of a terroristic threat when he or she threatens to commit any crime of violence, to release any hazardous substance, as such term is defined in Code Section 12-8-92, or to burn or damage property with the purpose of terrorizing another or of causing the evacuation of a building, place of assembly, or facility of public transportation or otherwise causing serious public inconvenience or in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience. No person shall be convicted under this subsection on the uncorroborated testimony of the party to whom the threat is communicated. (b) A person commits the offense of a terroristic act when: (1) He or she uses a burning or flaming cross or other burning or flaming symbol or flambeau with the intent to terrorize another or another's household; (2) While not in the commission of a lawful act, he or she shoots at or throws an object at a conveyance which is being operated or which is occupied by passengers; or (3) He or she releases any hazardous substance or any simulated hazardous substance under the guise of a hazardous substance for the purpose of terrorizing another or of causing the evacuation of a building, place of assembly, or facility of public transportation or otherwise causing serious public inconvenience or in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience. (c) A person convicted of the offense of a terroristic threat shall be punished by a fine of not more than $ 1,000.00 or by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than five years, or both. A person convicted of the offense of a terroristic act shall be punished by a fine of not more than $ 5,000.00 or by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than ten years, or both; provided, however, that if any person suffers a serious physical injury as a direct result of an act giving rise to a conviction under this Code section, the person so convicted shall be punished by a fine of not more than $ 250,000.00 or imprisonment for not less than five nor more than 40 years, or both. (d) A person who commits or attempts to commit a terroristic threat or act with the intent to retaliate against any person for: (1) Attending a judicial or administrative proceeding as a witness, attorney, judge, or party or producing any record, document, or other object in a judicial or official proceeding; or (2) Providing to a law enforcement officer, adult or juvenile probation officer, prosecuting attorney, or judge any information relating to the commission or possible commission of an offense under the laws of this state or of the United States or a violation of conditions of bail, pretrial release, probation, or parole shall be guilty of the offense of a terroristic threat or act and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished, for a terroristic threat, by imprisonment for not less than five nor more than ten years or by a fine of not less than $ 50,000.00, or both, and, for a terroristic act, by imprisonment for not less than five nor more than 20 years or by a fine of not less than $ 100,000.00, or both. Nice try....site? |
"*JimH*" wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.com... John H wrote: On 17 Jun 2005 05:48:03 -0700, wrote: Larry wrote: On 17 Jun 2005 04:53:32 -0700, wrote: Tim wrote: They were sitting on a small hill by a state hwy. and took a couple of shots at passing cars with a Daisy BB gun! No big deal unless that BB hit you, right? Hell, we used to have BB gun wars on my uncle's farm! Have 2 eyes now? If so, you are lucky. Other's were not. Like I said, kids shooting bb guns has ruined a man's life. It is inexcusable to shoot at passing cars. So, you agree that they should be charged with Terroristic acts???? Hmm, I find it odd that you right wingers are pro gun, except when it comes to something personal. And sure, it's wrong to shoot at passing cars, who said it wasn't? But, I'll tell you this, with a little Daisy, by the time that bb gets to the car, it's going REAL SLOW. Should we outlaw sticks, too? They've been known to take people's eyes out. Hell, maybe even more eyes have been lost to sticks. The Consumer Product Safety Commission estimates that in 2003, there were 550,000 to 600,000 injuries associated with bicycles and 97,640 injuries from skateboards that required emergency room treatment, compared with 19,504 for air guns -- including the high-powered air guns. I know, I shouldn't say anything to you, so I'll be nice. Even if the bb is going 'very' slow, wouldn't the speed of the car still be able to cause the impact to be severe? Did you ever see what a small rock, going very slow, does to the windshield of a car going 60mph? Oh, ****!!!! I spilled my water bottle laughing at that!!! Hmm, that would mean that the kids would have to be in FRONT of the vehicle. If they were behind then the car could be going faster than the bb. Would that make the driver of the CAR guilty of terroristic threats? The law in Georgia specifies terroristic acts. I didn't say "terroristic acts", it's great how you twist things to make it sound like you know what you're talking about. I said "terroristic THREATS". Show me that GA law. No? I guess you don't even know what you initially posted. Here is one sentence from that post of yours: "Now, a couple of young boys in northern GA were arrested for "terroristic acts"." Idiot. You forgot "King of the NG" Are you asking for agreement/disagreement with the laws of Georgia? Why? So your slam at DHS will make sense? How about just saying, "OK, I made a mistake." -- John H Yes, Good. Time to move on Kevin. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:33 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com