Quote:
Originally posted by Penske_Account
Not being a prosecutor, I will make the admittedly amatuerish assertion that it seems to me to turn on what is a "threat". Given that her general behaviour in re the President, in any other context, could likely be considered stalking, and given the nature of her remark, fantasy notwithstanding, and my understanding of the intent of the statute, I am not sure its quite as far fetched as you assert by your typically dismissively conclusory post would suggest.
As for your pudding comment, I would have been interested in whether your lawyer could have used the pudding defense if you had the seen the wrong side of that statute, but, you should thank RT that you didn't have to test it.....it doesn't seem to hold water, npi, to me.
Does www.waybackmachine.com cache this board? ETA: THIS IS NOT THE RIGHT SITE. Does anyone know the site that keeps historical caches of the whole of the interwebs????
|
She said she has "fantasized" about killing Bush as an infant.
My "typically dismissive conclusory post" was based upon a simple reading of the plain language of the statute. There was not even any need to fall back on the canon of statutory interpretation that an ambiguity in a criminal statute must be construed against the state. There was no ambiguity.
Now I realize that your experience with the criminal law goes back a few years. Nonetheless, I would be very interested to see how you could put her actual words into the actual proscription of the statute.
Prove me wrong. I am open to your persuasion.
