General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

Fwd: Assault: New Definition (long)

Started by OmManiPadmeOmelet · · Last activity · 4 posts · 383 views

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
General fitness, health and nutrition
Published
10 January 2006
Last activity
10 January 2006
Original author
OmManiPadmeOmelet
Posts
4
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
383
Views / 30 days
3

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–4 of 4
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Quoted message said:

    From: "HeyBub" <[email hidden]>
    Subject: Assault: New Definition (long)
    Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 21:41:32 -0600
    Newsgroups: tx.guns
    Message-ID: <[email hidden]>

    (You can skip all this yakety-yak by jumping to the "Good Parts" version)

    As some may recall in a recent thread I defined "Assault" as "A serious
    threat to inflict death or serious bodily injury, coupled with the present
    ability to carry out that threat." This is the classic definition I learned
    in law school.

    A consequence of that definition is that the threat must be, in the mind of
    the potential victim, able to be carried out almost immediately. Therefore,
    one presumes, an "assault" cannot be made by long distance, i.e., by
    telephone, postal mail, an email, or a newsgroup.

    Others (well, one other) claimed an assault CAN be made by long distance,
    such as a telephone.

    All that changed today.

    The president signed into law the "Violence Against Women and DOJ
    Reauthorization Act."

    I call your attention to Section 113* which reads, in part:

    --- begin quote ---

    Whoever, ...

    with the intent
    (B) to place a person in another State or tribal jurisdiction, or within the
    special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, in
    reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to--
    (i) that person;
    (ii) a member of the immediate family (as defined in section 115 of that
    person; or
    (iii) a spouse or intimate partner of that person;

    uses the mail, any INTERACTIVE COMPUTER SERVICE (emphasis added), or any
    facility of interstate or foreign commerce to engage in a course of conduct
    that causes substantial emotional distress to that person or places that
    person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to, any
    of the persons described in clauses (i) through (iii) of subparagraph (B);
    shall be punished as provided in section 2261(b) of this title.

    --- end quote

    After some digging, I find the punishment in 2261(b) to be:

    --- begin quote
    (b) Penalties.- A person who violates this section or section 2261A shall be
    fined under this title, imprisoned-
    (1) for life or any term of years, if death of the victim results;
    (2) for not more than 20 years if permanent disfigurement or life
    threatening bodily injury to the victim results;
    (3) for not more than 10 years, if serious bodily injury to the victim
    results or if the offender uses a dangerous weapon during the offense;
    (4) as provided for the applicable conduct under chapter 109A if the offense
    would constitute an offense under chapter 109A (without regard to whether
    the offense was committed in the special maritime and territorial
    jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison); and
    (5) for not more than 5 years, in any other case,
    or both fined and imprisoned.

    --- end quote

    I assume since we're talking about a mere threat that, death, permanent
    disfigurement, did not actually take place, or a dangerous weapon was not
    used in the issuance of the threat, the penalty for "cyberstalking" is 5
    years in a federal pen, plus a potential fine.

    Further, 47 USC 223 was amended by the new law such that it now reads (in
    part)

    Whoever...

    (C) makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications device, whether
    or not conversation or communication ensues, without disclosing his identity
    and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the
    called number or who receives the communications;

    (C) in the case of subparagraph (C) of subsection (a)(1), includes any
    device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other
    types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the
    Internet ...

    Shall be fined or imprisoned for two years or both.

    GOOD PARTS VERSION
    ===================

    If you threaten someone via email or a newsgroup posting such that the
    object of your threat is placed in fear of his or her life or limb, you have
    committed the offense of "Cyberstalking" and, upon conviction, may be
    confined in a federal lock-up for up to five years or fined or both.

    Bottom line, you cannot issue a credible threat.

    You can't even insult someone if you do so anonymously.

    Further, if you use the internet, anonymously - such as a "HeyBub" handle -
    to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass, you get a fine or slammer time up to
    two years.

    Let's all thank President Bush for helping to bring needed civility to this
    newsgroup.

    * "Thomas" links are not persistent. Go to www.thomas.gov and search for
    cyberstalking ]


    --
    Om.

    "My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-[censored]." -Jack Nicholson

  2. Dude, I'm S-C-R-E-W-E-D!

    George W. Busch

    OmManiPadmeOmelet said:
    Quoted message said:

    From: "HeyBub" <[email hidden]>
    Subject: Assault: New Definition (long)
    Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 21:41:32 -0600
    Newsgroups: tx.guns
    Message-ID: <[email hidden]>

    (You can skip all this yakety-yak by jumping to the "Good Parts" version)

    As some may recall in a recent thread I defined "Assault" as "A serious
    threat to inflict death or serious bodily injury, coupled with the present
    ability to carry out that threat." This is the classic definition I learned
    in law school.

    A consequence of that definition is that the threat must be, in the mind of
    the potential victim, able to be carried out almost immediately. Therefore,
    one presumes, an "assault" cannot be made by long distance, i.e., by
    telephone, postal mail, an email, or a newsgroup.

    Others (well, one other) claimed an assault CAN be made by long distance,
    such as a telephone.

    All that changed today.

    The president signed into law the "Violence Against Women and DOJ
    Reauthorization Act."

    I call your attention to Section 113* which reads, in part:

    --- begin quote ---

    Whoever, ...

    with the intent
    (B) to place a person in another State or tribal jurisdiction, or within the
    special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, in
    reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to--
    (i) that person;
    (ii) a member of the immediate family (as defined in section 115 of that
    person; or
    (iii) a spouse or intimate partner of that person;

    uses the mail, any INTERACTIVE COMPUTER SERVICE (emphasis added), or any
    facility of interstate or foreign commerce to engage in a course of conduct
    that causes substantial emotional distress to that person or places that
    person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to, any
    of the persons described in clauses (i) through (iii) of subparagraph (B);
    shall be punished as provided in section 2261(b) of this title.

    --- end quote

    After some digging, I find the punishment in 2261(b) to be:

    --- begin quote
    (b) Penalties.- A person who violates this section or section 2261A shall be
    fined under this title, imprisoned-
    (1) for life or any term of years, if death of the victim results;
    (2) for not more than 20 years if permanent disfigurement or life
    threatening bodily injury to the victim results;
    (3) for not more than 10 years, if serious bodily injury to the victim
    results or if the offender uses a dangerous weapon during the offense;
    (4) as provided for the applicable conduct under chapter 109A if the offense
    would constitute an offense under chapter 109A (without regard to whether
    the offense was committed in the special maritime and territorial
    jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison); and
    (5) for not more than 5 years, in any other case,
    or both fined and imprisoned.

    --- end quote

    I assume since we're talking about a mere threat that, death, permanent
    disfigurement, did not actually take place, or a dangerous weapon was not
    used in the issuance of the threat, the penalty for "cyberstalking" is 5
    years in a federal pen, plus a potential fine.

    Further, 47 USC 223 was amended by the new law such that it now reads (in
    part)

    Whoever...

    (C) makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications device, whether
    or not conversation or communication ensues, without disclosing his identity
    and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the
    called number or who receives the communications;

    (C) in the case of subparagraph (C) of subsection (a)(1), includes any
    device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other
    types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the
    Internet ...

    Shall be fined or imprisoned for two years or both.

    GOOD PARTS VERSION
    ===================

    If you threaten someone via email or a newsgroup posting such that the
    object of your threat is placed in fear of his or her life or limb, you have
    committed the offense of "Cyberstalking" and, upon conviction, may be
    confined in a federal lock-up for up to five years or fined or both.

    Bottom line, you cannot issue a credible threat.

    You can't even insult someone if you do so anonymously.

    Further, if you use the internet, anonymously - such as a "HeyBub" handle -
    to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass, you get a fine or slammer time up to
    two years.

    Let's all thank President Bush for helping to bring needed civility to this
    newsgroup.

    * "Thomas" links are not persistent. Go to www.thomas.gov and search for
    cyberstalking ]

  3. You were the main person this post was aimed at. ;-)

    Cheers!!!!!

    In article <[email hidden]>,

    JRH said:

    Dude, I'm S-C-R-E-W-E-D!

    George W. Busch

    OmManiPadmeOmelet said:
    Quoted message said:

    From: "HeyBub" <[email hidden]>
    Subject: Assault: New Definition (long)
    Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 21:41:32 -0600
    Newsgroups: tx.guns
    Message-ID: <[email hidden]>

    (You can skip all this yakety-yak by jumping to the "Good Parts" version)

    As some may recall in a recent thread I defined "Assault" as "A serious
    threat to inflict death or serious bodily injury, coupled with the present
    ability to carry out that threat." This is the classic definition I
    learned
    in law school.

    A consequence of that definition is that the threat must be, in the mind
    of
    the potential victim, able to be carried out almost immediately.
    Therefore,
    one presumes, an "assault" cannot be made by long distance, i.e., by
    telephone, postal mail, an email, or a newsgroup.

    Others (well, one other) claimed an assault CAN be made by long distance,
    such as a telephone.

    All that changed today.

    The president signed into law the "Violence Against Women and DOJ
    Reauthorization Act."

    I call your attention to Section 113* which reads, in part:

    --- begin quote ---

    Whoever, ...

    with the intent
    (B) to place a person in another State or tribal jurisdiction, or within
    the
    special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, in
    reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to--
    (i) that person;
    (ii) a member of the immediate family (as defined in section 115 of that
    person; or
    (iii) a spouse or intimate partner of that person;

    uses the mail, any INTERACTIVE COMPUTER SERVICE (emphasis added), or any
    facility of interstate or foreign commerce to engage in a course of
    conduct
    that causes substantial emotional distress to that person or places that
    person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to,
    any
    of the persons described in clauses (i) through (iii) of subparagraph (B);
    shall be punished as provided in section 2261(b) of this title.

    --- end quote

    After some digging, I find the punishment in 2261(b) to be:

    --- begin quote
    (b) Penalties.- A person who violates this section or section 2261A shall
    be
    fined under this title, imprisoned-
    (1) for life or any term of years, if death of the victim results;
    (2) for not more than 20 years if permanent disfigurement or life
    threatening bodily injury to the victim results;
    (3) for not more than 10 years, if serious bodily injury to the victim
    results or if the offender uses a dangerous weapon during the offense;
    (4) as provided for the applicable conduct under chapter 109A if the
    offense
    would constitute an offense under chapter 109A (without regard to whether
    the offense was committed in the special maritime and territorial
    jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison); and
    (5) for not more than 5 years, in any other case,
    or both fined and imprisoned.

    --- end quote

    I assume since we're talking about a mere threat that, death, permanent
    disfigurement, did not actually take place, or a dangerous weapon was not
    used in the issuance of the threat, the penalty for "cyberstalking" is 5
    years in a federal pen, plus a potential fine.

    Further, 47 USC 223 was amended by the new law such that it now reads (in
    part)

    Whoever...

    (C) makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications device,
    whether
    or not conversation or communication ensues, without disclosing his
    identity
    and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the
    called number or who receives the communications;

    (C) in the case of subparagraph (C) of subsection (a)(1), includes any
    device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or
    other
    types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the
    Internet ...

    Shall be fined or imprisoned for two years or both.

    GOOD PARTS VERSION
    ===================

    If you threaten someone via email or a newsgroup posting such that the
    object of your threat is placed in fear of his or her life or limb, you
    have
    committed the offense of "Cyberstalking" and, upon conviction, may be
    confined in a federal lock-up for up to five years or fined or both.

    Bottom line, you cannot issue a credible threat.

    You can't even insult someone if you do so anonymously.

    Further, if you use the internet, anonymously - such as a "HeyBub" handle
    -
    to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass, you get a fine or slammer time up to
    two years.

    Let's all thank President Bush for helping to bring needed civility to
    this
    newsgroup.

    * "Thomas" links are not persistent. Go to www.thomas.gov and search for
    cyberstalking ]



    --
    Om.

    "My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-[censored]." -Jack Nicholson

  4. I hear your complaints reached the highest branches of our government,
    and the chimp himself made that up just for you.

    OmManiPadmeOmelet said:

    You were the main person this post was aimed at. ;-)

    Cheers!!!!!

    In article <[email hidden]>,

    JRH said:

    Dude, I'm S-C-R-E-W-E-D!

    George W. Busch

    OmManiPadmeOmelet said:

    > From: "HeyBub" <[email hidden]>
    > Subject: Assault: New Definition (long)
    > Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 21:41:32 -0600
    > Newsgroups: tx.guns
    > Message-ID: <[email hidden]>
    >
    > (You can skip all this yakety-yak by jumping to the "Good Parts" version)
    >
    > As some may recall in a recent thread I defined "Assault" as "A serious
    > threat to inflict death or serious bodily injury, coupled with the present
    > ability to carry out that threat." This is the classic definition I
    > learned
    > in law school.
    >
    > A consequence of that definition is that the threat must be, in the mind
    > of
    > the potential victim, able to be carried out almost immediately.
    > Therefore,
    > one presumes, an "assault" cannot be made by long distance, i.e., by
    > telephone, postal mail, an email, or a newsgroup.
    >
    > Others (well, one other) claimed an assault CAN be made by long distance,
    > such as a telephone.
    >
    > All that changed today.
    >
    > The president signed into law the "Violence Against Women and DOJ
    > Reauthorization Act."
    >
    > I call your attention to Section 113* which reads, in part:
    >
    > --- begin quote ---
    >
    > Whoever, ...
    >
    > with the intent
    > (B) to place a person in another State or tribal jurisdiction, or within
    > the
    > special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, in
    > reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to--
    > (i) that person;
    > (ii) a member of the immediate family (as defined in section 115 of that
    > person; or
    > (iii) a spouse or intimate partner of that person;
    >
    > uses the mail, any INTERACTIVE COMPUTER SERVICE (emphasis added), or any
    > facility of interstate or foreign commerce to engage in a course of
    > conduct
    > that causes substantial emotional distress to that person or places that
    > person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to,
    > any
    > of the persons described in clauses (i) through (iii) of subparagraph (B);
    > shall be punished as provided in section 2261(b) of this title.
    >
    > --- end quote
    >
    > After some digging, I find the punishment in 2261(b) to be:
    >
    > --- begin quote
    > (b) Penalties.- A person who violates this section or section 2261A shall
    > be
    > fined under this title, imprisoned-
    > (1) for life or any term of years, if death of the victim results;
    > (2) for not more than 20 years if permanent disfigurement or life
    > threatening bodily injury to the victim results;
    > (3) for not more than 10 years, if serious bodily injury to the victim
    > results or if the offender uses a dangerous weapon during the offense;
    > (4) as provided for the applicable conduct under chapter 109A if the
    > offense
    > would constitute an offense under chapter 109A (without regard to whether
    > the offense was committed in the special maritime and territorial
    > jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison); and
    > (5) for not more than 5 years, in any other case,
    > or both fined and imprisoned.
    >
    > --- end quote
    >
    > I assume since we're talking about a mere threat that, death, permanent
    > disfigurement, did not actually take place, or a dangerous weapon was not
    > used in the issuance of the threat, the penalty for "cyberstalking" is 5
    > years in a federal pen, plus a potential fine.
    >
    > Further, 47 USC 223 was amended by the new law such that it now reads (in
    > part)
    >
    > Whoever...
    >
    > (C) makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications device,
    > whether
    > or not conversation or communication ensues, without disclosing his
    > identity
    > and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the
    > called number or who receives the communications;
    >
    > (C) in the case of subparagraph (C) of subsection (a)(1), includes any
    > device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or
    > other
    > types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the
    > Internet ...
    >
    > Shall be fined or imprisoned for two years or both.
    >
    >
    >
    > GOOD PARTS VERSION
    > ===================
    >
    > If you threaten someone via email or a newsgroup posting such that the
    > object of your threat is placed in fear of his or her life or limb, you
    > have
    > committed the offense of "Cyberstalking" and, upon conviction, may be
    > confined in a federal lock-up for up to five years or fined or both.
    >
    > Bottom line, you cannot issue a credible threat.
    >
    > You can't even insult someone if you do so anonymously.
    >
    > Further, if you use the internet, anonymously - such as a "HeyBub" handle
    > -
    > to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass, you get a fine or slammer time up to
    > two years.
    >
    > Let's all thank President Bush for helping to bring needed civility to
    > this
    > newsgroup.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > * "Thomas" links are not persistent. Go to www.thomas.gov and search for
    > cyberstalking ]
    >
    >


Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.