"You will not enjoy the outcome" is plenty threatening for my tastes, thank you.
I'm not defending the guy, but do you really think that his email is something the police would even consider taking action over? That's what I'm curious about. Sure, he's a dick and wrote a nasty email, but is what he said really a crime?
I'm not defending the guy, but do you really think that his email is something the police would even consider taking action over? That's what I'm curious about. Sure, he's a dick and wrote a nasty email, but is what he said really a crime?
Not a crime: "I think you're an a-hole, the biggest loser ever. I hate people like you. You're what makes eBay horrible. I wish people like you didn't exist."
A crime: "in 30 minutes I can know everything about your ass. In 3 hours I can be on your doorstep. Don't respond with some glib, self extricating account of how your commitment to travel to my home was somehow tainted by your ****ing paranoia. Do yourself a favor and forget you ever talked to me, cause if I start my research and do what I do for a living, you will not enjoy the outcome."
See the difference?
... do you not understand the art of subtlety? Jesus H. Christ man, get a grip.
The suspicious, indirect statement is almost always more telling than the direct, often laughable alternative.
So you're saying that you think his message is a crime?
Well, in pretty much every state, intimidationis a misdemeanor. However, by sending it via email, the seller has potentially upped the ante:
18 U.S.C. § 875(c) states: "Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both." From the wording of § 875(c) it is clear that the legislator did not require the element of 'intent.' Thus, it is irrelevant if the accused claims he/she did not have the intent to produce any injury on the victim; the mere act of sending the e-mail with threatening messages typifies the criminal conduct.
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_federal_law_on_threats_in_email#ixzz21zV2tjkC
It all depends on whether or not someone determines that the email is deemed a threat.
-D
Sure he was trying to be menacing. I'm just saying that what he wrote is quite different than saying:
"I am going to come to your house and kill you!"
THAT is a specific threat of harm.
do you really think that his email is something the police would even consider taking action over? That's what I'm curious about.
Well, in pretty much every state, intimidationis a misdemeanor. However, by sending it via email, the seller has potentially upped the ante:
18 U.S.C. § 875(c) states: "Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both." From the wording of § 875(c) it is clear that the legislator did not require the element of 'intent.' Thus, it is irrelevant if the accused claims he/she did not have the intent to produce any injury on the victim; the mere act of sending the e-mail with threatening messages typifies the criminal conduct.
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_federal_law_on_threats_in_email#ixzz21zV2tjkC
It all depends on whether or not someone determines that the email is deemed a threat.
-D
Fair enough, but if you are the recipient of that email, would that difference matter? Specific or not, that he felt threatened or uneasy about this seller is the important point. If the seller had not made that last statement about what he could do if so inclined, we would not be having this debate.
Violence perceived is violence achieved.
--------