"The woman was also charged with one count of terroristic threatening for
pointing a handgun at an officer,"

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/03/27/....ap/index.html

Anyone see where "terroristic threatening" could lead, with an overzealous
justice department?

On 2008-03-27 14:30:38 -0700, "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> said:

> "The woman was also charged with one count of terroristic threatening for
> pointing a handgun at an officer,"
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/03/27/....ap/index.html
>
> Anyone see where "terroristic threatening" could lead, with an overzealous
> justice department?

A new buzzword for the hoplophobes.

But you don't need a gun to get shot:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniont...1m27silva.html

Not your typical example of our largest force, but it makes you raise
an eyebrow. There's something really fishy about this one.

I'll keep you posted.

"witfal" <nospam@all4.me> wrote in message
news:fsh45f$205$1@news.albasani.net...
> On 2008-03-27 14:30:38 -0700, "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com>
> said:
>
>> "The woman was also charged with one count of terroristic threatening for
>> pointing a handgun at an officer,"
>>
>> http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/03/27/....ap/index.html
>>
>> Anyone see where "terroristic threatening" could lead, with an
>> overzealous
>> justice department?
>
> A new buzzword for the hoplophobes.


I'm not so sure. Designate someone a terrorist, and you can then ignore
certain constitutional requirements. Remember how some of the Thunderbird
crew in this group love to say "it couldn't happen to an American citizen"?

Don't be so sure.

On 2008-03-27 14:43:16 -0700, "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> said:

>
> "witfal" <nospam@all4.me> wrote in message
> news:fsh45f$205$1@news.albasani.net...
>> On 2008-03-27 14:30:38 -0700, "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com>
>> said:
>>
>>> "The woman was also charged with one count of terroristic threatening for
>>> pointing a handgun at an officer,"
>>>
>>> http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/03/27/....ap/index.html
>>>
>>> Anyone see where "terroristic threatening" could lead, with an
>>> overzealous
>>> justice department?
>>
>> A new buzzword for the hoplophobes.
>
>
> I'm not so sure. Designate someone a terrorist, and you can then ignore
> certain constitutional requirements.

Er...that's sorta what I meant, Joe. Hoplophobes all ignore the Second
Amendment.

> Remember how some of the Thunderbird
> crew in this group love to say "it couldn't happen to an American citizen"?
>
> Don't be so sure.

Illustrated by my San Diego Police story. I'm really interested, in
this case, how the officer thought it justified to shoot at a woman and
a young boy.

Really interested.

"witfal" <nospam@all4.me> wrote in message
news:fsh5gs$5c3$1@news.albasani.net...
> On 2008-03-27 14:43:16 -0700, "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com>
> said:
>
>>
>> "witfal" <nospam@all4.me> wrote in message
>> news:fsh45f$205$1@news.albasani.net...
>>> On 2008-03-27 14:30:38 -0700, "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com>
>>> said:
>>>
>>>> "The woman was also charged with one count of terroristic threatening
>>>> for
>>>> pointing a handgun at an officer,"
>>>>
>>>> http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/03/27/....ap/index.html
>>>>
>>>> Anyone see where "terroristic threatening" could lead, with an
>>>> overzealous
>>>> justice department?
>>>
>>> A new buzzword for the hoplophobes.
>>
>>
>> I'm not so sure. Designate someone a terrorist, and you can then ignore
>> certain constitutional requirements.
>
> Er...that's sorta what I meant, Joe. Hoplophobes all ignore the Second
> Amendment.

Don't limit it to hoplophobes. The entire justice department can use the
word "terrorist" anytime they want, for anyone.


>
>> Remember how some of the Thunderbird
>> crew in this group love to say "it couldn't happen to an American
>> citizen"?
>>
>> Don't be so sure.
>
> Illustrated by my San Diego Police story. I'm really interested, in this
> case, how the officer thought it justified to shoot at a woman and a young
> boy.
>
> Really interested.
>

On 2008-03-27 15:03:12 -0700, "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> said:

>>> I'm not so sure. Designate someone a terrorist, and you can then ignore
>>> certain constitutional requirements.
>>
>> Er...that's sorta what I meant, Joe. Hoplophobes all ignore the Second
>> Amendment.
>
> Don't limit it to hoplophobes. The entire justice department can use the
> word "terrorist" anytime they want, for anyone.

It's just another word used to demonize someone for a predetermined result.

Historically, that's certainly nothing new. Gun owners have been under
this kind of assault for decades.

Unfortunately now it's likely that others are going to feel this kind
of extremism.