- May 5, 2004
That kid has enough to worry about should keep a special eye on Fonda and the rest of the loonies. Go out of their way to let them know they are being watched every second of the day.because it doesn't really work that way, this is handled by the Secret Service, there's a difference between a credible threat and an off the cuff remark
the Secret Service is aware of the tweet, which probably means they're keeping an extra eye on Barron
so it comes down to the words used...groucho didnt actually say he was going to assassinate Nixon...just that he thought it was the only hope for the country..so it isnt an actual threat if i understand correctlyyes, but it has to be a credible threat
According to the law, the threat must be made "knowingly and willfully" and must take the larger context of the statement into consideration. If such a threat is uttered as a political argument or made simply in jest, it typically won't rise to the level of "credible threat." Regardless, defendants may not defend against such charges by stating that the threat was accompanied by religious or political statements.
For example, if a comedian makes a joke about killing the president, it probably wouldn't violate the law, even if it lacks good taste (although a comedian is still capable of making a credible threat). In fact, legendary comedian Groucho Marx was quoted in 1971 as saying "I think the only hope this country has is Nixon's assassination." It may have been an irresponsible comment, but one protected as free speech.
i guess there just is no just cause for bad taste then..lolI just don't think the Secret Service cares who is in office, they do their job day in and day out, and I trust them, they've been doing their jobs for a long, long time
A person can be found guilty of that offense only if all of the following facts are proved beyond a reasonable doubt:
First: That the person uttered words alleged to be the threat against the President;
Second: That the person understood and meant the words he used as a true threat; and
Third: That the person uttered the words knowingly and willfully.
A "threat" is a statement expressing an intention to kill or injure the President; and a "true threat" means a serious threat as distinguished from words used as mere political argument, idle or careless talk, or something said in a joking manner.
The essence of the offense is the knowing and willful making of a true threat. So, if it is proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the person knowingly made a true threat against the President, willfully intending that it be understood by others as a serious threat, then the offense is complete; it is not necessary to prove that the person actually intended to carry out the threat.
whispers back...i know ...lmao*whispers* ... it was sarcasm