Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Manx
You are not wrong. However, considering host informed us of that protestation AFTER you had already made two posts warning him about illegal activities, I fail to see the relevance. Add onto that the hardly shocking, significant or severe form of illegal activity that host later described, I fail to see any retroactive relevance for your warning of violence or significant long-term detrimental affects.
|
The language Host used sounded to me like he was preparing to possibly commit criminal activity in the form of "taking to the streets". Based upon that, I warned him of the repercussions of committing a criminal act as a protest. Host then informed us that he did in fact in the past, as an act of protest, commit a crime and was eventually pardoned by Jimmy Carter. This validates my interpretation of what he said, because he admits to committing a crime in the past as a protest. As the saying goes: "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time." Warning him of the possible legal repercussions of an illegal act (getting shot with rubber bullets as happened in Portland or going to jail) doesn't strike me as a threat...it strikes me as a warning not to break the law because of the repercussions of his actions.
If somebody says "I'm thinking about starting to deal in crack cocaine", and somebody else says "that's illegal, and PWID carries a sentence of X", has the person threatened the wannabe crack dealer? In my book, no. On the other hand, if somebody sees that and says "dealing crack cocaine is legal and high-profit, and you should do it!" the person saying that may do well to read up on the legal definitions of "conspiracy" and "accessory before the fact".