A terroristic threat is a crime generally involving a threat to commit violence communicated with the intent to terrorize another, to cause evacuation of a building, or to cause serious public inconvenience, in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience. It may mean an offense against property or involving danger to another person that may include but is not limited to recklessly endangering another person, harassment, stalking, ethnic intimidation, and criminal mischief.


http://definitions.uslegal.com/t/terroristic-threat/

it didn't take long!!!!!!!!

11 Del. C.§ § 621 Terroristic threatening; class G felony; class A misdemeanor; penalties.

(a) A person is guilty of terroristic threatening when he or she commits any of the following:

(1) The person threatens to commit any crime likely to result in death or in serious injury to person or property; or
(2) The person makes a false statement or statements:

a. Knowing that the statement or statements are likely to cause evacuation of a building, place of assembly or facility of public transportation; or
b. Knowing that the statement or statements are likely to cause serious inconvenience; or
c. In reckless disregard of the risk of causing terror or serious inconvenience; or

(3) The person commits an act with intent of causing an individual to believe that the individual has been exposed to a substance that will cause the individual death or serious injury.

(b) Any violation of subdivision

(a)(1) of this section shall be a class A misdemeanor, except where the victim is a person 62 years of age or older in which case any violation of subdivision
(a)(1) of this section shall be a class G felony. Any violation of subdivision
(a)(2) of this section shall be a class G felony, unless the place at which the risk of evacuation, serious inconvenience or terror is created is a place which has the purpose, in whole or in part, of acting as a daycare facility, nursery or preschool, kindergarten, elementary, secondary or vocational-technical school or any long term care facility in which elderly persons are housed, in which case it shall be a class F felony. Any violation of paragraph
(a)(3) of this section shall be a Class F felony. Notwithstanding any provision of this subsection to the contrary, a first offense of subsection
(a)(2) of this section by a person 17 or younger shall be a Class A misdemeanor.

(c) In addition to the penalties otherwise authorized by law, any person convicted of an offense in violation of subdivision (a)(2) of this section shall:

(1) Pay a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $2,500, which fine cannot be suspended; and
(2) Be sentenced to perform a minimum of 100 hours of community service.

(d) In addition to the penalties otherwise authorized by law, any person convicted of an offense in violation of subsection

(a)(3) of this section shall pay a fine of not less than $2,000, which fine cannot be suspended.


http://attorneygeneral.delaware.gov/schools/laws/11delc621.htm

yep and read the penalties again

no where near 4 years

which if you would have read the news story you would have seen is his possible sentance

§ 5-13-301. Terroristic threatening. 1975. Amended 1995.

(a) (1) A person commits the offense of terroristic threatening in the first degree if:

(A) With the purpose of terrorizing another person, he threatens to cause death or serious physical injury or substantial property damage to another person; or

(B) With the purpose of terrorizing another person, he threatens to cause physical injury or property damage to a teacher or other school employee acting in the line of duty.

(2) Terroristic threatening in the first degree is a Class D felony.

(b) (1) A person commits the offense of terroristic threatening in the second degree if, with the purpose of terrorizing another person, he threatens to cause physical injury or property damage to another person.

(2) Terroristic threatening in the second degree is a Class A misdemeanor.

(c) (1) (A) A judicial officer, upon pretrial release of the defendant, shall enter a no contact order in writing consistent with Rules 9.3 and 9.4 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure and shall give notice to the defendant of penalties contained in Rule 9.5 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure.

(B) This no contact order shall remain in effect during the pendency of any appeal of a conviction under this section.

(C) The judicial officer or prosecuting attorney shall provide a copy of this no contact order to the victim and arresting agency without unnecessary delay.

(2) If the judicial officer has reason to believe that mental disease or defect of the defendant will or has become an issue in the cause, the judicial officer shall enter such orders as are consistent with § 5-2-305.


http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39076

Terroristic Threat Laws have been on the books for decades.

It is against the law to make threats. It has been against the law to make threats for a very long time. It was against the law to make threats before Patriot Act.This news story has nothing to do with Patriot Act.

yep it appears that way



go read it

Ohioan Charles Papenfus is cooling his heels today in a St. Louis jail, unable to raise the $45,000 bail, after a bitter exchange with a phone rep of a company that hustles car warranties.


Papenfus, infuriated by the company's actions, threatened to burn the company's building down, then hunt down and kill the employees and their families.

Papenfus received a direct mail piece offering to extend the warranty on his car. However, he didn't have a warranty to extend. His wife says he called the company to find out why they made such an offer.

Apparently dissatisfied with the company's response, he called back. Finally, the company called him to resolve the issue, but the discussion between Papenfus and the service rep quickly went sour. After the service rep called Papenfus a jackass (or something similar, but profane), he responded with the threats that landed him in jail.
While the victim company was not listed in the police report, StLouistoday.com did some detective work and found that the only business that resided at the listed address is Service Protection Direct, a front for TXEN Partners.


Service Protection Direct was successfully sued in 2008 by the Missouri Attorney General for its business practices, and the Better Business Bureau has criticized its marketing materials.

The police set up a sting to lure Papenfus to the Fostoria, Ohio police station, where he was arrested and transported to St. Louis to await his trial. He is charged with making a terrorist threat, and could be sentenced to up to four years in jail.

I guess I've dodged this bullet in the past, because I've had some very heated discussions with trolls cold-calling me or sending me deceptive mail. I've never taken it to Papenfus's level, but is his frustration really so hard to understand? Perhaps he is wacko enough that the police need to take his threat seriously.

However, I suspect that he's a guy with a temper who had a bad day. Yes, I suppose he needed to be checked out, perhaps dressed down, even fined. Anything beyond that, however, seems like a grand waste of time and taxpayer money.

The next time you meet someone who has done cold-call phone sales, ask them how many times they were threatened by angry call recipients. You'd need a big, big jail to hold everyone who's ever gone postal on a phone marketer.

i was referring to the patriot act

there is a link above somewhere

I am glad you finally see that this news story has nothing to do with the Patriot Act. I think the Patriot Act sucks too, but it was already illegal to make terroristic threats before the Patriot Act came aboutI personally witnessed a friend get arrested for making terroristic threats in 1997.That was years before Patriot Act. The guy in this story is a dumba** jerk and deserves what he gets. Its common sense to know that you can't threaten to kill people and burn down buildings

A person could get arrested for making terroristic threats before Patriot Act. Even if there was NO Patriot Act this guy would be in trouble for making a terroristic threat

that looks to be the case

but how often was it enforced b4 the patriot act

if you would actually read it it does cover this sort of action

i would have copy and pasted it for you but it will not let that happen

you did good you posted it that is all i wanted ya to do

any one can say anything and yes i found it as well

it was like spitting on the sidewalk it is against the law but rarely enforced

but since the raised awareness that the patriot act has brought forth their is more use of the terrorist punishments

and to i do not know which law he was charged under

both of them would fit

It has been used lots of times before Patriot Act. Whenever a husband threatened his wife,whenever someone threatened to kick someones a**,whenever someone pulls a hoax.I just told you that I seen someone get arrested for it in 1997. In the town I grew up in the court news (carried in the local paper)there were always people in there for terroristic threatening.I remember people being charged with it when I was a kid in the 80s.The term "Terroristic Threat" does not mean international terrorism like Al-Qaida or something. Its just the term that was always used.You are getting hung up on the "terrorism" word. That word existed long before 911 and Patriot Act

you are hung up on the past use

and are not seeing the new way it is being used

you are missing my point by staying in the past

that is ok be well

good night was nice talking w/you

In regards to what this idiot man did, and the crime he committed the word is being used in the proper context. If this guy had did the same thing in 1999 or 1989 or 1979 it would be called terroristic threatening

For the record, What the founding fathers did to pull this nation out from underneath the rule of England, would now get them classified domestic terrorists, their constitutional rights taken from them and they would find themselves locked in a brig somewhere enjoying some of that B.S. torture (enhanced interrogations).

i never said the word was used improperly





and i never said the patriot act is unrelated that was your assumption

if you go to i am pretty sure it is section 6 of the patriot act this man is guilty of domestic terrorism now you have shown there were laws already in place to cover the crime of domestic terrorism

so can you explain what the need for the patriot act is