Someone verbally said they are going to kill me

[sjfcontrol]

Thanks to all for the opinions. Hoping to see an attorney this morning. One other question regarding this whole matter. When the two off duty LEO working as private security asked for my ID and then my wives ID we showed DL and CHL. Was that the correct thing to do?

If you were armed at the time, yes. Otherwise the CHL was not necessary (but may be an advantage to you).

To further follow up on yoru question, an off-duty LEO is still a LEO, even if working another job. Per teh statute if you are asked for ID by a LEO and you are carrying, then you must present both your DL or state issued ID and your CHL.

If the off-duty LEO was out of uniform, how would you know he's a LEO?

[GJwitha45]

They were in uniform.

[GJwitha45]

One other thing as I am still thinking this whole thing out. Are the security guards allowed to let the person making the threats know that we have a CHL? I figure they are allowed, but not necessarily obligated, to inform the property owner. I was never told what the conversation with the threating party was so it just things that I do have concerns about.

[android]

Why do we need this "terroristic threat" charge?

Isn't verbally threatening someone already covered as "assault?" Did they just want to come up with something that sounds scarier?

It sounds to me like, "If you don't shut up, I'm going to smash you" is clearly covered by (2).

Code: Select all

Sec. 22.01. ASSAULT. (a) A person commits an offense if the person:

(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another, including the person's spouse;

(2) [b]intentionally or knowingly threatens another with imminent bodily injury, [/b]including the person's spouse; or

(3) intentionally or knowingly causes physical contact with another when the person knows or should reasonably believe that the other will regard the contact as offensive or provocative.

[Keith B]

Why do we need this "terroristic threat" charge?

Isn't verbally threatening someone already covered as "assault?" Did they just want to come up with something that sounds scarier?

It sounds to me like, "If you don't shut up, I'm going to smash you" is clearly covered by (2).

Code: Select all

Sec. 22.01. ASSAULT. (a) A person commits an offense if the person:

(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another, including the person's spouse;

(2) [b]intentionally or knowingly threatens another with imminent bodily injury, [/b]including the person's spouse; or

(3) intentionally or knowingly causes physical contact with another when the person knows or should reasonably believe that the other will regard the contact as offensive or provocative.

They do not consider verbal as 'threatening' in this case. It would be physical actions that would 'threaten' the person, such as showing a gun, pulling out a baseball bat, club, knife, etc.

You can use force for self defense if an assault is occurring and force is being used, but penal code 9.31 specifically says use of force is not justified on verbal threat alone,

Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE.
..................................

(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;.....................

[Jumping Frog]

Why do we need this "terroristic threat" charge?

A simple assault (threat) is a Class C misdemeanor, while terroristic threat is a Class B. More serious charge for more serious threats.

[WildBill]

Why do we need this "terroristic threat" charge?

Isn't verbally threatening someone already covered as "assault?" Did they just want to come up with something that sounds scarier?

It sounds to me like, "If you don't shut up, I'm going to smash you" is clearly covered by (2).

Code: Select all

Sec. 22.01. ASSAULT. (a) A person commits an offense if the person:

(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another, including the person's spouse;

(2) [b]intentionally or knowingly threatens another with imminent bodily injury, [/b]including the person's spouse; or

(3) intentionally or knowingly causes physical contact with another when the person knows or should reasonably believe that the other will regard the contact as offensive or provocative.

I don't think we need it. IMO, it's another law that is not needed and should be repealed.