Threats or empty words?

[Workingman]

If, during an arguments, someone says "I am going to knock your block off!" does it really mean the person is going to come round with a baseball bat? How many times has "I'm gonna kill you." lead to an actual murder? Does "Shut up you moron before I shut you up." really mean that the person is going to be struck dumb?

99.99999% of the time these are nothing more than words - empty words.

When a person gets up on their soapbox to argue for their cause do they honestly expect the whole world to agree th them?

The latest farce is the Twiter case of Caroline Criado-Perez. She wanted more representation of women on banknotes. Some of those who disagreed with her sent tweets 'threatening' to rape her. A 21-year-old male idiot has been arrested.

But hang on. Is there the remotest evidence that his words, stupid and nasty though they were, actually constituted a threat, or were they nothing more than the ramblings of a drunk in a pub trying to look 'big' in front of his mates?

[debih]

If someone threatened to kill me in an argument I would think nothing of it.

If they threatened to rape me I would find it very upsetting, even though I knew that it probably was empty words.

[TheOstrich]

In my book, it's a threat designed to create fear. At its lowest common denominator, it's cyber-bullying. The 21 yo may be an idiot, but he's a dangerous one. If he's not stopped in his tracks, his next victim, perhaps not so high profile, may commit suicide.

Like the Australian disc-jockeys. They thought they could get away with a "harmless prank and a good laugh". Look what happened. Personally, I think it was a disgrace they weren't prosecuted, but there you go.

[Workingman]

I understand what you are both saying, but surely for something to be a "threat" there has to be intent and an ability to carry it out?

That is not to say that some statements are not "offensive" or "abusive". Some of them are, and should be treated as such.

[cromwell]

In my book, it's a threat designed to create fear.

I agree Os. It is quite startling to be reminded of how many nasty, inadequate people there are out there. Not to mention stupid as well - do they think that they are untracable?
I don't like this constant procession of people on TV who are all uber confident and absolutely will NOT shut up until they have got their way; but posting rape threats is a pretty vile thing to do and is totally unacceptable.

[Workingman]

.... posting rape threats is a pretty vile thing to do and is totally unacceptable.

Vile: yes. Unacceptable: absolutely. Threats: debatable.

The man arrested lives in Manchester. Unless he knows where Caroline Criado-Perez lives/works/eats out etc, and had made plans to go there, and it can be proved as such, then there is no way he could carry out his "threat"; and that is my main complaint about this media hype and the reaction of the police.

I quite agree that such language is not acceptable, but there are times when we have to deal with things with a bit of common sense.

[Aggers]

I quite agree that such language is not acceptable, but there are times
when we have to deal with things with a bit of common sense.

If such language is unacceptable, then it is wrong. There are no two ways about it.

A written offensive and threatening message on a web site is much worse than a
spontaneous outburst of oral abuse.The act of typing a message is not the same as
a spoken statement. It's a deliberate, calculated act requiring a measure of thought.
I accept that written messages may often contain exaggerated statements designed
to emphasize a point but if are of a threatening nature they are wrong and punishable.

[Rodo]

I agree with Ossie. It was cyber bullying and intended to cause fear.
Saying things like "I'll knock your block off" and similar among peers is a very different thing.

[Diflower]

I think it's still a fairly new form of threat, and unfortunately the law hasn't caught up. There should be a different set of laws/offences. Still serious, but not quite the same.

Having said that, there is the horrible and very real situation where someone starts out abusing and threatening online, but they then do make that crossover into actually carrying it out.
And then for the victim, it's surely pretty frightening to see these threats online, you wouldn't know if it was someone close by, or who knew where you were. So, definitely still a crime, but maybe a whole new set of legislation?

[Suff]

Personally I'd be more concerned about the person down the pub who "goes off on one". However as WM says, behaviour has to match the written word. We do live in a world in which people are much more remote than they used to be. Are you scared of the 5 stone runt in his dark hole ranting on his keyboard because it's the only way he can make any impact on a world of much larger people?

Of course you don't know he's a 5 stone runt. Or even a man. That seems to make it more threatening.

Personally I find remote tings more irritating but less threatening than real life conflict. Like the guy who broke into my car, stole my laptop and then phoned me to try and frighten me from my number stored in my organiser. When that conversation was finished, he didn't feel quite so good as he was told, in no uncertain terms, that he didn't know WHO I was and that if he wanted to keep on stealing laptops from people's cars he might just want to worry about the bag with 5 ounces of Semtex in it (fear goes both ways).... I was seriously annoyed and if he had been in the room I'd probably have wound up in Jail, but I never felt threatened even though he was telling me he knew my address and could reach me or my family at any time.

So, in some ways, I think we need to toughen ourselves up a bit. But, honestly, anyone who threatens to rape a woman, in my opinion, belongs behind bars for a week, being used as a girlfriend by the lifers. THAT I won't stand at all.