How specific must a "terroristic threat" be?

Question

For example, what if someone publically stated their intent to kill at some point in the future, without specifying when, where, or whom?

This would surely constitute grounds to search one's home, but what if no means to carry out the threat were found? What charges could be filed? Is it specific enough to be prosecuted for making "terroristic threats"? How vague is too vague?

What could the consequences be after the individual served their (likely relatively brief) sentence?

What if the threat were for a lesser crime, such as vandalism?

Could the police do anything except watch them like a hawk? With limited resources, such surveilance would seem destined to be short-lived.

Anyway, an interesting hypothetical to play with. Anyone know the answer?

NOTE: I have NO intention of making any such threat, nor do I know anyone who would. I am merely interested in the legal implications of such a situation, which, incidentally, would seem rather unlikely to arise in real life.

Answer 1

Laws vary by state and enforcement varies by jurisdiction.

Communicating a threat is a crime in most, if not all, states, adding the word "terroristic" only provides for increased penalties.

The question you ask is a good one, but it cannot be answered in this forum because courts hear those cases and rule different ways depending on circumstances.

Walking around claiming you are going to kill everyone when you clearly have no means or intent to do so would probably not be considered a valid threat within the meaning of the law. But, it might get a person confined for observation as posing a threat to himself or others, in other words, a public nuisance.

Answer 2

There will proably never be an exact answer since it is a very circumstantial situation and the charge would be either based on one or majority of 12 persons decsion and how they were swayed (asuming the person charged was taken to court), just as one person might only go to prison for a few years for murder while another might do life in prision.

Answer 3

Well, someone was convicted a couple months ago because there was evidence suggesting they might have interacted with people who might someday commit acts of terrorism. Yes, just the act of associating with people who might someday become terrorists was enough to sentence this person to a life in prison.

The Attorney General cited it as a great victory in the war on terror, because they were able to get this college student off the streets long before he had the opportunity to commit a terrorist action.

Answer 4

Sin? In Exodus 20:17 God instructions that we could desire to no longer covet our neighbor's slaves, nor something that belongs to him. What God did no longer command that's for all of those servants to settle for their freedom. So each and every so often God has some humorous regulations, and that they do no longer continually seem to coincide rapidly with what we planned to be the utmost available morality. yet as quickly as we return on your question, and eliminate all of trimmings, you ask, "What harm does the 'sins' in Christianity reason?" Oh they have super means to do harm! homicide is extraordinarily undesirable, particular. yet what approximately different sins? Exodus is surprising for sins. 22:18 Says kill all the witches. Eeek. This commandment could have truly brought about some subject if anybody stricken to study it. Oh they did? Oh hell. 22:19 is greater. Sexually abuse animals? loss of existence penalty! See, there is powerful stuff interior the bible! 22:25 Says do no longer fee interest while lending funds. LOL! Who does God think of he's speaking to? 23:13 Says do no longer even point out the names of different gods. So comparitive religious study seem suited out. Wow on 2d concept, this entire sin component looks somewhat extraordinary to me.