I'm reminded of the old adage,"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me." Only recently has the concern over hurtful words been so ridiculously elevated, with the current generation of fragile snowflakes needing their "safe spaces" where they are protected from ideas that apparently can critically injure their sensitive psyches.

The obsession over "hate speech" endangers free speech. You may not like what someone says, and the police are always accommodating if someone threatens violence against you, which does have legal repercussion.

There are differences in how reactions to threats are perceived in some states. Someone entering your home uninvited can be sufficient grounds for use of deadly force in many states, perceived as a threat of possible violence to you or your family. In other states, blowing away an unarmed intruder can be determined to be the use of "excessive force," and you get carted away. Gun control folk make the irrational demand for calm, rational thought in the presence of fear for one's life, and incomplete information.

If you are talking philosophically, I would argue no. A threat is a use of coercion. A threat is a pre-meditated act, which in my mind makes it even more of a crime than a reactant use of force.

Obviously, you must consider the validity of the threat. It is largely true that those who threaten do not follow through. Those who attack do not warn you in advance. However...

It is well-known that government prosecutors told Michael Milken that if he did not plead guilty, they would go after his brother. Do you imagine that they were bluffing? It is also well-known that in pleading guilty, Milken was the only one of the "junk bond" or "inside traders" to go to prison. Every other prosecution (for instance Ivan Boessky) was either defeated at trial or overturned on appeal. But it takes a lot of courage and financial resources to stand up to that kind of intimidation. And via RICO, the government deprives you of your resources. We know that with so-called "street crime" people often plead guilty to crimes they did not commit. ("Who is the jury going to believe, kid?")

As for that street crime, bullies pick on people who cannot defend themselves. That much is true by definition. The bullies save themselves the actual effort with the threat of violence. So, we would have to say that the threat is equivalent to the act.

Here in Texas, it does not take much of a threat to you for you to lawfully respond with actual violence in your own (pre-emptive) defense.

If I have the terms straing there is a difference.
Actual violence against someone is Battery. The threat of violence is Assault. So if tyou threaten somone and then stricke them you have committed Assault and Battery.
Again, I'm not sure I have the terms right, but there is a distinct difference between the threat of violence and the actual commitment of violence.
I practical terms 1 to 3 yrs vs 5 to 7 years behind bars.

Why do you think you go to jail for extortion (threat of violence)?

If I tell you I am going to punch you in the face that is a threat. However, if I walk up to you and punch you in the face, that is violence.
Tell me is there a difference?

Once upon a time me dino was a newspaper reporter who was threatened several times on the phone before there was such a thing as *69 and and Caller ID.
I did not lose a drop of blood.
Off and on some coward on the phone would tell me how "someone" was gonna make me pay or that "someone" was gonna run my out the county.
Toward the end of of that thankless for a crappy pay career, I told a caller that "Ive been waiting for this "someone" for seven years to do something and I haven't seen him yet."
Me dino got no response for saying that. Click!
Years later as a corrections officer an inmate in a cell block day room was excitedly carrying on how I'd better be worried about something happening to me when I pretended to yawn.
In mid-sentence he came to a stuttering stop and walked away. I could tell several similar stories like that but they'd start to become boring.

The dangerous concept of "hate crimes" is terrifying. As a crime victim I DO NOT CARE why the perpetrator victimized me? If the violent person is screaming racial, gender based, homophobic epithets while beating me, I don't care. They may not have any basis in reality. The murder the other day of the police officer seems to have been someone who was "just mad" and looking for a target. That cop, nor from what I've read, any cop, had nothing to do with his agitation and decision to murder someone. In our legal system we have concepts that come into play at the point of sentencing, aggravating and mitigating circumstances. After a fair trial the sentencing body evaluates any and all aggravating and/or mitigating circumstances and weighs those components at that time. If someone "hates" someone else, that is not morally and should not be legally a crime. If s/he acts on that hatred and is convicted of doing so, then the judge/jury can take that into consideration. Frankly I'm much more concerned that people with potentially dangerous ideas are forced to be quiet, thus may become more likely to act on their hatred than if we allowed them to vent and then just laughed at their idiotic ideas. Almost always when we catch a serial killer people who knew him are surprised, even perplexed, that s/he could commit such crimes as s/he was always quiet or shy, or at least did not voice his beliefs that lead to murder and mayhem. yes, there is a difference. There probably is a difference between a verbal threat and a behavioral threat. Which brings me to the observation that an armed society is a polite society.

Of course there is a difference. And depending on context and degree, there are several differences.

What is the 2nd Amendment if not a threat of violence?

Well.....with the threat of violence, no one dies.

Not much. But define "threat".

Normally and actually yes; in court still yes but, more of a gray area. If you feel your life's in danger you have every right to protect it. But, legally you must be able to prove you felt YOUR life to be in danger..not "I beat them because they didn't agree with me", or "they were wearing a shirt I didn't like"

These 'buttercups' of today think if they get mad they are free to act out in violence are showing how wrong society and their parents were raising them.


Not punishing them for doing hurtful things, giving them awards for basically doing nothing and blaming the child's failures on the teacher, minister, coach, babysitter or neighbor was/is wrong!

Yes, as the Declaration of Independence says we "..are created equal," but that never meant we all 'deserve' the same things. Sally may want $1 million dollars, Johnny $500 thousand and Julie may just want a house and a mini van; yes we are born equal, but we will have a very different "..Pursuit of Happiness.."

So too those 'precious little snowflakes'; get over yourself and grow up!