Bryce Thompson has been cleared to practice

[I40flyer]

Again, do you have evidence he said anything? Go find your safe space and hide.

Again, I am happy you are not in a position of responsibility where people's safety is concerned, if you were, we may all need a safe place to hide, as society would be is worse shape than it is now. Once again, the police had/have a witness that reported he heard BT threaten to shoot up the school. He heard the statement at the time BT was tearing a metal gate off the wall, and threatening "I'm gonna Slap the Sh*t out of you" to one of his girl friends (not the one with the false eye lashes). If the police decided, "Well, who hasn't made threats to shoot up the school, or blow up a building, or plant bombs etc. during a spat with a girl", we'd need new police, as that would be idiotic. A threat such as that must be treated as if it were real, until proven otherwise. Those type of threats obviously seem normal to you (during a fight with a girl friend), but they seem mentally deranged to me. I am quite sure I've never made a threat like that during an argument with a girl friend, ever. Let's no forget, BT, lied. At first he said, he never touched the metal gate, but later admitted he lied, and that he had torn it off the wall. But we should believe every other word he says????? Again, I'm glad you are not in a responsible position-hopefully never will be.

 

[swampfoxfan]

Again, I am happy you are not in a position of responsibility where people's safety is concerned, if you were, we may all need a safe place to hide, as society would be is worse shape than it is now. Once again, the police had/have a witness that reported he heard BT threaten to shoot up the school. He heard the statement at the time BT was tearing a metal gate off the wall, and threatening "I'm gonna Slap the Sh*t out of you" to one of his girl friends (not the one with the false eye lashes). If the police decided, "Well, who hasn't made threats to shoot up the school, or blow up a building, or plant bombs etc. during a spat with a girl", we'd need new police, as that would be idiotic. A threat such as that must be treated as if it were real, until proven otherwise. Those type of threats obviously seem normal to you (during a fight with a girl friend), but they seem mentally deranged to me. I am quite sure I've never made a threat like that during an argument with a girl friend, ever. Let's no forget, BT, lied. At first he said, he never touched the metal gate, but later admitted he lied, and that he had torn it off the wall. But we should believe every other word he says????? Again, I'm glad you are not in a responsible position-hopefully never will be.

Well I'm sure you combed the area for any evidence and have everything logged into the evidence locker. Good job detective.

 

[I40flyer]

Well I'm sure you combed the area for any evidence and have everything logged into the evidence locker. Good job detective.

Again, I am truly glad, and thankful, you are not now, nor ever will be in a position of responsibility, you do not reflect the attitude most Tennesseans have when it comes to the well being of our friends and neighbors-but God Bless Your Heart.

 

[KB5252]

Redeem himself for what? What parameters?

I'm very excited to learn what rules you'll lay down for him.

It's not my place to set parameters, that's between he and the athletic department.

Redeem himself for losing his cool and making an ass of himself and hurting the team.

 

[Ashevolle]

Again, I am happy you are not in a position of responsibility where people's safety is concerned, if you were, we may all need a safe place to hide, as society would be is worse shape than it is now. Once again, the police had/have a witness that reported he heard BT threaten to shoot up the school. He heard the statement at the time BT was tearing a metal gate off the wall, and threatening "I'm gonna Slap the Sh*t out of you" to one of his girl friends (not the one with the false eye lashes). If the police decided, "Well, who hasn't made threats to shoot up the school, or blow up a building, or plant bombs etc. during a spat with a girl", we'd need new police, as that would be idiotic. A threat such as that must be treated as if it were real, until proven otherwise. Those type of threats obviously seem normal to you (during a fight with a girl friend), but they seem mentally deranged to me. I am quite sure I've never made a threat like that during an argument with a girl friend, ever. Let's no forget, BT, lied. At first he said, he never touched the metal gate, but later admitted he lied, and that he had torn it off the wall. But we should believe every other word he says????? Again, I'm glad you are not in a responsible position-hopefully never will be.

Yeah, but he's a damn good football player, so.....

 

[butchna]

Again, do you have evidence he said anything? Go find your safe space and hide.

He hopes you’re an alcoholic. He doesn’t sound like a very good person, himself.

 

[butchna]

Again, I am happy you are not in a position of responsibility where people's safety is concerned, if you were, we may all need a safe place to hide, as society would be is worse shape than it is now. Once again, the police had/have a witness that reported he heard BT threaten to shoot up the school. He heard the statement at the time BT was tearing a metal gate off the wall, and threatening "I'm gonna Slap the Sh*t out of you" to one of his girl friends (not the one with the false eye lashes). If the police decided, "Well, who hasn't made threats to shoot up the school, or blow up a building, or plant bombs etc. during a spat with a girl", we'd need new police, as that would be idiotic. A threat such as that must be treated as if it were real, until proven otherwise. Those type of threats obviously seem normal to you (during a fight with a girl friend), but they seem mentally deranged to me. I am quite sure I've never made a threat like that during an argument with a girl friend, ever. Let's no forget, BT, lied. At first he said, he never touched the metal gate, but later admitted he lied, and that he had torn it off the wall. But we should believe every other word he says????? Again, I'm glad you are not in a responsible position-hopefully never will be.

I’m glad your hands aren’t holding a detonator.

 

[HearForGrumors]

Again, I am happy you are not in a position of responsibility where people's safety is concerned, if you were, we may all need a safe place to hide, as society would be is worse shape than it is now. Once again, the police had/have a witness that reported he heard BT threaten to shoot up the school. He heard the statement at the time BT was tearing a metal gate off the wall, and threatening "I'm gonna Slap the Sh*t out of you" to one of his girl friends (not the one with the false eye lashes). If the police decided, "Well, who hasn't made threats to shoot up the school, or blow up a building, or plant bombs etc. during a spat with a girl", we'd need new police, as that would be idiotic. A threat such as that must be treated as if it were real, until proven otherwise. Those type of threats obviously seem normal to you (during a fight with a girl friend), but they seem mentally deranged to me. I am quite sure I've never made a threat like that during an argument with a girl friend, ever. Let's no forget, BT, lied. At first he said, he never touched the metal gate, but later admitted he lied, and that he had torn it off the wall. But we should believe every other word he says????? Again, I'm glad you are not in a responsible position-hopefully never will be.

It's about the realistic credibility of the threat. Frankly, the Constitution grants the freedom of speech to say things like this. In the absence of other evidence making the threat credible, words uttered in the "heat of passion" are constitutionally protected.

It's akin to someone saying "I'm going to pop a cap in your ass."

There's a huge difference between a angry, and potentially intoxicated, 20 year old football player making some sort of ambiguous threat, and a social media post by a bullied kid identifying a hit list or relating a plan to kill other students. In the former case, the threat is hardly credible, and its just words uttered in anger.

So, given some context - you have a choice - (1) clutch your pearls and be aghast at the reality of a tough world or (2) realize the kid needs some counseling, need instruction on why things like that should be said in today's climate, and needs to learn tools to better manage his anger (even if that means only avoiding situations like this).

Frankly, for the life of the young man involved, and for everyone else he comes into contact with, I hope he is able to learn from this experience. This is a crossroads situation, and I, for one, hope he makes the most of a renewed opportunity.

 

[DoyleMcOrange]

Chubb injury bit went strangely silent.

He made his point. No one could post any video evidence to dispute his position, so he left, victorious.

 

[ProudVOLfan]

He made his point. No one could post any video evidence to dispute his position, so he left, victorious.

 

[swampfoxfan]

It's about the realistic credibility of the threat. Frankly, the Constitution grants the freedom of speech to say things like this. In the absence of other evidence making the threat credible, words uttered in the "heat of passion" are constitutionally protected.

It's akin to someone saying "I'm going to pop a cap in your ass."

There's a huge difference between a angry, and potentially intoxicated, 20 year old football player making some sort of ambiguous threat, and a social media post by a bullied kid identifying a hit list or relating a plan to kill other students. In the former case, the threat is hardly credible, and its just words uttered in anger.

So, given some context - you have a choice - (1) clutch your pearls and be aghast at the reality of a tough world or (2) realize the kid needs some counseling, need instruction on why things like that should be said in today's climate, and needs to learn tools to better manage his anger (even if that means only avoiding situations like this).

Frankly, for the life of the young man involved, and for everyone else he comes into contact with, I hope he is able to learn from this experience. This is a crossroads situation, and I, for one, hope he makes the most of a renewed opportunity.

What I was trying to say, thanks.

 

[I40flyer]

It's about the realistic credibility of the threat. Frankly, the Constitution grants the freedom of speech to say things like this. In the absence of other evidence making the threat credible, words uttered in the "heat of passion" are constitutionally protected.

It's akin to someone saying "I'm going to pop a cap in your ass."

There's a huge difference between a angry, and potentially intoxicated, 20 year old football player making some sort of ambiguous threat, and a social media post by a bullied kid identifying a hit list or relating a plan to kill other students. In the former case, the threat is hardly credible, and its just words uttered in anger.

So, given some context - you have a choice - (1) clutch your pearls and be aghast at the reality of a tough world or (2) realize the kid needs some counseling, need instruction on why things like that should be said in today's climate, and needs to learn tools to better manage his anger (even if that means only avoiding situations like this).

Frankly, for the life of the young man involved, and for everyone else he comes into contact with, I hope he is able to learn from this experience. This is a crossroads situation, and I, for one, hope he makes the most of a renewed opportunity.

Wow! You have a very poor understanding of the Constitution, especially when it comes to "protected speech". I shall post one example, The United States Supreme Court has held that threats of violence are not protected by the First Amendment. There are three basic reasons that the Court has used to justify excluding threats of violence from First Amendment Protection: (1) protecting individuals from the fear of violence; (2) safeguarding against the disruption that such fear causes; and(3) reducing the possibility that the threatened violence will occur.
If you have other Supreme Court Rulings that contradict this decision, please post.
Now, let's look at cornering a female (by a very strong SEC Football player), while tearing off a metal gate, uttering, "I'm gonna slap the SH*t out of you", in Tennessee this Assault. I know there are some on this board that have trouble with basic English Comprehension, and do not understand the term Assault. In fact, they refuse to read the law, as it may further confuse them. The threats combined with the violent act of tearing a metal gate off the wall, is Assault. BTW, this isn't an Ambiguous Threat, it was very credible.
This is not BT's first run in with the law, his first occurred in SC where a Court ordered an Order of Protection, because it was alleged by another female that BT had made Death Threats, she even stated that in the past, he had physically attacked her.
Your "pick and choose" may be just as cute as can be when you and your "friend" are clutching your pearls; however, IF you actually read my posts, you would see (Post #113) I clearly state BT needs counseling and the school should help.
Finally, I hope for the life of the young man (BT), and for everyone else he comes into contact with, I hope he is able to learn from this experience, and the experience he had in SC, these two run ins with the law, should be a wake up call. I hope a third or fourth aren't needed, and if so, I hope the next time you don't lay your hands on the female, as your anger is such, you may kill her.

 

[HearForGrumors]

Wow! You have a very poor understanding of the Constitution, especially when it comes to "protected speech". I shall post one example, The United States Supreme Court has held that threats of violence are not protected by the First Amendment. There are three basic reasons that the Court has used to justify excluding threats of violence from First Amendment Protection: (1) protecting individuals from the fear of violence; (2) safeguarding against the disruption that such fear causes; and(3) reducing the possibility that the threatened violence will occur.
If you have other Supreme Court Rulings that contradict this decision, please post.
Now, let's look at cornering a female (by a very strong SEC Football player), while tearing off a metal gate, uttering, "I'm gonna slap the SH*t out of you", in Tennessee this Assault. I know there are some on this board that have trouble with basic English Comprehension, and do not understand the term Assault. In fact, they refuse to read the law, as it may further confuse them. The threats combined with the violent act of tearing a metal gate off the wall, is Assault. BTW, this isn't an Ambiguous Threat, it was very credible.
This is not BT's first run in with the law, his first occurred in SC where a Court ordered an Order of Protection, because it was alleged by another female that BT had made Death Threats, she even stated that in the past, he had physically attacked her.
Your "pick and choose" may be just as cute as can be when you and your "friend" are clutching your pearls; however, IF you actually read my posts, you would see (Post #113) I clearly state BT needs counseling and the school should help.
Finally, I hope for the life of the young man (BT), and for everyone else he comes into contact with, I hope he is able to learn from this experience, and the experience he had in SC, these two run ins with the law, should be a wake up call. I hope a third or fourth aren't needed, and if so, I hope the next time you don't lay your hands on the female, as your anger is such, you may kill her.

Are you an attorney? I am.

You are right about those exceptions to the 1st. However, there has to be an element of reasonable imminence. In this situation there is no reasonable inference - the threat is likely non-credible - and while it would never get litigated, there would be a 1A argument against any constitutional protections.


Read this:

Incitement and threats are not free speech.”​

While technically true, not everything that might colloquially be called a “threat” is outside the protection of the First Amendment. Only “true threats” are unprotected—threats conveying “a serious expression of intent to an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals.” There’s some ambiguity about whether evaluating the seriousness of a threat is an objective question, or a subjective question, or both, something the Supreme Court recently failed to resolve. But most courts impose an objective test: A threat is “true” if a reasonable person hearing it would take it as a sincere expression of intent to do harm. That doesn’t cover most hyperbole and political invective.


From this article: Don’t Use These Free-Speech Arguments Ever Again

 

[HearForGrumors]

Wow! You have a very poor understanding of the Constitution, especially when it comes to "protected speech". I shall post one example, The United States Supreme Court has held that threats of violence are not protected by the First Amendment. There are three basic reasons that the Court has used to justify excluding threats of violence from First Amendment Protection: (1) protecting individuals from the fear of violence; (2) safeguarding against the disruption that such fear causes; and(3) reducing the possibility that the threatened violence will occur.
If you have other Supreme Court Rulings that contradict this decision, please post.
Now, let's look at cornering a female (by a very strong SEC Football player), while tearing off a metal gate, uttering, "I'm gonna slap the SH*t out of you", in Tennessee this Assault. I know there are some on this board that have trouble with basic English Comprehension, and do not understand the term Assault. In fact, they refuse to read the law, as it may further confuse them. The threats combined with the violent act of tearing a metal gate off the wall, is Assault. BTW, this isn't an Ambiguous Threat, it was very credible.
This is not BT's first run in with the law, his first occurred in SC where a Court ordered an Order of Protection, because it was alleged by another female that BT had made Death Threats, she even stated that in the past, he had physically attacked her.
Your "pick and choose" may be just as cute as can be when you and your "friend" are clutching your pearls; however, IF you actually read my posts, you would see (Post #113) I clearly state BT needs counseling and the school should help.
Finally, I hope for the life of the young man (BT), and for everyone else he comes into contact with, I hope he is able to learn from this experience, and the experience he had in SC, these two run ins with the law, should be a wake up call. I hope a third or fourth aren't needed, and if so, I hope the next time you don't lay your hands on the female, as your anger is such, you may kill her.

Also, he has never laid his hands on any female. Facts are important.

Just because I don't think you'll read the article, nor do any research, let me continue to elaborate on what the First actually does.

"You can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre." Only partially true. If the speech is directed at causing a panic - you can't. However, I could walk up to the stage, take a bow, and yell "Fire" as loud as I want.

"Fighting words aren't protected." True, but these are words that CAUSE violence - they are not threats - unless the threat is reasonably likely to cause violence. Like, saying, "I'll kick your ass, you little bitch." to a person you are already in conflict with. We say that stuff to our friends all the time, and no one gets arrested for it.

"Threats aren't protected." Well, only if they are likely to cause imminent harm. This is not imminent, as in "Well, I believe it might happen at some point." Imminent means IMMEDIATE, RIGHT NOW, RIGHT HERE.

Think about the first amendment this way - NAZI'S MARCHED IN A PARADE IN FRONT OF A GIANT SYNAGOGUE ON A HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL DAY! SCOTUS held that ending their parade and causing them to disband was a 1A violation. Use that to juxtapose everything else you think about the 1A. If that isn't likely to cause imminent disturbance, what the heck is?

 

[I40flyer]

Are you an attorney? I am.

You are right about those exceptions to the 1st. However, there has to be an element of reasonable imminence. In this situation there is no reasonable inference - the threat is likely non-credible - and while it would never get litigated, there would be a 1A argument against any constitutional protections.


Read this:

Incitement and threats are not free speech.”​

While technically true, not everything that might colloquially be called a “threat” is outside the protection of the First Amendment. Only “true threats” are unprotected—threats conveying “a serious expression of intent to an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals.” There’s some ambiguity about whether evaluating the seriousness of a threat is an objective question, or a subjective question, or both, something the Supreme Court recently failed to resolve. But most courts impose an objective test: A threat is “true” if a reasonable person hearing it would take it as a sincere expression of intent to do harm. That doesn’t cover most hyperbole and political invective.


From this article: Don’t Use These Free-Speech Arguments Ever Again

I'll bet you are a fabulous attorney, as you have mastered the art of not facings all the presented facts!
I noticed how you failed to address the "I'm gonna SLAP the SH*T out of you" threat while tearing a metal gate off the wall. I realize you are a super lawyer, but is it your legal opinion that this is not a "True Threat", and it could not be considered to have an element of Reasonable Imminence???? You failed to educate others regarding Assault, they may listen to you, as you are a super lawyer. We have some on the board, that just don't "Believe" that an Assault can be done solely with words. As there are those that appear to think it is not reasonable to consider past behavior when looking at a defendant. In my opinion, making a threat to "Shoot Up the School", is bizarre, and not something a young man would utter while in a argument with one of his girl friends. Furthermore, for LEO not to have acted on the report would have been a dereliction of their duty.

 

[HearForGrumors]

I'll bet you are a fabulous attorney, as you have mastered the art of not facings all the presented facts!
I noticed how you failed to address the "I'm gonna SLAP the SH*T out of you" threat while tearing a metal gate off the wall. I realize you are a super lawyer, but is it your legal opinion that this is not a "True Threat", and it could not be considered to have an element of Reasonable Imminence???? You failed to educate others regarding Assault, they may listen to you, as you are a super lawyer. We have some on the board, that just don't "Believe" that an Assault can be done solely with words. As there are those that appear to think it is not reasonable to consider past behavior when looking at a defendant. In my opinion, making a threat to "Shoot Up the School", is bizarre, and not something a young man would utter while in a argument with one of his girl friends. Furthermore, for LEO not to have acted on the report would have been a dereliction of their duty.

What are you even blabbering about? Have you read the arrest report? You are conflating two things - his statement about slapping, and his statement about shooting. The former may qualify as a crime, the latter I do not believe is a credible and imminent threat.

TN Law defines assault as (2) Intentionally or knowingly causes another to reasonably fear imminent bodily injury. 39-13-101

However, notice that word "imminent." At this point it is not a question of law, but a question of fact as to whether, in those PRECISE circumstances the victim believed she would be immediately harmed. That's a question for a jury, not a position as a matter of law (There's a .01% chance you understand that difference).

And, you may find it bizarre to say those words, and many people may. But, you weren't there, you don't knwo the context of those words being said, and you don't know the way you have felt if you heard them. If it was clear to everyone around that it was hyperbole, exaggeration, or simply words said in the heat of passion, then the threat is not credible - and no law can arrest him for saying them.

Remember, you opened this can of worms when you said I didn't understand the Constitution.

 

[HearForGrumors]

I'll bet you are a fabulous attorney, as you have mastered the art of not facings all the presented facts!
I noticed how you failed to address the "I'm gonna SLAP the SH*T out of you" threat while tearing a metal gate off the wall. I realize you are a super lawyer, but is it your legal opinion that this is not a "True Threat", and it could not be considered to have an element of Reasonable Imminence???? You failed to educate others regarding Assault, they may listen to you, as you are a super lawyer. We have some on the board, that just don't "Believe" that an Assault can be done solely with words. As there are those that appear to think it is not reasonable to consider past behavior when looking at a defendant. In my opinion, making a threat to "Shoot Up the School", is bizarre, and not something a young man would utter while in a argument with one of his girl friends. Furthermore, for LEO not to have acted on the report would have been a dereliction of their duty.

The defendant in Watts, at a public rally at which he was expressing his opposition to the military draft, said, “If they ever make me carry a rifle, the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J.”1226 He was convicted of violating a federal statute that prohibited “any threat to take the life of or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States.” The Supreme Court reversed. Interpreting the statute “with the commands of the First Amendment clearly in mind,”1227 it found that the defendant had not made a “true ‘threat,’ ” but had indulged in mere “political hyperbole.”

During the course of the boycott, NAACP Field Secretary Charles Evers had told an audience of “black people that any ‘uncle toms’ who broke the boycott would ‘have their necks broken’ by their own people.”1230 The Court acknowledged that this language “might have been understood as inviting an unlawful form of discipline or, at least, as intending to create a fear of violence . . . .”1231 Yet, no violence had followed directly from Evers’ speeches, and the Court found that Evers’ “emotionally charged rhetoric . . . did not transcend the bounds of protected speech set forth in Brandenburg. . . . An advocate must be free to stimulate his audience with spontaneous and emotional appeals for unity and action in a common cause. When such appeals do not incite lawless action, they must be regarded as protected speech.”1232 Although it held that, under Brandenburg, Evers’ speech did not constitute unprotected incitement of lawless action,1233 the Court also cited Watts, thereby implying that Evers’ speech also did not constitute a “true threat.”

Moreover, the Court held in Claiborne that “[t]he mere fact the statements could be understood ‘as intending to create a fear of violence’ was insufficient to make them ‘true threats’ under Watts.”1243

 

[I40flyer]

Your cut and paste skill is astounding; however, volume does not equal quality. In fact, nothing you've pasted has a resemblance to BT arrest.

 

[HearForGrumors]

Your cut and paste skill is astounding; however, volume does not equal quality. In fact, nothing you've pasted has a resemblance to BT arrest.

 

[I40flyer]

actually interested in the law I'll too do a little cut and pasting:







Tennessee Code > Title 39 > Chapter 13 > Part 1 > § 39-13-114. Communicating a threat concerning a school employee Tennessee Code 39-13-114. Communicating a threat concerning a school employee


Current as of: 2010 | Check for updates | Other versions



(a) For purposes of this section, “school” means any:
Terms Used In Tennessee Code 39-13-114. Communicating a threat concerning a school employee

• Bodily injury: includes a cut, abrasion, bruise, burn or disfigurement, and physical pain or temporary illness or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty. See
• Deadly weapon: means :
  
  
  (A) A firearm or anything manifestly designed, made or adapted for the purpose of inflicting death or serious bodily injury. See
• Firearm: means any weapon designed, made or adapted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or any device readily convertible to that use. See
• Person: includes the singular and the plural and means and includes any individual, firm, partnership, copartnership, association, corporation, governmental subdivision or agency, or other organization or other legal entity, or any agent or servant thereof. See
• Serious bodily injury: means bodily injury that involves:
  
  
  (A) A substantial risk of death. See
• Year: means a calendar year, unless otherwise expressed. See Tennessee Code 1-3-105

(1) Elementary school, middle school or high school;
(2) Technology center or postsecondary vocational or technical school; or
(3) Two-year or four-year college or university.
(b) A person commits the offense of communicating a threat concerning a school employee if:
(1) The person communicates to another a threat to cause the death of or serious bodily injury to a school employee and the threat is directly related to the employee’s scope of employment;
(2) The threat involves the use of a firearm or other deadly weapon;
(3) The person to whom the threat is made reasonably believes that the person making the threat intends to carry out the threat; and
(4) The person making the threat intentionally engages in conduct that constitutes a substantial step in the commission of the threatened act and the threatened act and the substantial step when taken together:
(A) Are corroborative of the person’s intent to commit the threatened act; and
(B) Occur close enough in time to evidence an intent and ability to commit the threatened act.
(c) Communicating a death threat concerning a school employee is a Class B misdemeanor punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of thirty (30) days.

 

[HearForGrumors]

actually interested in the law I'll too do a little cut and pasting:







Tennessee Code > Title 39 > Chapter 13 > Part 1 > § 39-13-114. Communicating a threat concerning a school employee Tennessee Code 39-13-114. Communicating a threat concerning a school employee


Current as of: 2010 | Check for updates | Other versions



(a) For purposes of this section, “school” means any:
Terms Used In Tennessee Code 39-13-114. Communicating a threat concerning a school employee

• Bodily injury: includes a cut, abrasion, bruise, burn or disfigurement, and physical pain or temporary illness or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty. See
• Deadly weapon: means :
  
  
  (A) A firearm or anything manifestly designed, made or adapted for the purpose of inflicting death or serious bodily injury. See
• Firearm: means any weapon designed, made or adapted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or any device readily convertible to that use. See
• Person: includes the singular and the plural and means and includes any individual, firm, partnership, copartnership, association, corporation, governmental subdivision or agency, or other organization or other legal entity, or any agent or servant thereof. See
• Serious bodily injury: means bodily injury that involves:
  
  
  (A) A substantial risk of death. See
• Year: means a calendar year, unless otherwise expressed. See Tennessee Code 1-3-105

(1) Elementary school, middle school or high school;
(2) Technology center or postsecondary vocational or technical school; or
(3) Two-year or four-year college or university.
(b) A person commits the offense of communicating a threat concerning a school employee if:
(1) The person communicates to another a threat to cause the death of or serious bodily injury to a school employee and the threat is directly related to the employee’s scope of employment;
(2) The threat involves the use of a firearm or other deadly weapon;
(3) The person to whom the threat is made reasonably believes that the person making the threat intends to carry out the threat; and
(4) The person making the threat intentionally engages in conduct that constitutes a substantial step in the commission of the threatened act and the threatened act and the substantial step when taken together:
(A) Are corroborative of the person’s intent to commit the threatened act; and
(B) Occur close enough in time to evidence an intent and ability to commit the threatened act.
(c) Communicating a death threat concerning a school employee is a Class B misdemeanor punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of thirty (30) days.

So, where are the facts in the BT incident that invoke this statute? Also, you're bad at cutting and pasting.

We can find all sorts of statutes. Also, I'd note that every single law the Supreme Court ever struck down was on the books before hand. This law could be unconstitutionally enforced, in certain facts. Much like the Watts case above. There was a law about making threats against the president, a guy said he'd shoot LBJ. The application of the law to that person was unconstitutional.

This is how the legal process works. You are just making up facts not publicly available. I can do that too.

I heard he said, "Man, if I wasn't so moral and honest, I'd shoot up the school and slap that girl!"

Now, he's totally in the clear.

 

[I40flyer]

Actually, I believe when a few "boosters" (even one) get a few bags of money together, have their fixer handle the dirty end of the stick, and get with the witnesses, and the girl friend (not he ho with the false eye lashes), this entire matter will go away. I think your idea of "...if I wasn't so moral and honest.." is close. How about, I heard him say, "I'm so angry right now, I'm going to go SHOOT HOOPS all over the school" (you know something he does to blow off steam), and maybe something along the lines of "I'm tearing this gate off the wall to show you how unsafe you are hear alone, I'm just thankful I didn't hear some thug screaming, I'm gonna slap the sh*t out of you, or something like that when I came in". As we all know BT is a caring/loving person, his respect for females is of the highest order. Was he angry that night, yes he was, because one of the girls he cares so much about had been reckless (in BT's opinion) with her safety, and that is all that was on his mind.
Yes a few bags of money, is all it is going to take (or has taken), to have a few stories change, honesty and integrity don't cost as much as it use to.
Now, if one googles "I'm going to shoot up the school", you see many people, including minors, have been arrested etc., but their cases are all different, they did not play for UT. The law should be applied differently to different types of citizens, for example: if you lie to a FISA Court, but you are a high ranking FBI employee-no charge, etc., or if you are a UT Football player, or if you are a child molesting billionaire such as Epstein. Blind justice is a joke, our liberal courts having been perverted by liberal scum lawyers, to the point, what you do, what political party you belong to, and who you know, are more important than the facts.

 

[LittleVol]

Captain Shutdown is BACK!

 

[JacketVol]

I'll bet you are a fabulous attorney, as you have mastered the art of not facings all the presented facts!
I noticed how you failed to address the "I'm gonna SLAP the SH*T out of you" threat while tearing a metal gate off the wall. I realize you are a super lawyer, but is it your legal opinion that this is not a "True Threat", and it could not be considered to have an element of Reasonable Imminence???? You failed to educate others regarding Assault, they may listen to you, as you are a super lawyer. We have some on the board, that just don't "Believe" that an Assault can be done solely with words. As there are those that appear to think it is not reasonable to consider past behavior when looking at a defendant. In my opinion, making a threat to "Shoot Up the School", is bizarre, and not something a young man would utter while in a argument with one of his girl friends. Furthermore, for LEO not to have acted on the report would have been a dereliction of their duty.

Just shut up. You’re embarrassing yourself. You’re not a very intelligent individual.

 

[I40flyer]

Just shut up. You’re embarrassing yourself. You’re not a very intelligent individual.

Wow that hurts, really, ouch! Rather than just issue orders, such as "just shut up"! Why don't you engage in thoughtful and factual dialog, for a man as intelligent as yourself it should be child's play!!! I wonder, do you issue those kind of orders to your wife, Just Shut UP kind of thing, or are you more into the BT type warnings? Where does one learn this type of behavior? I assume this is how your daddy treated your mama.