What Constitutes a Threat?

It is amazing how the application of law manages to defy logic in so many circumstances. Merriam Webster's Eleventh edition lists two definitions for threat:

   - an expression of intent to harm

   - one that threatens 

Those two definitions are straightforward and plain enough. Yet, once jurisprudence is called into use, all bets are off as to what truly is a threat. To laymen, it's easy enough to understand a threat. Intent to harm, danger, nearly synonymous with threat but, in applying the law, hold on; not so fast. That's when simplicity steps through the looking glass. Why? Who knows?

In the real world, if statements are made that imply bodily harm, that's a threat. Unfortunately, it is the position of those in law enforcement, and rightfully so, that until a threat is acted upon, one can't be subject to prosecution for what might be called wishing ill will.

However, if, as in the case of the Jena 6, whose names, addresses and telephone numbers were posted on the Internet, along with a directive to commit a horrifying act upon their persons to do bodily harm and cause death, all legalese aside, it is unacceptable for it to be argued that the hands of law enforcement are tied in legalities.

Unlike a noose in a tree, implying the threat to do bodily harm, when a statement meant to solicit accomplishing the implied act is made, a declarative command, putting out the call to unspecified masses to commit an illegal act, in the real world, it's truly a sad day when all the FBI can offer is to monitor the situation.