Talk:Death threat

1st amendment?

I wikified and rewrote the article but otherwise left the content as it was. Can anyone confirm that the 1st amendment works like that? --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

It seems unlikely to me that death threats are protected speech, except when not intended seriously. But I don't know, and I wouldn't know how to find out, so I added the dubious marker. NickelShoe 15:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I've removed it, since I think the original editor has had long enough to back his/her claim up (and if they can source this claim, they can put it back in). The guidelines suggest asking for peer review before removing something, but I don't think I've been too lax in not doing so - it seems to me that that would be more suitable if it was a question of 'A or B', not 'A or Not A'. --Last Malthusian 20:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how this is defined in legal terms, but linguists and philosophers have a concept of "speech acts", which are also called "performatives." Uttering a threat does more than just making a statement. It also threatens someone. Bostoner (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

A list

A list of notable Death Threats, and how they were perceived by the public and their legal status might be added to this article. Just an idle thought. I have a long list in mind, but since it might be considered NPOV, I shall waitDanielDemaret 18:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that's an excellent idea. I have a few in mind myself. Also should include whether death threat was carried out or attempted. --George100 08:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Terroristic Threat

I think there should be a disambiguation page for Terroristic Threat / Terroristic Threats. One link would point here, another to the Terrorist Threats musical album. --George100 08:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Is this really an article?

How is this an encyclopedia article? If I establish the possibility of the words "burp" and "threat" being combined as a single term, wherein someone has threatened to belch, are we then compelled to write an article entitled "Burp threat"? Seriously, friends, if you don't know what to write about, there are lists of projects and articles looking for editors to work on them. -Eric ^(talk) 03:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't necessarily take into account that the article is incomplete. This article could, for example, have a collection of death threats, legal information, and culture relevance, whereas "burp threat" is completely insignificant. ~Masquatto 09:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masquatto (talk • contribs)

I was kidding about "burp threat"--trying to make the point that we don't need to create an encyclopedia entry to define every combination of two common nouns, especially when the meaning of the resulting term is perfectly clear. If there exists some legal definition of "death threat" and someone wanted to refer to it without using an external link, I might see the point of creating an article for that. I don't think we need a stub telling us that a death threat is when someone threatens to kill someone. -Eric ^(talk) 13:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

"Burp threat" is not notable, "death threat" is. These are reported regularly in the news. I'm not sure that death threat has a specific legal definition, but the synonymous term "Terroristic threat" does. Perhaps the article could be moved to that title and improved. --George100 14:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, I was kidding about "burp threat."

I'm not sure that assigning "notability" to any frequently occurring combination of words is a good basis for generating encyclopedia articles, especially when there is no ambiguity to the resulting term. If the term "bicycle tire" started appearing frequently in the news, we wouldn't need to create an encyclopedia entry for it, since the meaning of the compound noun is completely clear. -Eric ^(talk) 16:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Notable subject - perhaps - but in what context?

Including what people have suggested above some structure for the article might:

Definition

• Legal definition and threshholds in different jurisdictions
  • Delivery medium and context
• Death Threats as a Hate Crime
• Death Threats as a Standover or Extortion Tactic
• Law Enforcement and Security Intelligence Response to Death Threats
  • Made to Joe Public
  • Made to VIP
  • Made to Head of State
  • Made to Celebrity
  • Related to Domestic Violence
• Death Threats Against Groups
• Death Threats Against Institutions / Organisations
• Death Threats made by Official Bodies / Failed States as Population Control
• Death theats made against Law Enforcement Agency members
• Notable Death Threats
  • Death Threats having the "desired" affect (but not executed).
  • Death Threats executed
    • Successfully and the impact
    • Unseccessfully and the impact

Disambiguation - a terrorist threat against an individual is not normally regarded as terrorism, but a terrorist threat against a group, or institution often is?

I am not sure that Death Threats is Law Enforcement article. Perhaps it is more of Sociology / Criminology article?

Pee Tern (talk) 03:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Punishments

I propose that there should be a section in the article about how death threats are dealt with in certain countries. Montgomery' 39 (talk)

This is just a threat of murder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.20.9 (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Crime?

According to this article, death threats against non-public/royal persons are not a criminal offence in the U.S.A.? Is this correct? 85.4.141.205 (talk) 14:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

This is correct. Any person may make any manner of death threat, publicly or privately, via any communication, to any private citizen. The only way to get protection is to be a civil servant in some capacity. The source of this information is from various police and lawyers. Some states do allow for you to defend yourself from your attacker, other states strictly forbid you from defending yourself even if a credible death threat has been received. 108.7.66.85 (talk) 19:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Article Format

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the indentations and things in this article seem to be screwed up too me. Maybe it's just me being a grammar Nazi, but still I think there should be heading in bold Using the two == marks or three or however many it takes. Also, anyone have an idea for an image? I know its hard but is an image of something possible here? I'm Flightx52 and I approve this message 23:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Lead sentence

WP:LEADSENTENCE does not always call for having the title in bold and this is one of the cases were it should not be, as it distorts the sentence to do so. See also the essay on superfluous bolding explained. Mathglot (talk) 07:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)