What specifically constitutes these two things by law . . . do you need to say I will kill you or stuff like that directly or not . If you say I will screw you , I fill few * k yo . . are these very serious threats or not . Also , the most important thing I would like to ask . . . . if my friend tells me , for example , " can't you few * k him up " ( referring to the person who is bringing this up to the judge . . . . and I quote my friend to the person who chi taking me to quote by saying in an email " Tom said , can't you few * k the bastard " even though I am clearly quoting what Tom told me to the guy ( the plaintiff ) in an e - mail , but as you can see it is not me saying that as I am mentioning the person who said it to me ( Tom ) , so I'm repeating what Tom said . . . how can I be liable for a harassment / threat if I am not
sorry..above word fu&k shows differently than what I typed not sure why...anyways, so if I tell another person that Tom said to me 'can't you f**k him up immediately" how can I be liable for what Tom said and my quote to the other person. I am stuck in this situation, but I did not personally threaten him as you can see where this is NO clear I will f**k you written by me. Please advise. I am not sure why some words come out differently here when submitting it, so excuse the mess please.
General Practice Lawyer
Penal Code 646.9 defines stalking as:
"Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person and who makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear for his or her safety, of his or her immediate family.
Penal Code Section 653m:
(a) Every person who, with intent to annoy, telephones or makes contact by means of an electronic communication device with another and addresses to or about the other person any obscene language or addresses to the other person any threat to inflict injury to the person or property of the person addressed or any member of his or her family, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Nothing in this subdivision shall apply to telephone calls or electronic contacts made in good faith.
(b) Every person who, with intent to annoy or harass, makes repeated telephone calls or makes repeated contact by means of an electronic communication device, or makes any combination of calls, to another person is, whether or not conversation ensues from making the telephone call or contact by means of an electronic communication device, guilty of a misdemeanor. Nothing in this subdivision shall apply to telephone calls or electronic contacts made in good faith or during the ordinary course and scope of business.
This is for general information only. Nothing in this information should be construed as creating an attorney-client relationship nor shall any of this information be construed as providing legal advice. Laws change over time and differ from state to state. These answers are based on California Law.Applicability of the legal principles discussed may differ substantially in individual situations. You should not act upon the information presented herein without consulting an attorney about your particular situation. No attorney-client relationship is established.
8 lawyers agree
Criminal Defense Attorney
We probably shouldn't forget PC 422 which deals with threats of death or great bodily injury and which is a wobbler, meaning it can be charged as a misdemeanor or a felony. What you describe in your question sounds like a lot of loose talk that no one would take seriously. Without going through all the elements of PC 422, it does not seem applicable to what you describe.
1 found this helpful
6 lawyers agree
Criminal Defense Attorney
Identity of the caller is an issue at trial. You shouldn't be posting anything like this that could bring more presence to the issue. Make sure that you aren't leaving any voice recordings anywhere that the government can use for comparison. Don't talk to any law enforcement officers who might contact you. Even having a personalized greeting on your voice mail can be the basis for voice comparison.
4 lawyers agree