Westbrook threatens female fan and her husband

[Moranis]

For those who think that threats need to include the intent to do actual harm, go to your nearest bank. Point a replica of a gun at the teller in a calm manner without saying a thing.

Report back to us in 8 to 15 years.

Talk about a strawman.

I have no idea the actual law in Utah, but in general criminal threats do actually involve the intent of the person making the "threat".  I'm sure you know that being a lawyer and all.  They also require reasonableness.  A reasonable person must conclude the threat is credible, real, and imminent. 

mmmm is absolutely correct, Westbrook did not make a credible, real, or imminent threat of violence under any legal definition of the word.  And I do have that piece of paper of that you claim someone would need to make this argument. 

It also doesn't meet the definition of assault, because mere words alone are almost never an assault.  You need physical actions.  Again, there were no physical actions accompanying the "threat", thus no assault.

And you should absolutely know this being a lawyer and all, which is why your grandiose grandstanding is very strange.

No, there’s not an element of “intent to follow through”. At all. Thus the replica gun example. 

And, you’re conflating several things. Criminal threats vs. civil threats vs. common law assault vs. a commonly understood dictionary meaning are all different things. The dictionary definition:

“a statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done.. “

My 7 year old knows what a threat is. I suspect that you do too.

As for the internet credentials, don’t you do transactional work?  You should stay up to date on your CLEs, because your understanding seems a little rusty.

to be actionable or criminal it absolutely is at play, which is absolutely what mmmm was arguing.  Nothing Westbrook said is an actionable or criminal threat of violence because no reasonable person would believe it to be so.  So sure it was technically a threat but it wasn't a criminal or actionable one so who cares. 

[Roy H.]

For those who think that threats need to include the intent to do actual harm, go to your nearest bank. Point a replica of a gun at the teller in a calm manner without saying a thing.

Report back to us in 8 to 15 years.

Talk about a strawman.

I have no idea the actual law in Utah, but in general criminal threats do actually involve the intent of the person making the "threat".  I'm sure you know that being a lawyer and all.  They also require reasonableness.  A reasonable person must conclude the threat is credible, real, and imminent. 

mmmm is absolutely correct, Westbrook did not make a credible, real, or imminent threat of violence under any legal definition of the word.  And I do have that piece of paper of that you claim someone would need to make this argument. 

It also doesn't meet the definition of assault, because mere words alone are almost never an assault.  You need physical actions.  Again, there were no physical actions accompanying the "threat", thus no assault.

And you should absolutely know this being a lawyer and all, which is why your grandiose grandstanding is very strange.

No, there’s not an element of “intent to follow through”. At all. Thus the replica gun example. 

And, you’re conflating several things. Criminal threats vs. civil threats vs. common law assault vs. a commonly understood dictionary meaning are all different things. The dictionary definition:

“a statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done.. “

My 7 year old knows what a threat is. I suspect that you do too.

As for the internet credentials, don’t you do transactional work?  You should stay up to date on your CLEs, because your understanding seems a little rusty.

to be actionable or criminal it absolutely is at play, which is absolutely what mmmm was arguing.  Nothing Westbrook said is an actionable or criminal threat of violence because no reasonable person would believe it to be so.  So sure it was technically a threat but it wasn't a criminal or actionable one so who cares.

mmmmm didn't say "criminal definition".  He said "legal definition".  I note that you objected recently to people misstating your arguments.  Perhaps you could use the same care in not misstating others' when you jump in to defend something where you don't know what you're talking about?

But, the conduct itself absolutely could be criminal, depending upon the statute.  As I said several pages ago, the conduct might fall under a classification like disorderly conduct, but in general society has decided that it doesn't want people to go around suggesting they're going to beat others up.

And, "it" -- assuming you mean "intent to follow through" -- really isn't "at play".  It doesn't matter.  It's helpful, obviously, if the State can prove that somebody had the intent to follow through with the threat, but it's not required.  Thus, the replica gun.  There's no "intent to follow through"; you can't shoot somebody with a fake gun.  However, you of course can still be charged with threatening, or robbery, or whatever other statute might apply.

But, this isn't a criminal analysis.  Nobody is suggesting that Westbrook should be arrested or prosecuted.  What he did do, though, was make a threat -- by definition -- to two fans, one of whom was a woman who has not been shown to have done anything wrong.  As far as the NBA should be concerned, that's severely inappropriate conduct.

[Moranis]

For those who think that threats need to include the intent to do actual harm, go to your nearest bank. Point a replica of a gun at the teller in a calm manner without saying a thing.

Report back to us in 8 to 15 years.

Talk about a strawman.

I have no idea the actual law in Utah, but in general criminal threats do actually involve the intent of the person making the "threat".  I'm sure you know that being a lawyer and all.  They also require reasonableness.  A reasonable person must conclude the threat is credible, real, and imminent. 

mmmm is absolutely correct, Westbrook did not make a credible, real, or imminent threat of violence under any legal definition of the word.  And I do have that piece of paper of that you claim someone would need to make this argument. 

It also doesn't meet the definition of assault, because mere words alone are almost never an assault.  You need physical actions.  Again, there were no physical actions accompanying the "threat", thus no assault.

And you should absolutely know this being a lawyer and all, which is why your grandiose grandstanding is very strange.

No, there’s not an element of “intent to follow through”. At all. Thus the replica gun example. 

And, you’re conflating several things. Criminal threats vs. civil threats vs. common law assault vs. a commonly understood dictionary meaning are all different things. The dictionary definition:

“a statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done.. “

My 7 year old knows what a threat is. I suspect that you do too.

As for the internet credentials, don’t you do transactional work?  You should stay up to date on your CLEs, because your understanding seems a little rusty.

to be actionable or criminal it absolutely is at play, which is absolutely what mmmm was arguing.  Nothing Westbrook said is an actionable or criminal threat of violence because no reasonable person would believe it to be so.  So sure it was technically a threat but it wasn't a criminal or actionable one so who cares.

mmmmm didn't say "criminal definition".  He said "legal definition".  I note that you objected recently to people misstating your arguments.  Perhaps you could use the same care in not misstating others' when you jump in to defend something where you don't know what you're talking about?

But, the conduct itself absolutely could be criminal, depending upon the statute.  As I said several pages ago, the conduct might fall under a classification like disorderly conduct, but in general society has decided that it doesn't want people to go around suggesting they're going to beat others up.

And, "it" -- assuming you mean "intent to follow through" -- really isn't "at play".  It doesn't matter.  It's helpful, obviously, if the State can prove that somebody had the intent to follow through with the threat, but it's not required.  Thus, the replica gun.  There's no "intent to follow through"; you can't shoot somebody with a fake gun.  However, you of course can still be charged with threatening, or robbery, or whatever other statute might apply.

But, this isn't a criminal analysis.  Nobody is suggesting that Westbrook should be arrested or prosecuted.  What he did do, though, was make a threat -- by definition -- to two fans, one of whom was a woman who has not been shown to have done anything wrong.  As far as the NBA should be concerned, that's severely inappropriate conduct.

The replica gun is no where near the same thing, because that requires conduct to do.  You have to buy or create the fake gun.  You have to take the fake gun with you.  You have to pull the fake gun out.  You have to point it at someone.  Those are all actions behind the threat.  A few words that the conduct doesn't support isn't a crime and that absolutely is the nature of mmmm's arguments in this thread.  It is absolutely 100% abundantly clear from his arguments in this thread that that is what he was arguing.  Beginning on page 8 of this thread, here is every single thing mmmm has posted in this thread.  It is abundantly clear what he was saying and he was correct, with those statements and the underlying conduct, there is no way anyone would be charged with a crime and any civil suit would be dismissed because it wasn't a credible "threat of actual violence".  That was clearly his intent based on the whole context of his posts.  Westbrook was just "gum flapping".

Watching the video again, I don't really see how that could really be accepted as a credible threat to do violence.  RW's body language seems completely non-threatening as he finishes a water bottle and seems more concerned about where to drop it than anything else.   It looks and sounds like just gum flapping on his part.   Folks can surely disagree but I think the NBA's view (probably filtered through the eyes of their attorneys) is that all they have on Westbrook is some cussing.   So they've fined him for using the foul language and that's the end of that.

Yes.  I would.  But nice attempt at a red herring. 

I watched the vid very closely.  There is no specific literal threat of actual violence.  Only what might be inferred.  And if you need inference, then body language is relevant.  And his body language is completely neutral and almost disinterested.

In my humble opinion, that in no way should be considered meeting any legal definition of a threat of actual violence.   I will grant that it might be considered so in many courts in white America given that Westbrook is a black man.

So ... all you've done here is call me a liar based on nothing but your own red herring and then completely bypassed my point with nothing but an appeal for internet credentials.

Insults and avoidance.

Very convincing, Roy. 

I said I saw no credible threat of literal violence.  I offered my _opinion_ that it did not meet any legal definition of a threat of violence other than by way of the biases and prejudices of humans in a court room.  I'm open to someone citing an actual law that is written that defines what is shown in that video to be without question an actual, legally defined threat of physical violence.

As opposed to just someone trash talking.

If body language (when there is video evidence) meant nothing then context means nothing and only the literal words would be relevant.  Which starts begging the question of the literal meaning of the words Westbrook used.  Did he say specifically what violence he was going to do upon them?  And ignoring context starts begging the question of whether a 'threat' that is not credibly actionable could be considered a threat of violence.   If someone in an internet blog threatens to blow you up or 'roast' you or 'cut you down' in an argument, is that a credible threat of violence?

I am not a Russell Westbrook fan.  Can't stand his style of play and his public persona has never appealed to me.  And I think what he did (use disgusting foul language) is deserving of a severe fine and imho a suspension of a game or two.  But I also think that the cries that what he did rises to the level of somehow threatening to actually kill these people right there in public in the stands is ridiculous hyperbole.

[Roy H.]

The replica gun is no where near the same thing, because that requires conduct to do.  You have to buy or create the fake gun.  You have to take the fake gun with you.  You have to pull the fake gun out.  You have to point it at someone. 

No, it’s the exact same principle. There does not have to be any actual conduct behind the threat.

But, if the object itself has you hung up, then communicate a bomb threat to a school.  Call up your ex-girlfriend and tell her that you are going to kill her if she doesn’t get back together with you.  Tell a child’s mother that you are going to “f— up” her child.

Because I promise you, all of the above are “actionable”, without you ever having any intent to carry those threats out.

You quite literally don’t know what you’re talking about.  And as a footnote, uttering speech is “Conduct”, too.  Thus, why “Disorderly Conduct” normally involves little or nothing more than speech.

And lastly, mmmmm literally didn’t say “crime” once in what you quoted. Which makes sense, since nobody is saying that Westbrook should be prosecuted for a crime here.  Rather, he multiple times talked about “actual violence”. As I pointed out, the intent to actually follow through with the threat isn’t an element. Threats don’t require follow through to be a threat.  You called that a strawman, which is just another of the many things that you have been wrong about in this thread.

I suppose this will come across as fairly personal, but if you really are an attorney, you really should not be providing inaccurate advice or analysis, regardless of whether it is anonymous. It just makes the profession overall look bad.  If you haven’t looked at a criminal statute since law school, that’s fine, but isn’t it better to keep your mouth shut rather than misleading people?

[Moranis]

The replica gun is no where near the same thing, because that requires conduct to do.  You have to buy or create the fake gun.  You have to take the fake gun with you.  You have to pull the fake gun out.  You have to point it at someone. 

No, it’s the exact same principle. There does not have to be any actual conduct behind the threat.

But, if the object itself has you hung up, then communicate a bomb threat to a school.  Call up your ex-girlfriend and tell her that you are going to kill her if she doesn’t get back together with you.  Tell a child’s mother that you are going to “f— up” her child.

Because I promise you, all of the above are “actionable”, without you ever having any intent to carry those threats out.

You quite literally don’t know what you’re talking about.  And as a footnote, uttering speech is “Conduct”, too.  Thus, why “Disorderly Conduct” normally involves little or nothing more than speech.

And lastly, mmmmm literally didn’t say “crime” once in what you quoted. Which makes sense, since nobody is saying that Westbrook should be prosecuted for a crime here.  Rather, he multiple times talked about “actual violence”. As I pointed out, the intent to actually follow through with the threat isn’t an element. Threats don’t require follow through to be a threat.  You called that a strawman, which is just another of the many things that you have been wrong about in this thread.

I suppose this will come across as fairly personal, but if you really are an attorney, you really should not be providing inaccurate advice or analysis, regardless of whether it is anonymous. It just makes the profession overall look bad.  If you haven’t looked at a criminal statute since law school, that’s fine, but isn’t it better to keep your mouth shut rather than misleading people?

Those aren't the same things and you know it.  This is a situation of a few strangers just yapping off without any actions.  It is essentially some keyboard warriors writing some offensive things on the internet.  Nothing more nothing less.  And while their yapping off might be offensive, inappropriate, or similar type descriptors, it would all fall under the protected category of speech.

[Roy H.]

The replica gun is no where near the same thing, because that requires conduct to do.  You have to buy or create the fake gun.  You have to take the fake gun with you.  You have to pull the fake gun out.  You have to point it at someone. 

No, it’s the exact same principle. There does not have to be any actual conduct behind the threat.

But, if the object itself has you hung up, then communicate a bomb threat to a school.  Call up your ex-girlfriend and tell her that you are going to kill her if she doesn’t get back together with you.  Tell a child’s mother that you are going to “f— up” her child.

Because I promise you, all of the above are “actionable”, without you ever having any intent to carry those threats out.

You quite literally don’t know what you’re talking about.  And as a footnote, uttering speech is “Conduct”, too.  Thus, why “Disorderly Conduct” normally involves little or nothing more than speech.

And lastly, mmmmm literally didn’t say “crime” once in what you quoted. Which makes sense, since nobody is saying that Westbrook should be prosecuted for a crime here.  Rather, he multiple times talked about “actual violence”. As I pointed out, the intent to actually follow through with the threat isn’t an element. Threats don’t require follow through to be a threat.  You called that a strawman, which is just another of the many things that you have been wrong about in this thread.

I suppose this will come across as fairly personal, but if you really are an attorney, you really should not be providing inaccurate advice or analysis, regardless of whether it is anonymous. It just makes the profession overall look bad.  If you haven’t looked at a criminal statute since law school, that’s fine, but isn’t it better to keep your mouth shut rather than misleading people?

Those aren't the same things and you know it.  This is a situation of a few strangers just yapping off without any actions.  It is essentially some keyboard warriors writing some offensive things on the internet.  Nothing more nothing less.  And while their yapping off might be offensive, inappropriate, or similar type descriptors, it would all fall under the protected category of speech.

Just give it a rest, man. You’re wrong, and now you’re moving goalposts.  Telling somebody you’re going to F— up him and his wife is not protected speech.

[Moranis]

The replica gun is no where near the same thing, because that requires conduct to do.  You have to buy or create the fake gun.  You have to take the fake gun with you.  You have to pull the fake gun out.  You have to point it at someone. 

No, it’s the exact same principle. There does not have to be any actual conduct behind the threat.

But, if the object itself has you hung up, then communicate a bomb threat to a school.  Call up your ex-girlfriend and tell her that you are going to kill her if she doesn’t get back together with you.  Tell a child’s mother that you are going to “f— up” her child.

Because I promise you, all of the above are “actionable”, without you ever having any intent to carry those threats out.

You quite literally don’t know what you’re talking about.  And as a footnote, uttering speech is “Conduct”, too.  Thus, why “Disorderly Conduct” normally involves little or nothing more than speech.

And lastly, mmmmm literally didn’t say “crime” once in what you quoted. Which makes sense, since nobody is saying that Westbrook should be prosecuted for a crime here.  Rather, he multiple times talked about “actual violence”. As I pointed out, the intent to actually follow through with the threat isn’t an element. Threats don’t require follow through to be a threat.  You called that a strawman, which is just another of the many things that you have been wrong about in this thread.

I suppose this will come across as fairly personal, but if you really are an attorney, you really should not be providing inaccurate advice or analysis, regardless of whether it is anonymous. It just makes the profession overall look bad.  If you haven’t looked at a criminal statute since law school, that’s fine, but isn’t it better to keep your mouth shut rather than misleading people?

Those aren't the same things and you know it.  This is a situation of a few strangers just yapping off without any actions.  It is essentially some keyboard warriors writing some offensive things on the internet.  Nothing more nothing less.  And while their yapping off might be offensive, inappropriate, or similar type descriptors, it would all fall under the protected category of speech.

Just give it a rest, man. You’re wrong, and now you’re moving goalposts.  Telling somebody you’re going to F— up him and his wife is not protected speech.

Absolutely could be protected speech.  Depends on intent and reasonableness.   Hmmm right back where we started.  Not moving the goal posts at all.  The person constantly bringing up non-comparable situations is the one that has been moving the goal posts.

[CelticsElite]

https://nba.nbcsports.com/2019/03/12/jazz-fan-who-yelled-at-russell-westbrook-filing-lawsuit/

[Donoghus]

White guy make racial remarks towards black athlete, subsequently gets banned from arena after  a team led investigation seemingly corroborates the story, turns around and now sues.

Sounds about right for America in today's day & age.  You could see that coming.

[Tr1boy]

RW has a higher chance to lose money than the fan who might be rep by a free service lawyer unless paid

[Tr1boy]

What did exactly the fan say that RW took it as racist? Im still not very clear on the situation

Why did RW threaten his wife?

[RJ87]

What did exactly the fan say that RW took it as racist? Im still not very clear on the situation

Why did RW threaten his wife?

there's a thread about what was said and debates on it's validity (despite the Jazz corroborating what happened): https://forum.celticsstrong.com/index.php?topic=99450.0

[jambr380]

The other day, some dude in a gas station parking lot threatened to kick my ass because he didn't like that I was over the line one side - no joke. Am I really allowed to sue him for that? Apparently, I should have taken down his information. Instead, I just got in my car really fast and got the heck out of there!

[Tr1boy]

The other day, some dude in a gas station parking lot threatened to kick my ass because he didn't like that I was over the line one side - no joke. Am I really allowed to sue him for that? Apparently, I should have taken down his information. Instead, I just got in my car really fast and got the heck out of there!

Kick your ass vs F you up

F u up is worst!

All kiddin aside, RW should have jut bit his tongue. He gets paid to withstand bs/verbal abuse

[bdm860]

The other day, some dude in a gas station parking lot threatened to kick my ass because he didn't like that I was over the line one side - no joke. Am I really allowed to sue him for that? Apparently, I should have taken down his information. Instead, I just got in my car really fast and got the heck out of there!

That might have been me.  You people that can't park, or rather choose to park wrong, are the scum of the earth!