Freedom of speech

[9001]

Let's say a man pulls out a gun to point at the president then he gets tackle by security and when they get the gun they see no bullets. Should the man go to jail? Let's say e can trust he had no intentions of shooting.

[Irrelephant]

They'll probably find some way to put you in jail anyway.

[TheReturnOfTomsPulp]

Probably get done for disturbing the peace.

[CompleteDouche]

Well, tecnically they could say he had an intention to kill, but forgot the bullets, peolpe are stupid. But he wouldn't go through any legal trouble in court. But why would a retart point an empty gun at the president?

[InsertFunnyUserName]

Yes, he can. Threatening the President is a crime.

Threatening anyone is a crime.

Free speech doesn't extend to the point at which you're in danger of hurting someone, regardless of whether or not you actually go through with it.

Contrary to popular belief, freedom of expression does not mean you can do anything.

[tarahloveshentai]

How is that freedom of speech?

Anyways, he probably would be charged with assault and a variety of other things. He would probably need to be analyzed by a psychiatrist.

[ForNoReason]

It is a blatant threat on the president's life. Wether or not he had bullets. You just don't do it... TO ANYONE.... what does that have to do with freedom of speech?

[AzureSignal]

How the hell is that freedom of speech?

By the way, threatening the President is already a crime and already has a chance of getting you locked up.

[RainbowRiderAlpha]

At 4/22/09 05:27 PM, Headshot777 wrote: They'll probably find some way to put you in jail anyway.

What?!?!

I can't even pull out a real gun and point it and a important world leader without being arrested!?!?

What kind of world do we live in!

[CacheHelper]

At 4/22/09 05:46 PM, Twilight wrote: Doesn't that take away the whole point of "freedom"? The word freedom should be banned because no one on this Earth knows exactly what it means IMO.

I remember when I was young and stupid... it's shameful now that I've grown up.

Give it time, you'll understand one day.

[Roboboy679]

He should go to jail for threatening.

But not with President Bush during his term, then who'd give a crap.

[WeHaveFreshCookies]

If anybody was stupid enough to point a gun at the president, there would be about a dozen Secret Service members emptying their guns into him before he could even have the chance to say, "Just kidding".

[soulblud]

any form of threat to the prez is a major felony. why do you want to know, eh?

[AnasaziTribal]

At 4/22/09 05:25 PM, 9001 wrote: Let's say a man pulls out a gun to point at the president then he gets tackle by security and when they get the gun they see no bullets. Should the man go to jail? Let's say e can trust he had no intentions of shooting.

It's considered an assassination attempt.
It's a fucking GUN, it has NOTHING to do with freedom of speech.

[DM692]

I don't see how this has anything to do with freedom of speech.

Also, threats are illegal.

[BrainlessDan]

What if he was so retarded he just forgot his bullets?

[W31RD0]

At 4/22/09 05:25 PM, 9001 wrote: Let's say a man pulls out a gun to point at the president then he gets tackle by security and when they get the gun they see no bullets. Should the man go to jail? Let's say e can trust he had no intentions of shooting.

I suggest that if your school has a law class you take it. You seem to lack some basic stuff and I think you would really learn something.

[ASKDodge]

At 4/22/09 05:25 PM, 9001 wrote: Let's say a man pulls out a gun to point at the president then he gets tackle by security and when they get the gun they see no bullets. Should the man go to jail? Let's say e can trust he had no intentions of shooting.

You know in school, when your teacher asks if there are any questions and says, "There's no such thing as a stupid question". Well, I'm afraid they were lying, there is such a thing as a stupid question, and the above falls very much into this category.

However, I am glad that you asked it here, rather than getting gunned down in Washington and ending up on CNN, so well done, I think...

[foshiznay]

At 4/22/09 05:28 PM, CompleteDouche wrote: Well, tecnically they could say he had an intention to kill, but forgot the bullets, peolpe are stupid. But he wouldn't go through any legal trouble in court. But why would a retart point an empty gun at the president?

He said to assume that he deliberately put no bullets in to see what happens.

[ImaSmartass2]

He's gonna go to jail. 'nough said

/thread

[CapnCrunchDaPimp]

He posed a threat, and he supposedly had the president at gunpoint, so yeah, he'd definately be thrown in jail. Not to mention that a little prank like that is a pretty sick joke.

[thelittleemo]

He'll most likely go to jail since it looked like he was threatening to kill the president. They could probably pin him with intent to kill, but he forget to bring bullets. But how the fuck could you forget the bullets to kill the president?

[Idiot-Finder]

At 4/22/09 06:51 PM, foshiznay wrote:

He said to assume that he deliberately put no bullets in to see what happens.

If he have the chance to explain himself.

[InsertFunnyUserName]

At 4/22/09 05:46 PM, Twilight wrote: Doesn't that take away the whole point of "freedom"? The word freedom should be banned because no one on this Earth knows exactly what it means IMO.

You're right. We're not completely "free" to do whatever we want in any way we want.

It should be titled something along the lines of "right of expression", or something like that.

[Ice-Crane]

he'll probably be charged for being a potential threat, probably put into a hospital for mental illenss or something..

[WeHaveFreshCookies]

At 4/22/09 06:57 PM, BareNakedMike wrote: What if the gun, was a shoe?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uIj0YvDB KE

Bush is surprisingly quick.

[Infinite-one]

That would make him a terrorist, methinks.

[Generalissimus]

How is that supposed to be freedom of speech?

Freedom of speech is the right to speak freely without being censored. It means you can express your ideas and opinions freely. So long as it doesn't conflict with the rights of others. Such as when a person falsely yells fire in a crowded theatre. So since pointing a gun at any person, let alone the President, is considered assault, it is illegal. So, freedom of speech does not apply to that person.

[TheAztek]

Thats threatening, nothing to do with speech.

[MultiCanimefan]

You should always treat every firearm like it's loaded. Even though he had no intentions of shooting, it's still an extremely suspicious move.