12

6 comments

[–] Justintoxicated 2 points (+2|-0)

For such a charge to hold up they would have to prove he had the virus at the time of the events. Also I don't think there is a precedent legally for charging someone with spreading a virus as a terrorist.

[–] Timmy 2 points (+2|-0)

Prosecutors have a lot of discretion when it comes to creative prosecutions. If the defendant has a shitty lawyer, the prosecutor might even win, establishing the legal precedent now lacking.

[–] Annelise 2 points (+2|-0)

Not so. This is in the same category as committing an armed robbery with a replica gun. He made a threat and that's all it takes to make a "death" threat.

[–] xyzzy 0 points (+0|-0)

I disagree, if the virus was proven there, the charge would be terrorism. Terrorism threat is just threatening people into fear, like bomb threat, mass shooting threats, and so on. A similar precedent might be the anthrax fear in the early 2000s.

[–] Annelise 3 points (+3|-0)

It's the same a robbing a 7-11 with a replica gun. The "victims" don't know if it's real and were in fear for their lives. He's guilty and was stupid enough to record his action for posterity.

[–] Annelise 1 points (+1|-0)

20 lashes with a thick rattan cane will perfectly modify his behavior. I think Sungapore is onto something.