Originally Posted by
FenderTL5
"Did'at scare you boys.." would imply he did something that was intended to scare/threat, wouldn't it?
I'd expect that a jury would insist on much better evidence than the implication of that phrase. Then entire video looks more like wish fantasy than any serious threat. But regardless of what it really is, the law is clear. If this is introduced in court, and the defense argues that it's simply the musings and wish fantasies of a frustrated bike hater, the jury has to accept that explanation unless there's compelling evidence otherwise.
I'm sure the DA knows the law and the odds of conviction, so this is either harassment based on political pressure (not unheard of) or the DA is holding some hole cards we don't know about.
BTW- it seems that the concept of free speech is under assault, an more people than ever believe that free speech protection should only apply to speech that doesn't offend. IMO- that's pointless, since non-offensive speech doesn't need protection. Given the number of examples of people being pilloried for utterances secretly recorded then broadcast, I think we need to remind people that we can't protect any speech unless we protect all speech. (yes, there are exceptions, so all doesn't mean all).