> Douglas Ramsey, 53, faces charges of "terroristic threatening" and third-degree battery, court records show.
Of course we are lacking true details here but “terroristic threatening” sounds… interesting?
Of course we are lacking true details here but “terroristic threatening” sounds… interesting?
"A person commits the offense of terroristic threatening in the first degree if… [with] the purpose of terrorizing another person, the person threatens to cause death or serious physical injury or substantial property damage to another person"
They definitely deserved a charge, but I always thought Terroristic Threats was a strange one to choose.
Is this a case where meanings have diverged? In modern colloquial speech "terrorism" means certain kinds of extreme political violence (e.g. bombings) especially that committed by Islamists (e.g. al Qaeda and ISIS). "Terroristic threats" feels like it's legal jargon that may predate that by quite a bit.
What the COO did was the definition of a terroristic threat, threatening bodily harm with his actions and, potentially, his words.
He's a resident of the area, likely with substantial ties. It's a fairly low-level charge likely to result in probation and therapy. There's very little chance he'd flee.