Ice shooting in Minneapolis.

[JimmySpeaks]

Red Violence sure got quiet on this thread.  I wonder why???  

[JimmySpeaks]

@red viking hey red violence where you at?  Probably want to retract some things. 

[red viking]

11 hours ago, JimmySpeaks said:

@red viking  I thought you said you were a non violent person? 

Show me the actual threat liar

[red viking]

11 hours ago, JimmySpeaks said:

More 

None of these were threats you lying p.o.s. 

[JimmySpeaks]

7 minutes ago, red viking said:

None of these were threats you lying p.o.s. 

Everyone of them is a threat. It’s why you have retractions for them all. 

Edited September 1 by JimmySpeaks

[JimmySpeaks]

11 minutes ago, red viking said:

Show me the actual threat liar

Everything you said is violence. You’re far from a non violent person. Proof is all there. 

Edited September 1 by JimmySpeaks

[JimmySpeaks]

@red viking hey red violence, have a great day today. I know I will.  

[Scouts Honor]

 

[JimmySpeaks]

On 1/7/2026 at 3:02 PM, red viking said:

If you intentionally try to block my vehicle, you deserve whatever happens to you. His choice. Let him suffer the consequences too. 

@red viking

 

here ya go skippy.  AGAIN. 

[red viking]

1 hour ago, JimmySpeaks said:

@red viking

 

here ya go skippy.  AGAIN. 

Theres no threat there idiot

[JimmySpeaks]

On 1/7/2026 at 2:33 PM, red viking said:

110% murder and he'll 110% get what he deserves. His identity will get released. 

Here ya go.  This is a good one 

[JimmySpeaks]

On 1/7/2026 at 2:58 PM, red viking said:

Somebody tries to block my car they're going to have a problem. Stupid thing to do. How about you block my drive pathy Spanky? He created the situation and is 110% responsible. Cars are meant to be driven. 

Remember when you threatened me ??  

[red viking]

35 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

Remember when you threatened me ??  

Not a threat idiot. It was a hypothetical. Its only a threat if that was something you planning on doing, which is impossible and probably not something that even a moron like you would attempt  on anybody. 

Omg are u an idiot. 

[Caveira]

2 minutes ago, red viking said:

Not a threat idiot. It was a hypothetical. Its only a threat if that was something you planning on doing, which is impossible and probably not something that even a moron like you would attempt  on anybody. 

Omg are u an idiot. 

this statement strongly implies a threat of physical confrontation or violence, specifically using a vehicle as a weapon.

 

 

Why It Sounds Like a Threat

• Implied Physical Retaliation: Saying someone is "going to have a problem" if they block a car, combined with "cars are meant to be driven," heavily implies that the speaker is willing to run someone over, hit them with the vehicle, or use physical force to clear the path.
• Direct Provocation: Dropping a mocking nickname ("Spanky") and directly daring them to act ("How about you block my drive path...") transforms the statement from a general complaint into an active, aggressive threat.
• Pre-emptively Shifting Blame: Claiming the other person is "110% responsible" and "created the situation" is a classic psychological tactic used to justify future violence. The speaker is essentially saying, "If I hurt you, it’s your own fault because you provoked me."

In any professional, legal, or interpersonal context, this language would be flagged as a hostile escalation and a threat to public safety.

[red viking]

33 minutes ago, Caveira said:

 

this statement strongly implies a threat of physical confrontation or violence, specifically using a vehicle as a weapon.

 

 

Why It Sounds Like a Threat

• Implied Physical Retaliation: Saying someone is "going to have a problem" if they block a car, combined with "cars are meant to be driven," heavily implies that the speaker is willing to run someone over, hit them with the vehicle, or use physical force to clear the path.
• Direct Provocation: Dropping a mocking nickname ("Spanky") and directly daring them to act ("How about you block my drive path...") transforms the statement from a general complaint into an active, aggressive threat.
• Pre-emptively Shifting Blame: Claiming the other person is "110% responsible" and "created the situation" is a classic psychological tactic used to justify future violence. The speaker is essentially saying, "If I hurt you, it’s your own fault because you provoked me."

In any professional, legal, or interpersonal context, this language would be flagged as a hostile escalation and a threat to public safety.

Not if there's no chance of the situation actually occurring. 

This is like me saying "im gonna improson you if I become the POTUS tomorrow." 

Anybody that actually takes that as a threat is....also...a complete idIliot. 

[Caveira]

6 minutes ago, red viking said:

Not if there's no chance of the situation actually occurring. 

This is like me saying "im gonna improson you if I become the POTUS tomorrow." 

Anybody that actually takes that as a threat is....also...a complete idIliot. 

Your no fun

In both legal and standard dictionaries, a threat is defined by the expression of intent to do harm, not whether the person actually follows through or gets the chance to do it. 

Under the law, what you made is the textbook definition of a threat.

[red viking]

7 minutes ago, Caveira said:

Your no fun

 

In both legal and standard dictionaries, a threat is defined by the expression of intent to do harm, not whether the person actually follows through or gets the chance to do it. 

Under the law, what you made is the textbook definition of a threat.

No you idiot. In this case there is zero chance that it would happen. Zero. Spanky doesnt know me or where I live. 

Its not a threat if it cant actually happen. 

Intent matters: Courts look at whether a reasonable person would view the statement as a serious expression of an intent to cause harm.

 

 

[Scouts Honor]

cars are meant to be driven.

except when you have been given a lawful order to stop.

unfortunately, the woman in Minnesota is violent like you 

[red viking]

Legal Reality

In most legal jurisdictions, a conditional statement of this nature is not automatically classified as an actionable "true threat" or a crime (such as criminal threatening or assault).

Lack of Imminence: A threat usually requires an immediate or impending intent to inflict harm. A statement contingent on an extreme, hypothetical future event lacks immediate intent.

[Caveira]

12 minutes ago, red viking said:

No you idiot. In this case there is zero chance that it would happen. Zero. Spanky doesnt know me or where I live. 

Its not a threat if it cant actually happen. 

Intent matters: Courts look at whether a reasonable person would view the statement as a serious expression of an intent to cause harm.

 

 

Your defense still completely misunderstands the legal and logical definition of a threat. A threat is defined by the speaker's intent and expression of hostility, not by whether the target is currently in range.

[JimmySpeaks]

1 hour ago, red viking said:

Not a threat idiot. It was a hypothetical. Its only a threat if that was something you planning on doing, which is impossible and probably not something that even a moron like you would attempt  on anybody. 

Omg are u an idiot. 

Wait wut?   You’re 115% wrong again dip shit. 

[JimmySpeaks]

2 hours ago, red viking said:

Legal Reality

In most legal jurisdictions, a conditional statement of this nature is not automatically classified as an actionable "true threat" or a crime (such as criminal threatening or assault).

Lack of Imminence: A threat usually requires an immediate or impending intent to inflict harm. A statement contingent on an extreme, hypothetical future event lacks immediate intent.

Most. Bahahahahahahhaahahahah.  Hassan Viking is funny 

[red viking]

2 hours ago, Caveira said:

Your defense still completely misunderstands the legal and logical definition of a threat. A threat is defined by the speaker's intent and expression of hostility, not by whether the target is currently in range.

Lack of Imminence: A threat usually requires an immediate or impending intent to inflict harm. A statement contingent on an extreme, hypothetical future event lacks immediate intent

[red viking]

29 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

Most. Bahahahahahahhaahahahah.  Hassan Viking is funny 

Turn me in to the cops. Id absolutely love to be a fly on the wall and observe their reaction. Lmfao. 

[JimmySpeaks]

1 hour ago, red viking said:

Turn me in to the cops. Id absolutely love to be a fly on the wall and observe their reaction. Lmfao. 

Why would I do that?   You’re supposedly coming to get me. With AOCs approval of course. No way I’d want to miss your visit.