2 Mo. men charged with rap video threat

[deadparrot]

Source: Associated Press

SAVANNAH, Mo. - Two men were arrested and face a series of felony charges over a homemade rap video that threatened to kill police officers, harm a judge and rape a female police officer.

Police said the profanity-laced video was initially posted on YouTube, but has since been pulled from the video-sharing Web site.

Kenneth Darrell Black Jr. and Benjamin D. Stevens, both 20, face felony charges of making a terroristic threat, conspiring to commit second-degree assault with a gun against law enforcement officers, conspiracy to commit rape and tampering with a judicial officer.

Black was free on $100,000 bail Wednesday; Stevens remained in custody in lieu of the same amount of bail.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070919/ap_on_re_us/rap_video_charges

[L0oniX]

1. Cop Killer - IceT.mp3 Remember that one? So WTF is this then?

This is total bull shit!

[jberryhill]

6. "Cop Killer" is not a specific threat against an individual

Officer Joshua Smith said in court documents that he watched the video and heard Stevens specifically name several officers, including himself. He said Stevens described shooting Smith in an alley with an AK-47.

[ThomCat]

2. This is absolute, total B.S.

There is no way a song should be proof of a threat.

I don't like the vulgarity and implied violence in music. I think fans should not be supporting that crap. But it's still just music.

If they haven't done anything that indicates a real threat then their song should be covered by the 1st amendement, and I hope the ACLU gets involved if that's the case.

[KittyWampus]

7. Not when it mentions people by their actual names. Sorry.

[Lance_Boyle]

8. mentioning of 'actual names' also covered by first amendment

If the target was a book instead of a song, I think you'd see more clearly the error of assuming that use of proper names in a published work is unprotected. If specific threats are identified, those *might* not be protected.

[jberryhill]

9. These weren't "mentions"

They were specific threats against named individuals.

Under those circumstances, the speech is among the elements of an offense.

I can sing a song that says, "I'd like to pay money for sex." If I direct that to an individual - "I'd like to pay you money for sex" - then you have a solicitation to engage in prostitution.

Given a statement making a specific threat against a named individual, then you have a triable issue of criminal intent.

[Mozcram]

3. Yet another case of exaggerated

response on the part of law enforcement.
These young men are probably being made an example
of because they went overboard; I hope they
can get their warning and then go free
without having their lives ruined

Hearing the words "terrorist" and "terrorism"
being used in order to justify treating people
worse than they deserve makes me CRAZY!

[jberryhill]

10. "Terroristic Threatening"

Has a longstanding specific meaning under many state criminal codes, and is not associated with the colloquial use of 'terrorism' in the sense of a tactic of political violence.

In some state codes, the offense has been defined as "terroristic threat" for long before the current primary sense of the word.

Some state codes define the offense as "menacing" or as a lesser degree of assault.

[Solon]

4. Question, were the St. Louis police officers who made the death threats against the video...

vigilante ever charged?

[catmandu57]

5. That's where I live

The chief of police lives just above us in the next street. These two are beavis and butthead wannabes. This story is getting blown out of proportion, First we have the idiot trying to rob the bank by long distance, then we have these two, what the hell has happened to my little town?