Death Threats Should Be Illegal

* Re “Trial To Decide: Angry Words or True Threats?” Aug. 16:

I wonder if Superior Court Judge Mary Erickson would have preferred Salvatorre Colodonato to have used some kind of obscene language rather than say that he was going to kill her, in order to express his extreme anger.

Would she have felt it life threatening or would she have charged him with contempt of court?

Colodonato now faces criminal charges of making “terrorist threats” against the judge.

Does this mean that any time a person says, “I’m going to kill you,” he or she will face criminal charges?

If this is true, I don’t understand how we allow terrorist hate groups in our country to advocate death and destruction toward groups of people just because of their blind prejudice and bigotry.

Why are they not brought up on criminal charges? Many Jews and other minority group members feel very threatened by these terrorist hate groups. Is it any wonder that people want to arm themselves to protect themselves and their families?

Colodonato’s attorney said the judge shouldn’t take the threat seriously because it was merely a spontaneous, emotional outburst. Really. At what point should she take a life-threatening statement seriously? After she’s dead?

No one should have the right to threaten or terrorize another human being. And no group should be allowed to exist which advocates the death and destruction of other human beings.

I do not think that individual or genocidal death threats were ever meant to be part of our 1st Amendment rights. Legislators [should] help curb domestic violence and terrorism by making a law which prohibits language which calls for the death and destruction of any one person or any group of people.

It’s hard for me to believe that the Supreme Court would find such a law unconstitutional.

BENNY WASSERMAN

La Palma