Andy, I'll admit that this won't satisfy any number of finer points you rely on to ignore elephants in the room
I’m not ignoring any elephant. The elephant is brown is a turd and should not have done this.
The finer point, which OTHER PEOPLE HARPING ON has created the discussion is that his actions constitute a threat.
but the texts were hostile, retaliatory, intimidating and perceived as threatening to her. [/quote]
If they were they would constitute a threat.
What was hostile?
Retaliatory is not unacceptable.
What was intimidating? To intimidate someone or to threaten them you have to have an action you prohibit and a consequence.
Where is it?
This is exactly the point. None of the elements you infer actually are there without you making bold assumptions.
And I'm certain that your definitions would provide any comfort or rest to her if she she received your counseling. Furthermore shut up....and please don't text any pictures of my family or group respond with your buddies to dig up any dirt on me to put me in my place or to try and get me to stop disagreeing with you. I'll take that as intimidating and threatening to me and my families well being whether you define it that way or not.
If I had any desire at all to do that and you gave me access to your pictures I would be allowed to do that.
You would have no recourse.
Now, reasonable people do not do those things and no one, certainly not me, is endorsing what brown did.
My point, which I made a long time ago and keep reiterating solely because people keep responding to me so i answer their responses, is that calling those texts a threat was sensationalizing by the media because they do not meet the definition of a threat. That doesn’t mean the were a good thing to do. Doesn’t mean he wasn’t an ******* to do it.
Unfortunately many people want to pile on and ignore facts.