I was reading this article about the sentencing of New Jersey activists who had protested the state’s weeklong bear hunt in December, 2005. Hunters shot nearly 300 bears. The activists were arrested for disrupting the hunt, appealed, and they lost they appeal. What I had never noticed, though, is that one of the activists had been charged originally with “making terroristic threats.”
According to a local newspaper, Albert Kazemian, 49, of Vernon, New Jersey, had been charged with
“disorderly conduct, hunter harassment, obstruction of the administration of the law, resisting arrest and making terroristic threats, and the three others with disorderly conduct, hunter harassment, obstruction of the administration of the law, and resisting arrest. The charges against Kazemian later were reduced to disorderly conduct.”
Hold up here. “Making terroristic threats” was later dropped down to “disorderly conduct”? Are you kidding me? As a quick side note, disorderly conduct is kind of a catch-all charge frequently used against activists when nothing else sticks.
So what kind of conduct constitutes “making terroristic threats” or “disorderly conduct?”
Sanford said that although the activists were singing and shouting, they claimed to be on a bird-watching expedition. When the hunters approached the activists, they began to utter accusations and threats, saying that the only thing that should be hunted is hunters, according to the police report.