criminal-law threats
Is a conditional threat still a true threat?
<p>In the US, can attaching a condition to a threat have any bearing on whether it's a true threat or not? In other words, is there are difference between the following threats, in terms of criminal law:</p>

<ul>
<li>I'll hit you! (unconditional)</li>
<li>If you speak to me again, I'll hit you! (conditioned on something that the other person is perfectly entitled to do)</li>
<li>If you try to steal my car, I'll hit you! (conditioned on the other person's <em>criminal</em> behavior)</li>
<li>If you violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, I'll hit you! (conditioned on something impossible)</li>
</ul>

<p>The <em>mere presence</em> of a conditional isn't a <em>determining</em> factor, but the <em>context</em> of the conditional <em>can</em> be a <em>contributing</em> factor in determining whether the threat is true or not.  See a <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-1459/198236/20211029150021046_20-1459%20United%20States%20v%20Justin%20Eugene%20Taylor%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">more recent publication from 2003</a> for a better understanding of those factors.  I definitely wouldn't rely on anything from the 1600s as a reliable source.</p>
<p>Back in the old days a threat was essentially the same as an assault, but nowadays we often view threats and assaults more distinctly and have crafted more specific laws to address them.  Just as an &quot;arrest&quot; was once used to describe a seizure of any kind regardless of the duration, more modern case laws have established distinctions between arrests (full-custody seizures) and detentions (temporary, short-duration seizures).</p>
<p>Since most jurisdictions in the US now have a separate statute for addressing threats in order to distinguish them from assaults, we have to read the exact verbiage of each state to determine whether it covers the particulars of the threat.  Here are a few examples.  Note the similarities and differences in each:</p>
<p>Arizona: <a href="https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/01202.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Threatening or Intimidating</a></p>
<p>Texas: <a href="https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.22.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Terroristic Threat</a></p>
<p>New York: <a href="https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/120.15" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Menacing</a></p>
<p>As you yourself pointed out, simply making a threat isn't necessarily mala en se, and there are times where the law explicitly allows for people to issue threats, particularly when it comes to defending themselves, another person, or their property.  For example, in Arizona, <a href="https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/00407.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">ARS 13-407</a> allows a person to issue a <em><strong>threat</strong></em> of deadly force to defend their property against trespassers, but does not allow them to actually <em><strong>use</strong></em> deadly force to do so.  This means that Arizonans who find themselves in a situation where they feel it necessary to issue a conditional threat to an intruder (&quot;leave my property right now <em><strong>or</strong></em> I'll shoot you&quot;), must understand that the threat is empty unless the intruder shifts his focus from mere trespassing to harming a person. (The bad guy doesn't need to know this though, and all the better if he doesn't.)  Even though the threat is empty according to the issuer's knowledge, it is still a threat, albeit one that the issuer is legally entitled to make.  In this situation, the threat to use deadly force is decriminalized, not because it contained a conditional, but rather because it was explicitly authorized by law.</p>
<p>In practice, many jurisdictions, especially ones with high crime rates, have arbitrarily decided to triage threats cases based on whether they include a conditional statement or not.  After all, if you have 1,000 cases a month and a team of only 30 prosecutors, you have to prioritize the cases that are easiest to prove.  With that in mind, many prosecutors offices have provided direction to their law enforcement partners to only submit cases that include unconditional threats.  Those agencies in turn train their officers to ignore any threats cases involving conditional threats, perpetuating the misunderstanding that a conditional automatically negates a threat as being a true threat.</p>
<p>There are literally thousands of cases where offenders have had their convictions upheld for crimes involving conditional threats.  Just think of robbery/carjacking: A man walks up to a victim in a parking lot and says &quot;give me your car <em><strong>or</strong></em> I'll kill you.  Despite containing a conditional threat, there isn't a prosecutor or jury in the country that wouldn't instantly recognize this as a true threat and an element of robbery/carjacking.</p>
<p><a href="https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7056&amp;context=jclc" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Conditional Intent to Kill is Enough for Federal Carjacking Conviction</a>.</p>

<p>No.</p>

Tuberville v Savage ([1669] EWHC KB J25)

<blockquote>
  <p>"If it were not assize-time, I would not take such language from you."
  (said while grabbing the handle of sword)</p>
</blockquote>

<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuberville_v_Savage" rel="nofollow noreferrer">According to this article</a>, conditional threats are not considered a true threat.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The court held that a conditional threatening statement, without an imminent threat of harm, does not constitute an assault.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Here is a similar Law.SE question and answers. <a href="https://law.stackexchange.com/q/2116/794">Did Zoey Tur assault Ben Shapiro?</a></p>
