See the Comment to WPIC 86.02 (Threatening to Bomb or Injure Property—Elements).
Often we hear of, or become the victims of, individuals with or without an agenda who act in a threatening manner, attempt or even successfully inflict violence or the use of force and/or harm to innocent people or generally upset the peace.
With regard to the bracketed clause relating to political argument, see the Comment below. Several statutes supplement RCW 9A.04.110 with an additional definition of threat: “to communicate, directly or indirectly, the intent immediately to use force against any person who is present at the time.” See RCW 9A.76.180(3)(a) (intimidating a public servant); RCW 9A.72.160 (intimidating a judge); RCW 9A.72.130 (intimidating a juror); and RCW 9A.72.110 (intimidating a witness).
Portions of this instruction may be used with, or as an alternative to, WPIC 115.52 (Intimidating a Witness—Threat—Definition), in combination with WPIC 115.51 (Intimidating a Witness—Threat to Former Witness—Elements). A speaker need not actually intend to carry out a threat in order for the communication to constitute a threat, as long as the speaker objectively knows that the communication constitutes a threat. Kilburn, 151 Wn.2d 36, 48, 84 P.3d 1215 (2004); see also State v.
Masjid Omar bin Abdul Aziz in Norcross, Al-Farooq Masjid and another Atlanta-area mosque received a threatening email on February 18.
The emails, with the subject line “your one warning,” stated in part, “... Angry humans who empower themselves by assaulting, intimidating and threatening the well-being of others.