When someone with a known violent history looks you in the eye, or even texts you, and says, “I’ll do whatever it takes and go to prison with a smile on my face” it’s hard to shrug it off as harmless. But in the eyes of California law, unless that threat is spelled out with chilling precision—think something like, “I’m going to stab you at 8 PM tonight”—it’s often not considered a criminal threat under Penal Code § 422.
And here’s the kicker:

offenders know this.

They’ve learned the loophole and fully use it to their advantage. They know that they can terrorize someone with vague but terrifying statements, all while skirting the line of legality.

For survivors of past abuse—whether it’s domestic violence, assault, or battery—the law’s focus on “specific” threats feels like a cruel joke. A person with a violent history doesn’t need to say exactly how they plan to harm you for you to feel fear. The history alone makes the threat credible and it should be taken seriously.

Yet even with months worth of documented threats and multiple police reports filed over the course of a year, victims are told, “We can’t do anything unless they say something specific. Work on getting a restraining order and call us back if there are anymore threats or they show up.”

Why This Law Needs to Change

The requirement that threats be “unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific” was designed to protect free speech and avoid criminalizing angry words said in the heat of the moment. That’s reasonable—until you consider those words in the context of someone with a violent past. When a convicted abuser says something as simple as, “Watch your back,” to the person they abused, any reasonable person would take that as being a serious threat. But the law does not because it lacks “specifics”.

The reality is, many survivors are left in a gray area. They’re harassed, they’re scared, they’re tired of the constant trauma responses, but the law refuses to do anything but offer advice until something “specific” enough is said. And far too often, that “specific” moment is when someone ends up hurt—or worse.

What This Means For Victims

Currently, victims are advised to gather evidence, call the police anytime a threat is received, and seek a restraining order as soon as possible. While restraining orders are critical tools, they’re often reactionary rather than preventative and not always guaranteed.
What about people who are living in fear while their abuser uses loopholes to stay just out of reach of the law?
How many lives are disrupted—or destroyed—because the law values specificity over history?

It’s worth considering a shift in the law where a violent criminal history toward the same victim allows threats to be judged differently. Prior convictions for assault or abuse shouldn’t give someone a free pass to terrorize their victim with veiled threats.

Context matters. History matters.

Victims should be protected, not Abusers.

Key Data Points

In a major study of past or present intimate partner violence victims
73.6% of homicide victims had received explicit threats

---

Statewide data shows 2023 domestic violence calls numbered over 160,000, and homicides involving DV were often linked to prior interaction

---

Roughly 22% of people released after violent crimes are rearrested for violent offenses within five years

---

This suggests that threats—even without immediate follow-through—are highly predictive of eventual fatal violence, especially against survivors with histories of abuse from the same individual.

What Do You Think?

Should the legal definition of a criminal threat change when the person making the threat has a violent past with the victim?
Would you feel safer if the law recognized context over technicality?

I’d love to hear your thoughts—drop them in the comments below.

---