Jeremy Bentham once said that “lawyers are the only persons in whom ignorance of the law is not punished.” We will see, apparently, in a case in Mississippi. At age 70, Lisa White is looking at a possible stint in prison after allegedly threatening to shoot Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents.

According to news reports, Lisa White drew attention at a Mississippi store when she went to buy a gun and asked about body armor in September. According to an employee, she allegedly identified herself as a protester and an activist opposed to ICE who were “becoming crazy and wild and that she needed a gun because she was a protester and activist.”

She allegedly told the employee that she was interested in knowing about body armor because if the agents were wearing body armor, she would have to shoot them in the head, shoulder, or leg. When the employee suggested that she was likely to get herself shot, she allegedly replied, “If I have to die, I have to die.”

According to ICE, White is currently being held on federal criminal charges for influencing, impeding, or retaliating against a federal official by threat.

This can be a tough case to prosecute. White can claim that this is protected speech in spouting off against ICE and was not intended as a true threat.

The Supreme Court handed down an opinion in Counterman v. Colorado that addressed an analogous claim under state law where a defendant claimed that postings were not intended as a true threat. The Court held that, in such a case, the State has to prove that the defendant had some subjective understanding of his statements’ threatening nature. However, it allowed for a conviction based on a showing of recklessness.

The majority held that a recklessness standard (showing that a person “consciously disregard[ed] a substantial [and unjustifiable] risk that [his] conduct will cause harm to another), was sufficient for a showing of state of mind, or mens rea.

On the specific federal crime, courts require a showing of specific intent that the defendant acted knowingly and with a specific intent to retaliate against the official for actions connected to federal duties. It is not enough to speak out of anger or passion. 

In this case, the threat was not conveyed to the alleged targets but to a third person. As such, White could argue it was a political or sensational statement that was not intended as a true threat. She is due in court in mid-November.