In this task, you are given a public comment from online platforms. You are expected to classify the comment into two classes: threat and non-threat. Threat is a statement that someone will be hurt or harmed, especially if the person does not do something in particular.

Comment: Most of the time, I see Bicyclists riding THRU the people in Crosswalks (on a Walk light) While cyclist is Running a RED light. At Hotel and Fort Street Mall. I'd Love to Kick them.
Threat

Comment: Vancouver was thinking it was a good idea to pass a law mandating snow tires-  but only if there was snow on the ground? 

How on earth was that law going to be enforced? Who was going to enforce it? How were people going to comply? Check the weather then break out the jack?

Two questions arise in my mind- 

1- Did the author completely miss the actual wording of the proposed law? Because surely a law like that could not have actually been proposed, right? 

2- If the author's research was accurate, it beggars the question: How do people that stupid actually get elected?
Non-threat

Comment: The progressive's dark defamation of the President-elect is similar to the protestant demonization of the papacy.   

It's the same mental phenomena at play, whether it's from someone calling the papacy "the whore of Babylon," or calling the president elect a fascist.

Both slanders are grounded in nothing more than empty sentiment.   That's why they're slander.  Neither has any good evidence behind it, because all concerned don't understand American Civics any better than they understand Christianity.

Of course, neither progressives or Catholic-bashing protestants believe this is true.   "Look at what Revelation says about the antichrist....it's in the bible!" they cry.  Or "listen to the loud way he talked to that reporter, he must be a fascist" they explain.

They only think they have legitimate evidence.  But what they really have is junk evidence, fake evidence.

Non-threat