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.

[EX Q]: 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?
[EX A]: Non-threat

[EX Q]: Comment: If a dude is actively threatening to kill someone, a head shot with a scoped .308 or .223 may be reasonable.  The same is not true of a dude sitting alone in his house.  In the latter case, there is no active threat.  We people instruct police to kill the dude anyway just to prove that they must do what we want when we want it.  Okay, if that is the kind of society we want, so be it.  Recall, that we really know nothing about what the dude did, but I guess the point is that we should kill him to teach others to do what police officers tell them regardless of the circumstance.  Okay, whatever.  We craft the society in our image and reap the benefit when citizens kill because we have taught them how little value life has.
[EX A]: Threat

[EX Q]: Comment: Oops, you're right again, Leroy. I forgot to mention; if our children can't behead someone as well as a child of ISIS by the age of eleven, then they should have their hands cut off. That'll toughen up the little pansies.
[EX A]:
Threat