Threats to Kill in Wisconsin: Section 947.019 and Penalties

Threatening to kill someone in Wisconsin is most often charged as a terrorist threat under Section 947.019 of the Wisconsin Statutes, a Class I felony punishable by up to three years and six months in prison, a fine of up to $10,000, or both.¹² No one has to be physically hurt for the charge to stick, and the actual penalty can climb well past that baseline depending on who the threat targeted, how it was delivered, and whether it was part of a larger pattern of conduct.

What Section 947.019 Actually Requires

The terrorist threats statute covers any threat to cause death, bodily harm, or property damage made with one of several specific intents. Prosecutors do not have to prove you planned to carry the threat out. They have to prove you made it with the goal of:

Forcing an evacuation of, or preventing entry into, a building, school, vehicle, public transit facility, or place of public assembly;
Causing public inconvenience;
Causing public panic or fear; or
Disrupting government operations, public communications, transportation, or utilities like water or gas.

There is also a catch-all: even without one of those goals, you can be charged if the threat created an unreasonable and substantial risk of causing one of those outcomes and you were aware of that risk.¹ Prosecutors lean on this subsection often when a threat was posted on social media or sent in a group chat, where the sender knew the words could spread and cause alarm, even if disruption was not the stated purpose.

The medium does not matter much. The threat can be spoken, written, texted, posted online, or conveyed through gestures. What matters is the intent behind it and the context around it: the defendant’s demeanor, any history with the victim, whether the threat was repeated, and whether the person referenced access to weapons. The threat does not have to actually frighten any particular person. The focus is on the defendant’s intent and the nature of what was said.³

When the Charge Gets Worse

Two situations push a Wisconsin threat case well past the base Class I felony.

If the threat actually contributes to someone’s death, the offense becomes a Class G felony, which carries up to 10 years in prison and a $25,000 fine.¹² A bomb threat that triggers an evacuation in which someone dies in the panic would fit.

Separately, Section 947.016 covers threats of bodily harm directed at specific protected people because of their official role. That charge is a Class H felony — up to 6 years in prison, a fine of up to $10,000, or both — even when the broader public-disruption elements of 947.019 are not met. Protected categories include current and former judges, prosecutors, law enforcement officers, witnesses, jurors, guardians ad litem, and attorneys; probation, parole, community supervision, and aftercare agents; health care providers and staff at health care facilities; and certain employees of the Departments of Revenue, Safety and Professional Services, and Workforce Development. Family members of those individuals are also covered. The prosecution has to show you knew (or had reason to know) the person’s role and made the threat because of or in response to their official actions.

Related Charges Prosecutors Can File Instead or on Top

Not every death threat sits cleanly inside the terrorist threats statute. Three other charges show up regularly, and they carry very different exposure.

Harassment Under Section 947.013

The base harassment offense — threatening physical contact or engaging in a course of conduct meant to harass with no legitimate purpose — is a civil forfeiture. It escalates fast. When harassment includes a credible threat that places the victim in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm and the defendant is already subject to a restraining order or domestic abuse injunction, it is a Class A misdemeanor punishable by up to nine months in jail and a $10,000 fine.⁴⁵ A second harassment conviction involving the same victim within seven years is a Class I felony. If the defendant used electronic records containing the victim’s personal information to carry out the harassment, it is a Class H felony.

Stalking Under Section 940.32

When a death threat is part of a pattern aimed at one person, stalking charges often come alongside or in place of the terrorist threats charge. Stalking requires a “course of conduct” — at least two acts showing a continuity of purpose, such as repeated threatening messages, showing up at the victim’s home or workplace, and monitoring their movements. The base offense is a Class I felony.⁶ It rises to a Class F felony — up to 12 years and 6 months in prison and a $25,000 fine — if the stalking caused bodily harm, involved a dangerous weapon, or if the defendant had certain prior convictions in the preceding seven years.² That is where the heaviest state penalties for threat-driven conduct usually land.

Disorderly Conduct Under Section 947.01

Disorderly conduct is a Class B misdemeanor, carrying up to 90 days in jail and a $1,000 fine.⁵ It gets used when a threatening statement came out during an altercation but does not clearly meet the elements of the threat or harassment statutes, and it shows up often in plea negotiations when the evidence of specific intent is thin.

Penalties at a Glance

Class F felony (aggravated stalking): up to 12 years and 6 months in prison, a fine of up to $25,000, or both²
Class G felony (terrorist threat contributing to death): up to 10 years in prison, a fine of up to $25,000, or both²
Class H felony (threats against protected officials, aggravated harassment): up to 6 years in prison, a fine of up to $10,000, or both
Class I felony (base terrorist threat, base stalking): up to 3 years and 6 months in prison, a fine of up to $10,000, or both²
Class A misdemeanor (harassment with a credible threat while under a restraining order): up to 9 months in jail, a fine of up to $10,000, or both⁵
Class B misdemeanor (disorderly conduct): up to 90 days in jail, a fine of up to $1,000, or both⁵

Courts also have discretion to order probation instead of prison in many cases, though the conviction still goes on your record.

Is It Really a Threat, or Protected Speech?

The First Amendment does not protect “true threats,” but the line is not always obvious. In 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court set the current standard in Counterman v. Colorado: to convict, the government must show the defendant was at least reckless about whether the statement would be perceived as threatening violence. The speaker has to have been aware others could view the words as a serious threat and delivered them anyway.⁷ Purely negligent speech — where the speaker genuinely had no idea the words could be read that way — is not enough. But prosecutors do not have to prove the speaker specifically intended to frighten anyone. Conscious disregard of the risk is sufficient.

Political hyperbole, venting in clearly exaggerated terms, and statements made in an obvious joking context remain protected, a line the Supreme Court drew in Watts v. United States back in 1969. That protection falls away quickly when the statement is directed at a specific person, references specific plans, or is repeated after the speaker knows the recipient is scared. Defense attorneys in Wisconsin threat cases regularly argue hyperbole or joke; prosecutors respond with the surrounding circumstances to show recklessness.

Collateral Consequences Beyond Prison and Fines

A felony conviction for a threat has consequences that outlast the sentence. Federal law permanently bars anyone convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year in prison from possessing firearms or ammunition.⁸ Every felony-level threat charge in Wisconsin clears that threshold. Wisconsin has its own parallel ban under Section 941.29, making felon-in-possession a Class G felony carrying up to 10 more years in prison.⁹ The conviction will show up on background checks through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.¹⁰

Even some misdemeanors can affect gun rights. Federal law prohibits firearm possession for anyone convicted of a misdemeanor involving the use or threatened use of a deadly weapon against a spouse, former spouse, co-parent, cohabitant, or dating partner.¹⁰ A misdemeanor harassment conviction under Section 947.013(1r) can trigger that bar if the threat was aimed at someone in one of those relationships.

Restitution is also typically on the table. Wisconsin courts must order restitution for any crime considered at sentencing unless the court finds substantial reason not to and states that reason on the record. Under Section 973.20, restitution can cover medical expenses, counseling, therapy and rehabilitation costs, and lost income the victim incurred as a direct result of the threat.¹¹ Relocation costs, new security systems, and missed work all qualify. Restitution comes on top of any fine, so the financial piece can grow quickly.

Federal Charges When the Threat Crossed State Lines

If a death threat crossed state lines through phone, text, email, social media, or mail, federal prosecutors can file charges of their own. Under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c), transmitting any communication containing a threat to injure another person through interstate commerce is a federal crime carrying up to five years in prison. Tie the threat to an attempt to extort money or something of value, and the ceiling jumps to 20 years.¹² Federal and state charges can run side by side; they are not mutually exclusive. Federal prosecution is more likely when the message was electronic and crossed state lines, when there was a pattern of interstate stalking, or when the target was a federal official or building.

How Long Prosecutors Have to File

The statute of limitations is six years for felony threat charges and three years for misdemeanors, measured from the date the threat was made. The clock pauses while you live outside Wisconsin and while another prosecution for the same act is pending.¹³ For threats made electronically, that six-year window gives prosecutors real room to build a case long after the original message was sent.

Talk to a Lawyer Before Talking to Police

Anyone facing a threat charge in Wisconsin should talk to a criminal defense attorney before speaking to police or prosecutors. A statement made in the heat of an argument or meant as a joke can still support a felony conviction if the surrounding context lets a jury find recklessness. A lawyer can test whether the evidence actually meets the intent elements of Section 947.019 and whether a First Amendment defense is realistic given the facts.

Legal help is particularly important when the alleged threat was online or over text. A screenshot of one message, pulled from a longer conversation, can look much worse than the exchange it came from. Counsel can challenge the completeness and admissibility of digital evidence, argue the language does not meet the true-threat standard, or push for a lesser charge or alternative resolution. If you cannot afford a private attorney, you have the right to a court-appointed one for any charge that carries potential jail or prison time, which covers every offense discussed above.

1
Wisconsin State Legislature. Wisconsin Statutes 947.019 – Terrorist Threats
2
Wisconsin State Legislature. Wisconsin Statutes 939.50 – Classification of Felonies
3
Wisconsin Court System. Jury Instruction 1925A – Intentional Terrorist Threats
4
Wisconsin State Legislature. Wisconsin Statutes 947.013 – Harassment
5
Wisconsin State Legislature. Wisconsin Statutes 939.51 – Classification of Misdemeanors
6
Wisconsin State Legislature. Wisconsin Statutes 940.32 – Stalking
7
Supreme Court of the United States. Counterman v. Colorado, 600 U.S. ___ (2023)
8
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 U.S. Code 922 – Unlawful Acts
9
Wisconsin State Legislature. Wisconsin Statutes 941.29 – Possession of a Firearm
10
Federal Bureau of Investigation. About NICS
11
Wisconsin State Legislature. Wisconsin Statutes 973.20 – Restitution
12
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 U.S. Code 875 – Interstate Communications
13
Wisconsin State Legislature. Wisconsin Statutes 939.74 – Time Limitations on Prosecutions