$500,000 Donation Frees Jailed League of Legends Player

[Lord_Gremlin]

I'm not too closely familiar with US laws (I'm not living there), but the whole thing is kinda ridiculous. What is the crime? Can someone explain in detail where is it? I'd get it if there was evidence fot the fact that he actually planned some crime. There is none.
That kind of thing can get you sued for money in my country, but actual JAIL time? This is absolutely insane.

 

[MCerberus]

I'm not too closely familiar with US laws (I'm not living there), but the whole thing is kinda ridiculous. What is the crime? Can someone explain in detail where is it? I'd get it if there was evidence fot the fact that he actually planned some crime. There is none.
That kind of thing can get you sued for money in my country, but actual JAIL time? This is absolutely insane.

According to US constitutional interpretation, the First Amendment to the US Constitution (free speech) doesn't cover threats and incitements that result in damage (yelling "fire" in a movie theater that results in a panic).

Someone said the word "Terrorism" so common sense just got thrown out the window.

 

[crazyarms33]

Wait, they didn't put him in solitary to begin with? They put him in the common tank with all the crack heads and armed robbers?

Probably for his safety as odd as that sounds. In the general pop. prisoners who assault women, kids, and or kill them have horrifically low life spans. In prison threats are treated as promises and he "threatened" to shoot up a school, so they most likely moved him for his own safety.

OT: Why didn't he just take it down? I mean...am I missing something here? The delete button does still exist right? Seems to me he is really stupid for posting it first of all and secondly for honestly believing "lol jk" is a valid excuse or cover for it. Not saying he deserved to go to prison but a good case of attempting to beat the stupid out of him wouldn't go amiss in my eyes.

 

[crazyarms33]

Yelling "fire" or "bomb" isn't a threat, its just panic incitement. A valid statement, judged as something worse, and treated as something that shouldn't be an issue anyway.

I can't speak for where you live but in my state it's actually illegal to scream that in a theater.

 

[Weaver]

Wait, they didn't put him in solitary to begin with? They put him in the common tank with all the crack heads and armed robbers?

Probably for his safety as odd as that sounds. In the general pop. prisoners who assault women, kids, and or kill them have horrifically low life spans. In prison threats are treated as promises and he "threatened" to shoot up a school, so they most likely moved him for his own safety.

I know... which is why I asked why they didn't just put him in solitary from the outset.

 

[crazyarms33]

I know... which is why I asked why they didn't just put him in solitary from the outset.

Well...did you think he needed to be in solitary right away? Or did you think him being in jail it was silly and he would be out shortly? Because if the latter then I think you have your answer.

 

[GonvilleBromhead]

If nothing had happened and he had gone and shot up a school, people would be up in arms that no-one reported him beforehand. Intent, in the case of making threats, is based on perception of the person reporting it - not whether or not the person making the threat actually was going to go through with it (in another words, if the threat actually scares someone, it's a crime)

What absolute nonsense. I can't be held responsible for someone else's inability to recognise humour. That's the complete opposite of what 'intent' means.

It may be to you, but in the eyes of the law (which is what, you know, matters) is that someone did take the threat seriously. This applies not just to terroristic threats, but standard threats against the person - otherwise every attempted prosecution would would end in an aquittal on the grounds "it was a joke", and we'd have a shitload of dead spouses to mop up.

As I say, this isn't some "freederm" that's been eroded. You have never been free to make threats. You have never had the freedom to shout fire in a theatre. You have never had the freedom to defame a persons character in print or verbally. The only free speech freedom that has been taken away recently is the right to distribute someone else's personal data.

 

[Flatfrog]

What absolute nonsense. I can't be held responsible for someone else's inability to recognise humour. That's the complete opposite of what 'intent' means.

It may be to you, but in the eyes of the law (which is what, you know, matters) is that someone did take the threat seriously. This applies not just to terroristic threats, but standard threats against the person - otherwise every attempted prosecution would would end in an aquittal on the grounds "it was a joke", and we'd have a shitload of dead spouses to mop up.

As I say, this isn't some "freederm" that's been eroded. You have never been free to make threats. You have never had the freedom to shout fire in a theatre. You have never had the freedom to defame a persons character in print or verbally. The only free speech freedom that has been taken away recently is the right to distribute someone else's personal data.[/quote]

But that person did not feel threatened. There was no threat to them. They interpreted the statement of another person (not addressed to them) as being threatening in a non-specific way to some other un-named third party. That's not the same thing at all.

Consider one of your other examples. Suppose someone was watching a play called 'The Fire Raisers' in which someone on stage called out 'fire'. If that person were to go to the police and claim that they were put in fear of their life by that event, they would rightly be told to get lost.

 

[Captain Anon]

-sighs and puts my head in my hands- you know america's Justice System is just so fucked up, AOS's rant is my reaction to this in one basically it's makes me so FUCKING ANGRY when I see THIS BULLSHIT THAT I WANT TO KICK THESE PEOPLE AND THE PERSON WHO SNITCHED ON HIM IN THE FUCKING NECK!!!

 

[Acton Hank]

What he did was stupid, but he didn't deserve to just be thrown in jail. I'm glad he's out for the time being, and hats off to the good soul who put up the money.

No it wasn't stupid, poor taste maybe but so what?
Some comedians make a very good living off of that, I don't see them being put in prison for stuff like that.

 

[theultimateend]

Why? Just.. why? You know Mr. good Samaritan $500,000 can do a lot of things, buy you a new TV, feed the poor, make a giant fire if you get it all in singles, hell just roll it up and smoke that shit just to show how rich you are, anything is a more noble cause than getting this braindead little shit out of jail.

While the kid shouldn't have gone to jail the fees on bail are just extortionist.

He's completely harmless.

500K is the kind of bail you throw behind someone that you >know< lit a mall on fire.

 

[DragonStorm247]

Yelling "fire" or "bomb" isn't a threat, its just panic incitement. A valid statement, judged as something worse, and treated as something that shouldn't be an issue anyway.

I can't speak for where you live but in my state it's actually illegal to scream that in a theater.

Correct, but the reason for that is that it directly leads to actual deaths. It isn't illegal for being a threat (in fact it is not a threat at all unless you phrase it very specifically), it is illegal because it makes everyone panic and trample each other. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that if you scream "fire" in an empty movie theater and no one is around to hear you, then it's not illegal.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

The simple fact is, people wanted to make money. Yes, someone clearly overreacted to report this, but then the system said, hey we can make some money here. Every head in the prison system is more money in people's pockets somewhere, that's why people are imprisoned for bull crap, why innocent people are so easily found guilty, and why rich jerks get out of the crap they are in when they have committed an actual crime.
Yeah he got bail, someone got paid, and they'll get paid more in the continuing case and if they convict him they'll get even more.

... I don't think you know how the criminal justice system or prison system works. All of the things you mentioned cost money rather than generating it. Hence lines about "tax payers' money" being required to do all these things.

OT: ... sigh. I just don't care about this story. It is just so very, very stupid. The whole thing. I just... can't even....

 

[Do4600]

Why? Just.. why? You know Mr. good Samaritan $500,000 can do a lot of things, buy you a new TV, feed the poor, make a giant fire if you get it all in singles, hell just roll it up and smoke that shit just to show how rich you are, anything is a more noble cause than getting this braindead little shit out of jail.

Oh, I don't know, maybe because he was put in solitary confinement for five months for sarcasm in a country that has the right to free speech? Think about that the next time you use sarcasm.

 

[Do4600]

I don't get why people are so enamored with "freedom of speech". There's a reason all decent constitutions put the right to physical integrity and human dignity way ahead of that. Freedom of speech is a means to ensure that basic rights are guaranteed, not the end of those rights.

But I don't want to get into constitutional theory here. Let me just say that, if the authorities had done nothing and something HAD happened, they would have had to endure the shitstorm of voices asking "how could this happen" and "why did no one pay attention?"

I'd rather have it this way, but they already went overboard with it. They should clear the charges now and let him go.

Freedom of speech is a means to ensure rights. Freedom of speech also allows freedom of opinion in public life, freedom of opinion is central and essential to democracy. The moment you lose that right is the moment you no longer live in a democracy.

You want so badly to trade freedom for safety because the police would have to deal with questions? This comment is one of tens of thousands that are just as tasteless and just as "threatening". I could make one right now, and you would want the police at my house by the end of the day? For sarcasm? What's the charge officer? Sarcasm in the second degree!

This is paranoia, this is what paranoia looks like, this is the true grim dividend of our culture since "9/11" and it will destroy us far more readily than any bomb or plane ever could.

 

[Pinkamena]

I don't get why people are so enamored with "freedom of speech". There's a reason all decent constitutions put the right to physical integrity and human dignity way ahead of that. Freedom of speech is a means to ensure that basic rights are guaranteed, not the end of those rights.

But I don't want to get into constitutional theory here. Let me just say that, if the authorities had done nothing and something HAD happened, they would have had to endure the shitstorm of voices asking "how could this happen" and "why did no one pay attention?"

I'd rather have it this way, but they already went overboard with it. They should clear the charges now and let him go.

Freedom of speech is a means to ensure rights. Freedom of speech also allows freedom of opinion in public life, freedom of opinion is central and essential to democracy. The moment you lose that right is the moment you no longer live in a democracy.

You want so badly to trade freedom for safety because the police would have to deal with questions? This comment is one of tens of thousands that are just as tasteless and just as "threatening". I could make one right now, and you would want the police at my house by the end of the day? For sarcasm? What's the charge officer? Sarcasm in the second degree!

This is paranoia, this is what paranoia looks like, this is the true grim dividend of our culture since "9/11" and it will destroy us far more readily than any bomb or plane ever could.

Thanks for putting my feelings about this matter into words. The fact that someone got jailed for obviously sarcastic "threats" is in my opinion a clear sign that the american people is starting to suffer from the terror paranoia.

 

[Senare]

When this gets dismissed, I desperately want to see a massive civil suit brought against both the Attorney General's office and (assuming there was a reward given) the person who reported the post to Crimestoppers.

No! Absolutely not! Well, sue the Attorney General and his office, sure, but you should NEVER make it punishable to be careful about crazy people. Anybody should be able to point out a potentially dangerous person and it's up to the authorities to act with discresion.

That's a very tricky issue. If she only did it for the money (worse still, if she was fully aware of the sarcastic context), a suit might very well be justified. If she was simply a concerned (if severely ignorant) citizen then ... I suppose you are right, she should not be punished. But in either case I do not think should be rewarded for this either. Crimestoppers should ask her to return the money.

What I think you need is not money to be shuffled around by a suit or shifting the blame around and having people pointed at as being "in the wrong". Paradoxically, I think that each and every one involved with the case can see a reasonable justification for their actions from their perspective - just like people in this very thread. What you need is change in the large. Will a suit give you that in the end? I do not know the American system, but if it does then go for it.

For freedom to apply and goodwill to win I think you need a reasonable leniency for all perspectives so that people can coexist. This freedom can be abused, as is done by criminals, school shooters and terrorists, but the restricted freedom is easier to abuse by manipulation and will occur on a larger scale as it becomes norm. Fascism, Nazism, Stalinism and feudal societies await down those lines of centralized power.
Terrorism wins if you are affected and give up on your rights because that is its goal - to have you controlled by terror. That is, to me, the true tragic of what has happened to America in the past decade.

(Though this may be nonsense and my vision may be clouded - for my high horse is especially high. But can you say the same for your own beliefs?)

 

[Asmundr]

Found guilty of what? Intent?

It's a sham, an attempt at making people fear what they can and can't say online. If anything is terroristic, it's this whole case where the country is villifying it's own citizens. Land of the free, my ass.

Its what a lot of folks have been saying for a long while. People are starting to speak of how scary the country is getting in "protecting" people.

I always say that for a country that prides itself on free speech not many folks are talking.