Judge Refuses To Dismiss League of Legends Terrorist Threat Case

[Killclaw Kilrathi]

This is eight years off a kid's life. Or four with parole, I guess. I don't know what punishment would be appropriate, but I do know that eight years, or even four, ain't.

You do realize he hasn't been convicted nor is it guaranteed that if he is, he'll get the maximum sentence... I mean learn how the legal system works a bit before you knee-jerk react to terms such as "up to 8 years". Or maybe just some reading comprehension.

You realize he's already spent four months in prison before being released on bail, where he was repeatedly assaulted by other inmates and had to be kept in solitary confinement? It also took police about a month to search his house, where no weapons were found. The authorities have shown themselves to be clearly unconcerned that this was a legitimate threat, or at the very least utterly incompetent at handling the case and downright negligent in ensuring his safety as a prisoner.

I'm not saying there should be no consequences for saying stupid shit but if you have actually been following this story you'd probably agree that this kid has been through enough to have learned his lesson. I say reduce the sentence to time served, maybe throw in some court-mandated therapy sessions, and be done with it.

 

[TheWanderingFish]

His comment was clearly made in jest, for fuck's sake, you bunch of humourless fucks."

Again, you can't just say shit like that and expect to get away with it...
no matter how many "lol" or "jk" you put on the end...
Serious threats deserve serious consequences

It looked like a threat to someone who was either extremely naive or stupid.

And as much as you want to marginalise anyone who disagrees with you, I seriously doubt you could pick this out from a nutjob who followed through. And sadly, this isn't the first time I've made this point. But somehow, everyone who disagrees is either stupid or naive.

I think the point is it wasn't a serious threat and should have been easily distinguished as not a threat by law enforcement. It was an odd, and I grant you appalling, thing to say. However, based on the context of the situation, it is evident to even the average Joe that it is a joke. I think that a large part of this issue is that what he said is being taken in isolation, and not in the conversation to which it was a part of.

 

[miketehmage]

You realize that threats are made in response to things, right? They don't exist in a vacuum either, they're triggered by something else. So your analogy doesn't hold.

Here, a more apt analogy:

Man 1: What are you, a terrorist?

Man 2: Yep. I'm gonna fly a plane into a skyscraper while praising Allah.

Add lols or jks wherever you want.

Tasteless and offensive? Certainly. Worthy of punishment that could be up to 8 years in prison? Apparently yes.

This guy wins the thread. Couldn't have put it better myself. Anyone arguing otherwise is nothing short of an idiot.

 

[Something Amyss]

Maybe, can you provide me with a single example containing obvious hyperbole and calling it out as a joke specifically?

You mean the JK added after the fact?

Probably not. But then, that's a bit inane.

Are you going to sit here and say serial killers, school shooters and the like don't speak in metaphor and hyperbole? From religious quotes to Beatles lyrics, dude. Seriously. From "rivers of blood" to the Columbine shooters....Some serious intent behind some serious hyperbole.

But they were obviously all joking, because hyperbole. And this is apparently the only real measuring stick we need. Oh, also harassment, as seen below. That could probably also extend to Klebold and Harris, given the reports.

So do we now argue that Columbine was just a joke, or can we move on from the inane argument that one can tell a school shooter from a kidder based on the circumstances immediately being offered.

See how easy that was?

How easy it was to make a false parallel? Yes, but I didn't even have to be involved to see that.

Actually, it does... Or it's supposed to. Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is something different. This was neither a threat nor calling for someone's death nor "inciting imminent lawless action".

And it's obviously not a threat because you say so after the fact. Which is still weirdly reminiscent of Klebold and Harris.

If what you claim is true than every single person who says "I'm going to kick his ass" would be held on legal grounds; not to mention the amount of depraved hate and violent speech that passes for normal on websites, forums, and gaming blog sites.

"They didn't do it elsewhere" isn't proof that it's wrong here. That's like saying that personally attacking someone on the Escapist is okay because so-and-so didn't get warned.

Of course, I do wonder how often saying you're going to shoot up a school occurs in day-to-day life if you think it's on par with "I'm gonna kick your ass."

I'd add as a final note to this, I wonder how often these are actually, you know...Reported. People often run to this excuse, like the police troll every single Facebook looking for death threats. But then, I would hope we would be so reasonable as to understand the difference between a case that was reported to the police and an instance that likely wasn't.

The inability of a system to be comprehensive does not mean you haven't violated the system.

This was his personal facebook page

Which could be seen publicly. Saying it was his private page is pointless. People were able to see it. Some woman in Canadia was able to see it. You yourself pointed that out. It wasn't said in private.

and he was responding to someone's harassing comments (regardless of how "bad" the comment was or wasn't)

Ohhhh...I get it. If someone's harassing me I can say I'm going to shoot up a school.

At best this argument amounts to a "two wrongs make a right" argument.

This is EXACTLY what kind of free speech is supposed to be protected by the constitution.

No. It's designed to protect unpopular speech and the issue here is not its popularity no matter how hard you try and force it. But again, you've supported non founder logic to try and argue how this is different.

Similarly, any of the "we're not allowed to be sarcastic anymore" arguments (which are apparently not criticisms of the ruling because of obvious hyperbole) because it's not about sarcasm. It's not about hyperbole. It's not about someone else harassing him. There are numerous ways to respond to such a harassing claim without risking getting flagged by the cops or your place raided.

Why? Because sarcasm and hyperbole and the other guy's actions don't really change what they reacted to or why.

I'd be surprised to find any real precedent for the "I'm just kidding!" school of thought, but then....

I'm shocked that you claim to "know what it says and it means" but seem to think we wouldn't be able to say things like this.

Well, yeah. I do know what it says, and I know what legal precedent and Constitutional rulings from the SCOTUS have said in the past. I'm versed on it, which is why I both know what it says and means (to the degree anyone can of a living document) and not find myself swayed by people who can only repeat that it was just a joke (obviously). You can try and "shame" me for not pretending that tacking jk on after the fact makes a world of difference, but....Be serious.

An obvious joke is George Carlin's "Elmer Fudd raping Porky Pig" joke.

 

[otakon17]

You know, back in middle and high school, I had anger issues. I had them bad enough that I became a well known name in high school among most of the people there. Then the Columbine Shootings happened, and as I walked out to leave one day talking to my friend, the subject of the shooting came up. I eventually said to him, as the topic turned to my anger issues "If I had ever planned on doing anything like that, I would have by now. I have a hunting shotgun and my stepfather has several as well, it's not like I don't have access to guns."

The next day I was called into the principals office and was sent to a local hospital for a psychiatric evaluation. I was terrified out of my mind that they might find me crazy and lock me up or some such, sitting there in an open back gown with my mother nearby. Hell I think I was actually younger than this guy this is happening to right now. But my fears were unfounded, they found me not to be a threat to anyone else or myself and the subject never came up again. I certainly made sure to never talk about the Columbine shooting in school ever again.

I was not immediately arrested and charged with intent to commit murder/terrorism, I didn't spend months in holding to be beaten and put in solitary and on suicide watch. My mother didn't have to field a petition to get me released or to rely on an unanimous donation to cover my $500,000 bail. I was taken aside, looked at carefully and let go when they found there was nothing to worry about. To note, I don't have a criminal record. Not even a parking ticket or citation for jaywalking.

They went about this all wrong, completely and utterly and are continuing to do so. This will wreck his life, there is no recovering from it at this point and I will not be surprised if we see a report of him committing suicide after the trial is over(assuming he isn't charged and convicted). I pray to God it doesn't come to that, I truly do.

If he is found guilty of this manufactured crime,I will seriously consider moving to Canada soon.

 

[Something Amyss]

I think the point is it wasn't a serious threat and should have been easily distinguished as not a threat by law enforcement. It was an odd, and I grant you appalling, thing to say. However, based on the context of the situation, it is evident to even the average Joe that it is a joke. I think that a large part of this issue is that what he said is being taken in isolation, and not in the conversation to which it was a part of.

Except for the part where they said it wasn't obvious only the the naive and stupid.

The point I had already addressed, so you really don't need to explain it to me. The rebuttal, "only if you're dumb or clueless," is where you came in. I think you might have noticed that if you paid attention to the context of the argument, which is a touch similar to what you just said....

 

[loa]

The victim blaming is strong in this thread.
Fuck people.

The victim in this case being?

Seemingly, in this case, the victim is some theoretical school full of children, and no one seems to be blaming them at all.

The only "victims" in this "case" are the all the paranoid people who, given their sudden awareness of gun violence in spite of years of (arguably continuing) ignorance, have been so whipped into a frenzy over their sudden awakening, that they need to find somebody, anybody to point at and say "if we just send people like him/her to jail we will all be safe again".

That feeling of fear you get in the your chest, that flushed feeling in your throat, whenever someone says or does something that doesn't immediately compute with you, won't go away no matter how many you prosecute for lesser and lesser "crimes".

"Just because something makes you uncomfortable doesn't mean it has to change." -Megyn Kelly

"Don't argue with idiots, they only bring you down to their level, where they beat you with experience."

Maybe the kid who got jailed for 3 months and still isn't through with this yet for the heinous crime of making a snarky response is kind of a victim here and I can't believe I have to actually point this out??

 

[Tsun Tzu]

That's not how freedom of speech works. If you shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater or whatever and people get hurt, you will be held responsible. Freedom of speech != freedom of consequence.

I realize that and referenced it in the post. I agree with the rest of your post though.

Now just show me where the charges against him include "being offensive or disagreeable to the public" and you might have a case.

Comments made against the kid and in support of his continued punishment or calling for harsher action/making an example out of him are rife with statements about the "offensive" and "disagreeable" nature of his words. That would be what I was referring to in that post, which was written months ago in a similar article's thread.

Ohhhh...I get it. If someone's harassing me I can say I'm going to shoot up a school.

At best this argument amounts to a "two wrongs make a right" argument.

Of course you can. Or you should be and, usually, are.

Though I'm curious about something now; what school? Where? A hypothetical school? With hypothetical children? With hypothetical still-beating hearts?

In order for a threat like this to be taken as seriously as it has, there would need to be sufficient evidence to prove that the guy had an actual target. Making a general statement or "threat" with no real target specified is perhaps grounds for an investigation, or at worst a house call, but that's not what happened here. By all accounts, no evidence was found to support the idea that he was planning or even capable of carrying out the "threat."

What they've done is despicable and blatantly beyond the pale in terms of a legal response, which is why it's so god damned frustrating to read comments calling for this poor bastard to be made even MORE of an example of.

 

[w00tage]

I 100% agree that once it's established that he isn't a threat, it should have been backed off at that point.

Now admittedly, I haven't closely followed this case. Maybe there's more behind it we don't know about (which is why they are continuing to pursue it) or maybe it's just a "setting an example" kind of thing. If there truly is nothing else to this beside what we see here, I agree that at this point, the issue should have been dropped (I suppose community service if you are feeling like SOMETHING has to be done but that should be the farthest it goes).

Also: I 110% agree with the mis-use of the term "freedom of speech". I swear no one seems to understand what it actually means...

In truth, it probably is trying to set an example. Even then, I think it's needlessly harsh and the guy who set bail at half a million for a kid with no outstanding threat needs to be out of a job. Hopefully, it's one of the jurisdictions where you vote on judges and the community decides this was batshit.

Excuse me, but can you name the people he threatened? Because that's kind of necessary in order to establish intent to do harm.

[citation needed]

Good to know, though: if you make threats to kill people, it doesn't matter unless you actually name them. In that case, why are you casting your net so narrowly? Are you only concerned in this case because it was a gamer?

If someone I know where to claim they were going to blow up a church, would you be their lawyer?

a. A threat has a distinct legal meaning. Citation: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Threats. Test case: http://criminal.lawyers.com/Criminal-Law-Basics/Cyber-Threats-Like-Obama-Facebook-Poll-are-Crimes.html. And that one actually involves an applicable federal law and a named target.

b. If that someone were accused of being crazy by an angry opponent after a game they'd won, and said "sure, I'm crazy, I'm going to go blow up some churches now" and posted the conversation on FB with the addendums of "lol, jk" (edit) with the intention of sharing it with their friends as an amusing story (end edit), would you think they should be arrested for it? Because that's exactly what's happened here.

 

[coolkirb]

The Wild West days of the internet will come to an end soon. And why the charges may be extreme and unwarranted in this case I think this highlights how the days of not being accountable for what you do online are coming to an end.

 

[Augustine]

It was well established fact for me for years now that many people don't actually believe in the freedom of speech. At least not in the way it was defined by the founders.

The founding fathers weren't as explicit on free speech as you seem to want to believe.

The way they defined it wasn't very thoroughly defined, and the definition you're using seems to fit in with decades upon decades of refinement.

I'm not sure why I should give a damn about what our founders intended. They intended women to not have the vote, blacks to be purchasable, half my ancestry to be the enemy, and all sorts of other shit. Do you really want to go back to the Founding Fathers' ideal nation?

In May, my I am earning my degree in Classics, which included Constitution and Federalist Papers, to name a few. And I have written my fair share on politics and law. Two years of experience working in the state legislature.

And instead of hanging onto a single word of my statement you may wish to try to grasp the whole. I understand that may be difficult since you've taken it upon yourself to singlehandedly attack half the posts in this thread - quality over quantity is the way to go in communication, I assure you.

 

[w00tage]

How stupid do you have to be to "joke" about shooting up a school when several schools were recently shot up in a country that was already insanely paranoid about this type of shit. I say the gene pool will be better off if this kid spends some more time behind bars.

Except for the fact that when you're (and I mean you specifically, and me, and every other human being on the planet) exposed to something, it becomes part of your available lexicon. This doesn't mean you have to start using it, but the possibility that you will use it is there, and in offhand moments, you're far more likely to than you would think (because you're not thinking right then). In short, it was a bad joke made in an offhand moment. I think we can all agree that this happens a lot.

 

[BarbaricGoose]

This is eight years off a kid's life. Or four with parole, I guess. I don't know what punishment would be appropriate, but I do know that eight years, or even four, ain't.

You do realize he hasn't been convicted nor is it guaranteed that if he is, he'll get the maximum sentence... I mean learn how the legal system works a bit before you knee-jerk react to terms such as "up to 8 years". Or maybe just some reading comprehension.

I was using eight years more as an example. I guess I could've thrown in "Potentially," but I didn't think anyone would just assume I was saying he would get/has gotten eight years. Clearly, I was wrong--you're the one person who did. No, he may not get the max sentence--I don't know what he'll get. But he could get eight years, so that's what I went with.

Calm down a bit, hm? And for future reference, insulting people doesn't help your case.

 

[TinmanX]

I cannot believe some of the replies in this thread. This whole incident has been nothing more than a witch hunt.

All this kid did was make a stupid, and OBVIOUS sarcastic comment on Facebook. Some random lady, somehow not seeing the sarcasm, reported him to the authorities. They then went nuts, blowing it way out of proportion, not only arresting the kid at work, searching his place (and finding nothing), but throwing him in jail for 5 months (having found absolutely nothing), some of which was in solitary confinement. If not for some anonymous (and honestly just amazing person) who paid for his ridiculous 1/2 million bail, he would STILL be in jail now awaiting trial. A trial which could technically land him in up to 8 years in prison.

How are any of you not even remotely appalled by this type of treatment? Where the hell has basic human rights and the rights to free speech gone in your country? Innocent until proven guilty? If you honestly .... HONESTLY think that this kid deserved even a shred of the punishment he has received thus far, not to mention could still possibly face, then you have something wrong with YOU! Yes, YOU! You either have some kind of twisted superiority complex, a disturbingly frightening ego or a horrific lack of empathy. Personally I would be more worried about YOU with your points of view than this poor kid. You seem like someone capable of thinking and doing terrible things.

Imagine you were at a bar and said to a mate "I hate my boss and my work, I might just go and blow them all up tomorrow", just venting frustration and obviously not meaning it. Let's say someone overheard you and reported you to the police. Now you have just spent 5 months in jail with a 1/2 million bail. You also face 8 years in prison. Do you think you deserve it for saying what you said?

If you do, I have no words for you...

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

This is eight years off a kid's life. Or four with parole, I guess. I don't know what punishment would be appropriate, but I do know that eight years, or even four, ain't.

You do realize he hasn't been convicted nor is it guaranteed that if he is, he'll get the maximum sentence... I mean learn how the legal system works a bit before you knee-jerk react to terms such as "up to 8 years". Or maybe just some reading comprehension.

I was using eight years more as an example. I guess I could've thrown in "Potentially," but I didn't think anyone would just assume I was saying he would get/has gotten eight years. Clearly, I was wrong--you're the one person who did. No, he may not get the max sentence--I don't know what he'll get. But he could get eight years, so that's what I went with.

Calm down a bit, hm? And for future reference, insulting people doesn't help your case.

Mostly my point isn't clear and I apologize. I mean that while he could get up to 8 years, he most likely will get time served and a probationary period unless the judge is an assjack, which happens. But generally with minor cases like this, even though he's tried as an adult, they usually don't levy the max sentence because of age and the fact that he didn't follow through with his threat. The law takes threats seriously which is why my stance is that the kid was stupid as hell and insensitive to the current events. While maybe he thought he was being edgy and hip, even words have consequences and he's experiencing the causality of his ignorance. While we do have free speech in the US, it is supposed to be tempered with common sense and all and even a threat in jest can be taken as a real threat. We can say what we want but we also need to understand that what we will also have to deal with the consequences of our thoughtless words. Freedom of speech isn't a protection of all forms of speech.
Freedom has its consequences. We're free to do what we will but we're also free to deal with the backlash of what we do which is something people ignore. Its not a wise idea to make threats in any form, even in jest, because the government takes threats seriously and doesn't give leeway for joking around. If this were a case of a satirical comedy sketch or tv show or stand-up comedy act, it would be different. But this kid decided that the tragedy of Sandy Hook was free license to toss out whatever insensitive drivel he chose and now he's paying for it. Like it or not, if we were to let folk run rampant with stuff like that and ignore threatening language, we could end up with another tragedy because of inaction. Its a political move, and while I disagree with a lot of politics, this is one area I do agree with. People need to learn that threats are not humor, and are serious business.
Also I wasn't intending to be insulting and for that I apologize, I have been dealing with folk who were being combative and lacking reading comprehension, taking things to the extreme and ignoring the way the justice system tends to deal with these things. Again I apologize for the perceived insult, it wasn't my intent.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

...Wait the judge is...And some of the comments in this thread...I..

WHAT?! Just WHAT?!

Ok, look this is what SHOULD have happenned:
1) Kid makes tasteless joke that might be seen as a threat.
2) someone reports it.
3) Cops arrest him, search house.
4) Cops find nothing and also determine the comment was clearly sarcasm
5) cops go into his cell and say "You are being charged with terroristic threats and will likely go to PRISON for 8 years"
6) Cops wait a few seconds for this to sink in and then yell "LOL JK! HAHAHAHAHA. But no, really, you're being released. Don't be a dumbass again, or you might actually go to prison."
7) Cops keep him under surveillance for a while and eventually just file this away.

The fact he went to PRISON for 4 months, got raped and beaten to the point he had to be put in Solitary FOR HIS OWN SAFETY is already way too !@#$ing much. And now he's STILL facing up to 8 years in jail?

Meanwhile, some douchefuck steals booze from a wal mart, drives drunk despite being underage, kills 4 people and braindamages one passenger permanently and he gets off with therapy at a place that supposedly has "equine (horse) therapy", because he has "affluenza" because he's too rich to know what consequences are. And some girls who bullied a girl to suicide and said "I don't give a fuck" get off with just therapy.

Justice in America is screwed up. If this kid goes to jail at all beyond what he's already suffered, I will be really upset. If this kid goes to jail for over 4 years, your country is totally fucked up beyond belief. If he gets the full 8 years, Your nation (or at least the state this takes place in ) is dead to me.

I mean really. I get the need to make sure this wasn't an actual threat and the need to impress upon the kid how serious this is, but the amount of blood some people are calling for is appalling.

The worst thing is I think Canada is heading in this direction too. I think I need to move to Sweden.

 

[DjinnFor]

Sarcasm on trial, nice.

Prison time isn't justifiable for 90% of the tripe they put in the law books, but this goes beyond unjustifiable to batshit inane.

Words do not hurt people and using words is not a crime under any circumstances, end of discussion. No prison sentence, no slap on the wrist, nothing. When something actually happens and someone gets hurt, then you can talk about the "justice" that's backed with the iron fist of the law and the iron chains of the prisons.

Anything less, and you're effectively advocating for a violent response to a nonviolent action, making you just as bad as, if not worse than those you condemn and invalidating your position outright.

 

[anthony87]

Honestly don't know what turns my stomach more, the kid being locked up for saying something stupid or the people on this website who agree with this kid being locked up for saying something stupid.

 

[BarbaricGoose]

This is eight years off a kid's life. Or four with parole, I guess. I don't know what punishment would be appropriate, but I do know that eight years, or even four, ain't.

You do realize he hasn't been convicted nor is it guaranteed that if he is, he'll get the maximum sentence... I mean learn how the legal system works a bit before you knee-jerk react to terms such as "up to 8 years". Or maybe just some reading comprehension.

I was using eight years more as an example. I guess I could've thrown in "Potentially," but I didn't think anyone would just assume I was saying he would get/has gotten eight years. Clearly, I was wrong--you're the one person who did. No, he may not get the max sentence--I don't know what he'll get. But he could get eight years, so that's what I went with.

Calm down a bit, hm? And for future reference, insulting people doesn't help your case.

Mostly my point isn't clear and I apologize. I mean that while he could get up to 8 years, he most likely will get time served and a probationary period unless the judge is an assjack, which happens. But generally with minor cases like this, even though he's tried as an adult, they usually don't levy the max sentence because of age and the fact that he didn't follow through with his threat. The law takes threats seriously which is why my stance is that the kid was stupid as hell and insensitive to the current events. While maybe he thought he was being edgy and hip, even words have consequences and he's experiencing the causality of his ignorance. While we do have free speech in the US, it is supposed to be tempered with common sense and all and even a threat in jest can be taken as a real threat. We can say what we want but we also need to understand that what we will also have to deal with the consequences of our thoughtless words. Freedom of speech isn't a protection of all forms of speech.

Freedom has its consequences. We're free to do what we will but we're also free to deal with the backlash of what we do which is something people ignore. Its not a wise idea to make threats in any form, even in jest, because the government takes threats seriously and doesn't give leeway for joking around. If this were a case of a satirical comedy sketch or tv show or stand-up comedy act, it would be different. But this kid decided that the tragedy of Sandy Hook was free license to toss out whatever insensitive drivel he chose and now he's paying for it. Like it or not, if we were to let folk run rampant with stuff like that and ignore threatening language, we could end up with another tragedy because of inaction. Its a political move, and while I disagree with a lot of politics, this is one area I do agree with. People need to learn that threats are not humor, and are serious business.

Also I wasn't intending to be insulting and for that I apologize, I have been dealing with folk who were being combative and lacking reading comprehension, taking things to the extreme and ignoring the way the justice system tends to deal with these things. Again I apologize for the perceived insult, it wasn't my intent.

Yes, the kid was "Stupid as hell." Weren't you at that age? I know I was. Being stupid is part of growing up--making mistakes is a big part of how we learn. Not that I'm trying to excuse his actions--he should be punished. I think, however, this whole ordeal has been punishment enough, what with becoming suicidal and being put in solitary confinement.

Free speech is supposed to be tempered with common sense, sure, but justice should be tempered with mercy. If we're gonna start locking up kids who say stupid shit on the internet, then we better just throw all the kids in jail.

Again, I'm not arguing that what he did was okay, or that we should just give him a slap on the wrist. My point was always that he should be punished, but not with prison. You put someone who isn't a criminal into prison, and there's a damn good chance that they'll come out one. We're just shooting ourselves in the foot when we do shit like that, and we do plenty of it already. There are so many better alternatives to prison for this kid, I don't even know where to start.

 

[lSHaDoW-FoXl]

Making the comment on Facebook wasn't too bright, but around the point he got to 'and eat their still beating heart' I would hope that people would have enough common sense to understand that maybe, just maybe, he was being sarcastic. He did something a tad dumb. Do I need to elaborate more? I mean, gee whiz, a teenager doing something dumb? Boy, I would have never expected that to happen.

I think this judge needs to be fired. I don't feel it's what the teenager did that was dumb, but how he did it. And honestly, what he did was harmless. The judge wasting everyone's time with this absolute garbage however, just goes beyond dumb. It's insulting, it really is, to think that this has to be an issue. Perhaps firing this judge isn't even enough. Perhaps this judge should be arrested. Because if we're actually going to make this into a thing because a teenager did something dumb, then I hope that this judge gets punished even worse; because unlike a teenager that may say something dumb, I expect people in authority to have just a teensy bit of accountability for when they do something dumb.

Do I need to make this anymore clear? This judge, unlike that teen, is in a place of responsibility. This person has a job. That alone is incredibly frightening, but do we really want this person to be a judge?