I wouldn't say low on language comprehension and more unclear on the context, lets say your walking in a mall or other public place and you hear someone say, your crazy and the other person replies oh yeah well now I'm going to shoot up a school and eat everyone's hearts. You may think it's a joke and I may think it's a joke and since the two people are now laughing and saying wow that's really messed up we can assume it is. But other people around him may not realize it, same thing for facebook the only problem there is you can't hear how he said it or how he looked so your imagination does the work for you. Is it really a surprise that someone decided to call the cops? It's a surprise that it's gone this far but you can't just say things and think nothings going to happen.Strazdas said:Snip
Why not? They are words. not actions. Surely that should count for something?Hawk eye1466 said:I wouldn't say low on language comprehension and more unclear on the context, lets say your walking in a mall or other public place and you hear someone say, your crazy and the other person replies oh yeah well now I'm going to shoot up a school and eat everyone's hearts. You may think it's a joke and I may think it's a joke and since the two people are now laughing and saying wow that's really messed up we can assume it is. But other people around him may not realize it, same thing for facebook the only problem there is you can't hear how he said it or how he looked so your imagination does the work for you. Is it really a surprise that someone decided to call the cops? It's a surprise that it's gone this far but you can't just say things and think nothings going to happen.Strazdas said:Snip
Yeah, as a lawyer I shiver every time U.S prosecutors appear in a movie I'm watching. Take for example Law Abiding Citizen, or The Good Wife's first episode, which I've just started watching. Those guys couldn't care less about finding the real guilty, as long as they can send somebody to jail.SecondPrize said:Oh look, a District Attorney who cares more about their career than prosecuting actual criminals. Go figure.
Because there are paranoid people out there that will call the cops if anyone even hints at threatening them or their little world so you do have to be careful about what you say when other people who don't know you can hear.Deadcyde said:Why not? They are words. not actions. Surely that should count for something?Hawk eye1466 said:I wouldn't say low on language comprehension and more unclear on the context, lets say your walking in a mall or other public place and you hear someone say, your crazy and the other person replies oh yeah well now I'm going to shoot up a school and eat everyone's hearts. You may think it's a joke and I may think it's a joke and since the two people are now laughing and saying wow that's really messed up we can assume it is. But other people around him may not realize it, same thing for facebook the only problem there is you can't hear how he said it or how he looked so your imagination does the work for you. Is it really a surprise that someone decided to call the cops? It's a surprise that it's gone this far but you can't just say things and think nothings going to happen.Strazdas said:Snip
Granted, lack of context may have accounted for not recignizing it was just a witty reply, however it cannot account for anyone thinking it was a real threat.Hawk eye1466 said:I wouldn't say low on language comprehension and more unclear on the context, lets say your walking in a mall or other public place and you hear someone say, your crazy and the other person replies oh yeah well now I'm going to shoot up a school and eat everyone's hearts. You may think it's a joke and I may think it's a joke and since the two people are now laughing and saying wow that's really messed up we can assume it is. But other people around him may not realize it, same thing for facebook the only problem there is you can't hear how he said it or how he looked so your imagination does the work for you. Is it really a surprise that someone decided to call the cops? It's a surprise that it's gone this far but you can't just say things and think nothings going to happen.Strazdas said:Snip
And such paranoid people should not be the ones dictating what we can and cannot say. It is their problem, not ours, that they have mental problems. Granted, in part it is our problem for not providing a functioning mental care system in US, but thats as far as it goes.Hawk eye1466 said:Because there are paranoid people out there that will call the cops if anyone even hints at threatening them or their little world so you do have to be careful about what you say when other people who don't know you can hear.
If the defendant's statement was simply ignored by the police in the beginning or if the defendant's case was dismissed on the grounds of calming it was a joke.Strazdas said:"This kid was let off"? It may be my poor english knowledge but i dont exactly understand what you mean. Do you mean that he was let go from police?
This is your opinion. Nothing more, nothing less. My opinion is that this man should have been arrested and should be prosecuted for his actions. Let the court decide if he is guilty or not.He shouldnt have been arrested to begin with.
It was a disturbingly specific statement made on an open forum in the aftermath of a school shooting. How do we know it was a joke? Because he said, "lol jk"? Let me just say "bomb" on an airplane because that is such a good joke and it will make me seem so edgy. What? Things I say in real life have consequences!?!?!? And now that those same rules are catching up with the internet people are outraged?IT sets precedence? good. the predecense should support freedom of speech and not being jailed for making jokes.
But what if you made a "joke" about shooting kids and eating their hearts and the police found a gun, knife, and schematics at your house? If the precedent is set that a "joke" is a legal defense then you did nothing illegal so you are free now to continue with your plans.The police investigation found neither means nor intention to actually do a school shooting.
If i own a gun and i have a schematic of a school does not mean you should arrest me either.
I would direct you to know the law before you presume to lecture me on it.You argue as if there was any grounds to arrest the kid to begin with when there was none. there was no threat. in order for a statement to be considered threat legally it has to be specific. saying "im going to kill everyone" is not a threat. saying "im going to kill you" is. You would need to specify school name and date AT LEAST for this to be legally considered a threat.
Yes, we have to apply the law evenly and dont pretend to make examples when there is none or make exceptions "not to set precedent".
The kid did not ever intend to actually go on a shooting rampage, and even in case where one thought about it police has NO BUSINESS policing thought. Should we arrest 100 in hope that 1 may have commited the crime otherwise? in which case we should arrest entire population of US because more than 1% of it resides in jail already.
I assume by defendant you mean the Canadian woman who called the police? Her case should have been dismissed as soon as police looked up what was the actual thing. Not ignored though.Sarge034 said:If the defendant's statement was simply ignored by the police in the beginning or if the defendant's case was dismissed on the grounds of calming it was a joke.
This is a forum of opinions. All the posts are opinions. If your opinion is that we should use thought police and remove freedom of speech that is fair enough, but at least not pretend like you are somehow helping the world whole at it.This is your opinion. Nothing more, nothing less. My opinion is that this man should have been arrested and should be prosecuted for his actions. Let the court decide if he is guilty or not.
Disturbingly specific? it didnt pass any specification markings needed to make it an actual legal threat. It was extremely unspecific statement. It gave no location, no date nor names. Its as specific as "im going to kill somone someday".It was a disturbingly specific statement made on an open forum in the aftermath of a school shooting. How do we know it was a joke? Because he said, "lol jk"? Let me just say "bomb" on an airplane because that is such a good joke and it will make me seem so edgy. What? Things I say in real life have consequences!?!?!? And now that those same rules are catching up with the internet people are outraged?
Then it would have passed the means mark and only intent needed to be proven before being able to put the case before a judge. Half the job done, now do the other half or let him go. Yes, even if those things were found in his house as long as no intent is proven he did nothing illegal and that should be the precedent. This is not a minority report where we should be able to jail people for crimes they MIGHT commit.But what if you made a "joke" about shooting kids and eating their hearts and the police found a gun, knife, and schematics at your house? If the precedent is set that a "joke" is a legal defense then you did nothing illegal so you are free now to continue with your plans.
Ah, the lovely "make it as vague as possible" writing of terror mania.Specifically I would direct your attention to sections A-2, A-5, and C-2 with the ability to peruse A-3 and A-4 if schools responded to the threat (I don't remember if they were affected). By the letter of the law this man is being charged with making a terroristic threat. He was arrested, arraigned, and given a court date. Isn't that how the court system and the law are supposed to work? If the DA believes has enough evidence to pursue the case it goes to trial and your peers decide if you are guilty or not? So what you are really advocating is undermining our judicial system because you believe the defendant is not guilty.
True the people that are pushing this need to take a step back and start thinking but unfortunately with how great 2013 has been for shooters it's understandable why some people would think this was a worrying thing to say and what with the mainstream media still hellbent on villifying games whenever they can it's partly everyone's fault.Strazdas said:Snip
You assume incorrectly. I meant defendant in its' literal usage. I was trying to spell it out for you as you said you had difficulties with English.Strazdas said:I assume by defendant you mean the Canadian woman who called the police? Her case should have been dismissed as soon as police looked up what was the actual thing. Not ignored though.
The "thought police" would only be an applicable term if this dumb ass had not made the comment on a permanent and very public forum. It is now physical evidence for the actual police.This is a forum of opinions. All the posts are opinions. If your opinion is that we should use thought police and remove freedom of speech that is fair enough, but at least not pretend like you are somehow helping the world whole at it.
So go tell a cop "you are going to kill someone today" and add "lol jk". Then enjoy your time in detention while charges are drawn up against you. Why should the internet be any different? Also, the statement of shooting kids and eating their hearts seems very specific to me.Disturbingly specific? it didnt pass any specification markings needed to make it an actual legal threat. It was extremely unspecific statement. It gave no location, no date nor names. Its as specific as "im going to kill somone someday".
If my opinion was threatening bodily harm, or in this particular forum making a personal attack, I would get a warning, temp-ban, or outright perma-banned if the offense was bad enough. So nice try with the red herring. "Free speech" is not an all encompassing defense to say what ever the hell people want to say.Yes, sadly having an opinion has consequences and now internet is no longer free of this tyranny. Nothing to celebrate though. You make your posts as if paroling internet was a good thing to begin with. You will ignore arguments against it simply because your premise is different to begin with. That is not to say i will do any different, such is the nature of different opinions. But according to you we should police opinions, so why not start with banning yours?
But according to the law they don't even have to prove means, only intent. And where do you legally PROVE things I ask? "In court" the law responds. What do you do with people awaiting trial I ask? "You put them in jail if they don't pay the bail" the law answers. Nothing "minority report" about it. The dude said something, the authorities were alerted, and now he has to stand trial to determine his guilt. We are not sending him to jail for a crime he MIGHT commit. We are sending him to court for the crime he is accused of committing. School shooting/murder vs terroristic threats.Then it would have passed the means mark and only intent needed to be proven before being able to put the case before a judge. Half the job done, now do the other half or let him go. Yes, even if those things were found in his house as long as no intent is proven he did nothing illegal and that should be the precedent. This is not a minority report where we should be able to jail people for crimes they MIGHT commit.
Actually, I can prove you are lying as I made no comment to your physical well being. Had I made any sort of statement that implied I was going to cause you harm you could in fact make a case.Ah, the lovely "make it as vague as possible" writing of terror mania.
A-2. "place any person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury;"
Your post have put me in fear, therefore you just commited a terrorist threat. you cannot prove i am lieing (even if it sounds ridiculous to you), therefore you will go to jail now. IF you dismiss it under assumtion that my claim is ridiculous then same dismission is to be applied to the person who reported this kid. A-2 is essentialy a loophole for anyone to sue anyone or completely useless.
The community or more specifically the parents of school age children were in fear when informed of the potential threat of a school shooting.A-5. "place the public or a substantial group of the public in fear of serious bodily injury"
This did not happen. No substantial group was scared. It was a single woman that wasnt even in the same country.
This is all the law about TERRORISTIC THREATS. So go figure nothing in this law deals with damage done by the MAN (18 or 19 at time of arrest). A threat of a school shooting at a PUBLIC school is a threat committed against a public servant.Also i dont see how C-2 applies as no damage was done by the kid whatsoever.
You need to realize there is a difference between getting charged with a school shooting and getting charged with making terroristic threats. There IS a difference. He DIDN'T do one and he DID do the other. Now he has to go to court to defend himself against the charges. That is how the system works.He is being charged for things he did not do nor ever intended to do. Its like charging somone for somone "getting offended". being "offended" is a useless term that is meaningless and gives you no ground to stand on, neither does being scared of a kid in another country for a joke he wronte.
See, how the court system is supposed to work is that there should be no arrest and detention order without proof of criminal activity, and while mistakes certainly happen - thats what the courts are there for. I guess in that case we could call this one massive mistake of a police force and be technically correct. but i would dread to live in a town which allows police to do such mistakes.
Essentially the situation you are suggesting is i should call police now and you should be put in jail for 3 months, beaten to the point of needing suicide watch and then go to court and it would be whoops sorry your not guilty go home. Im sorry, but such a system is unacceptable in my belief.
Prove intent? Prove that he was actualy going to do it? Explain to me exactly how they did that.Sarge034 said:snip
Police arrest a kid for making a joke - everyones fault. actual crime happens - we no longer accept "everyones fault" and scream its everyone but us. sorry, i dont like double standarts.Hawk eye1466 said:True the people that are pushing this need to take a step back and start thinking but unfortunately with how great 2013 has been for shooters it's understandable why some people would think this was a worrying thing to say and what with the mainstream media still hellbent on villifying games whenever they can it's partly everyone's fault.Strazdas said:Snip
The mental health system is in dire need of an update but that's beside the point.
Then you meant the kid, which confused me, because i didnt understand what exactly are you suggesting? if we ignore the kids initial comment - yeah thats perfectly reasonable. if we ignore his arguments in court? that would be bad. sorry, i may just fail at understanding you here.Sarge034 said:You assume incorrectly. I meant defendant in its' literal usage. I was trying to spell it out for you as you said you had difficulties with English.
Speech is expression of thought. internet forums is part of speech. this is very much thought police. you cant express your opinions (or jokes) or police will use it as "Evidence" to arrest you for no crime.The "thought police" would only be an applicable term if this dumb ass had not made the comment on a permanent and very public forum. It is now physical evidence for the actual police.
I did once actually. at that time i didnt even knew he was a cop actually. but we knew the context and he understood the joke. these cops however do not seem to bother. if a cop called me crazy and i responded with "oh yeah im totally going to kill somone" only a mentally challenged cop would not understand it was sarcasm. Its not that they dont understand its a joke, its that they want to persecute because someone took offense on a joke.So go tell a cop "you are going to kill someone today" and add "lol jk". Then enjoy your time in detention while charges are drawn up against you. Why should the internet be any different? Also, the statement of shooting kids and eating their hearts seems very specific to me.
see, according to your argument it does not need to be. all it need is that i think it is. that is, my personal deranged mind may mean you recieve a perma-ban. and that is not a good stance to take.If my opinion was threatening bodily harm, or in this particular forum making a personal attack, I would get a warning, temp-ban, or outright perma-banned if the offense was bad enough. So nice try with the red herring. "Free speech" is not an all encompassing defense to say what ever the hell people want to say.
but you already sent him to jail for a crime you dont even know if he is capable of commiting. What should have happened is he was summoned to court, perhaps with an agreement not to leave the city. there was no reason neither logically nor by law to jail him. not to mention that the bail posted was highest the lawyer saw in his career and was clearly made so unrealistic as to keep the person in for biased reasons.But according to the law they don't even have to prove means, only intent. And where do you legally PROVE things I ask? "In court" the law responds. What do you do with people awaiting trial I ask? "You put them in jail if they don't pay the bail" the law answers. Nothing "minority report" about it. The dude said something, the authorities were alerted, and now he has to stand trial to determine his guilt. We are not sending him to jail for a crime he MIGHT commit. We are sending him to court for the crime he is accused of committing. School shooting/murder vs terroristic threats.
But thats not what law requires. what law requires is for me to fear of my well being, not for you to made comments about it. the law is essentially unowrkable because the only proof it needs is my statement which i can be pulling out of my ass.Actually, I can prove you are lying as I made no comment to your physical well being. Had I made any sort of statement that implied I was going to cause you harm you could in fact make a case.
Any evidence of that? because as far as im aware no school community reacted to this.The community or more specifically the parents of school age children were in fear when informed of the potential threat of a school shooting.
If this part does not apply why did you specifically mentioned it?This is all the law about TERRORISTIC THREATS. So go figure nothing in this law deals with damage done by the MAN (18 or 19 at time of arrest). A threat of a school shooting at a PUBLIC school is a threat committed against a public servant.
He got charged of a threat to commit a school shooting, which was not there, but we were over this multiple times already. here i was arguing that by the law you provided i can charge ANYONE with "terroristic threat" because it does not require an actual threats to be made.You need to realize there is a difference between getting charged with a school shooting and getting charged with making terroristic threats. There IS a difference. He DIDN'T do one and he DID do the other. Now he has to go to court to defend himself against the charges. That is how the system works.
I'm sorry I don't think I get how this is a double standard? Kid said something stupid that was considered a threat and the case is probably being taken too far but both sides have merit to their arguments because unlike talking to someone and saying it, everyone reading the comment doesn't know the context or any backround so who knows if this kid is a normal person or if he's already loading up the assault rifles.Strazdas said:Snip