Judge Refuses To Dismiss League of Legends Terrorist Threat Case

Stublore

New member
Dec 16, 2009
128
0
0
I'm just going to leave this here:
?It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what."
By Stephen Fry.
 

RaikuFA

New member
Jun 12, 2009
4,370
0
0
While I hate how draconian the courts are being with this guy. There's a part of me that hopes that this will scare the LoL fanbase straight. Seriously, they make /b/ look civil.
 

Hawk eye1466

New member
May 31, 2010
619
0
0
Strazdas 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.
 

Deadcyde

New member
Jan 11, 2011
187
0
0
Hawk eye1466 said:
Strazdas 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.
Why not? They are words. not actions. Surely that should count for something?
 

Qvar

OBJECTION!
Aug 25, 2013
387
0
0
SecondPrize said:
Oh look, a District Attorney who cares more about their career than prosecuting actual criminals. Go figure.
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.

And to my own despair, those are only two of the dozens of works I've read on the subject, both fictional and scientific (as far as science can go in legal-system literatute).
 

Hawk eye1466

New member
May 31, 2010
619
0
0
Deadcyde said:
Hawk eye1466 said:
Strazdas 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.
Why not? They are words. not actions. Surely that should count for something?
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.
 

MoeMints

New member
Apr 30, 2013
65
0
0
Oh gosh, a lot of people in this thread have straight up god complexes in how broadly sweeping and sure in themselves that this will prove anything but a boy is just less lucky than the rest of us and is possibly mentally ruined for it.

Many even being satisfied with the intent and thinking only moderately inferior punishments to give to people.

I can't believe a good chunk of this site actually supports a women who has criminalizing evidence of false advertisement and lying leading to a significant factor of her funding, a developer making an reference of desired suicide of a person that even among fans of the source should only vaguely remember, along with two gaming companies riding the borderline between simple exploitation and extortion, but sure.

The sarcastic post on a social site deserves being beaten, bruised, and being removed from society for months.

I'm genuinely disgusted and hateful.
 

punipunipyo

New member
Jan 20, 2011
486
0
0
somehow, I see that scary parent who tracked him down and using GOOGLE MAP to find his exact location of resident that was adjacent to a E-school... THAT parent should be the one being questioned, not this foul mouth gamer (they are everywhere, and I've seen/heard much worse that uses voice chat), but a parent that can track your user name and find out where EXACTLY your house is?! Pro-stalker!? yeah, I question why didn't anyone notice that?

The kid served his time, making an online JK, and lost half his summer vacation (probably got &^%*#ed in jail too)... poor kid... and still going to face worse? this is screwed up...
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
Hawk eye1466 said:
Strazdas 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.
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.
If in your hypothetical situation other people failed to understand what was happening - the fault was theirs and not the people who made the joke. Calling police is fair enough. Police doing anything more than dismissing this for the joke it actually was - insanity.
Yes, i can say things and think nothing is going to happen. Its called freedom of speech.

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.
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.
 

Sarge034

New member
Feb 24, 2011
1,623
0
0
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?
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.

He shouldnt have been arrested to begin with.
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.

IT sets precedence? good. the predecense should support freedom of speech and not being jailed for making jokes.
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?

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.
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.

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 would direct you to know the law before you presume to lecture me on it.

Texas Penal Code - Section 22.07. Terroristic Threat
§ 22.07. TERRORISTIC THREAT. (a) A person commits an
offense if he threatens to commit any offense involving violence to
any person or property with intent to:
(1) cause a reaction of any type to his threat by an
official or volunteer agency organized to deal with emergencies;
(2) place any person in fear of imminent serious
bodily injury;
(3) prevent or interrupt the occupation or use of a
building, room, place of assembly, place to which the public has
access, place of employment or occupation, aircraft, automobile, or
other form of conveyance, or other public place;
(4) cause impairment or interruption of public
communications, public transportation, public water, gas, or power
supply or other public service;
(5) place the public or a substantial group of the
public in fear of serious bodily injury; or
(6) influence the conduct or activities of a branch or
agency of the federal government, the state, or a political
subdivision of the state.
(b) An offense under Subsection (a)(1) is a Class B
misdemeanor.
(c) An offense under Subsection (a)(2) is a Class B
misdemeanor, except that the offense is a Class A misdemeanor if the
offense:
(1) is committed against a member of the person's
family or household or otherwise constitutes family violence; or
(2) is committed against a public servant.
(d) An offense under Subsection (a)(3) is a Class A
misdemeanor, unless the actor causes pecuniary loss of $1,500 or
more to the owner of the building, room, place, or conveyance, in
which event the offense is a state jail felony.
(e) An offense under Subsection (a)(4), (a)(5), or (a)(6) is
a felony of the third degree.
(f) In this section:
(1) "Family" has the meaning assigned by Section
71.003, Family Code.
(2) "Family violence" has the meaning assigned by
Section 71.004, Family Code.
(3) "Household" has the meaning assigned by Section
71.005, Family Code.
(g) For purposes of Subsection (d), the amount of pecuniary
loss is the amount of economic loss suffered by the owner of the
building, room, place, or conveyance as a result of the prevention
or interruption of the occupation or use of the building, room,
place, or conveyance.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1979, 66th Leg., p. 1114, ch. 530, § 2, eff. Aug.
27, 1979; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 139, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2003;
Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 388, § 2, eff. Sept. 1, 2003; Acts
2003, 78th Leg., ch. 446, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2003; Acts 2005,
79th Leg., ch. 728, § 16.003, eff. Sept. 1, 2005.

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.
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
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.
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.

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.
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.

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?
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".

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 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.
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.

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.
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.
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.

Also i dont see how C-2 applies as no damage was done by the kid whatsoever.

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.
 

Hawk eye1466

New member
May 31, 2010
619
0
0
Strazdas 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.

The mental health system is in dire need of an update but that's beside the point.
 

Sarge034

New member
Feb 24, 2011
1,623
0
0
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.
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.

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.
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.

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".
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.

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?
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.

"Speech that involves incitement, false statements of fact, obscenity, child pornography, threats, and speech owned by others are all completely exempt from First Amendment protections."

Oh shit! Threats are not covered, and last time I checked saying you were going to shoot kids and eat their hearts is most defiantly a threat.

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 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.

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.
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.

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.
The community or more specifically the parents of school age children were in fear when informed of the potential threat of a school shooting.

Also i dont see how C-2 applies as no damage was done by the kid whatsoever.
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 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.
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.
 

Deadcyde

New member
Jan 11, 2011
187
0
0
Sarge034 said:
Prove intent? Prove that he was actualy going to do it? Explain to me exactly how they did that.

Then explain how saying it to a cop directly (as that act alone would stand for intent) and then a joke that is intentionally overblown in public that was overheard by someone else and then reported to a cop (as this would be your real world example) is worth jail time or anything more then a "mind your manners".

Then explain to me how a general statement with no proof, that under the remotest amount of scrutiny is seen as a joke, is at all a "terrorist threat"

And finally, explain to me how your laws can at all resolve a kid making a joke in public forum with someone running a plane into a building and charge them as the same crime.

It is insane. You are attempting to prevent something that is in all likelyhood unpreventable, by locking up your own citizens. There is no requirement for tangible evidence at all.

I urge you to look at historic uses of fascism and tell me you don't see serious analogies.
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
Hawk eye1466 said:
Strazdas 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.

The mental health system is in dire need of an update but that's beside the point.
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.

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.
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.

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.
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.

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.
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.

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.
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.
Free speech does not excempts jokes, and this was a joke. So yes, it still was covered under free speech. Threat requires intent and means. In this case there were neither.

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 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.
Yes, law needs to prove means, because intent without means is not criminal. in fact means with intent is not criminal unless there is actionable intent. Either case they have neither. You do not arrest somone and then say that "we may try to prove you may commit a crime in the future". that is unworkable. You need to have reasonable doubt to perform an arrest to begin with. Police officers have no power to arrest on a whim. In fact they need to file a lot of paperwork explaining themselves every time they arrest somone to make sure the arrest was needed. (technically this should avoid bad arrests, rpactically oversight is not perfect).

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.
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.

The community or more specifically the parents of school age children were in fear when informed of the potential threat of a school shooting.
Any evidence of that? because as far as im aware no school community reacted to this.

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.
If this part does not apply why did you specifically mentioned it?
This was not a threat of school shooting at a public school. it didnt happen at public school, it happened on facebook. And how public facebook is is still debatable (thought technically as far as law is concerned even websites that can only be acessed with passwrds are public, so there is no privacy on the web).

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 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.
It may be how the system currently works, but that does not mean we should accept it as a good system and just take the beating.
 

JazzJack2

New member
Feb 10, 2013
268
0
0
I can't believe people are actually defending the actions of the judge in this case, the kid should never have even been charged in the first place it's absolute nonsense.
 

chikusho

New member
Jun 14, 2011
873
0
0
I find it highly ironic that when a kid makes a sarcastic remark on facebook, he gets arrested, thrown in jail and prosecuted for making a terrorist threat.

Yet, when actual crazy people go directly to the hospital or the police and beg them to be locked up before they do something horrible they are most often turned away. Later they follow through, somehow to no fault of the system.

Everyone who thinks this situation is even remotely associated with any kind of justice, would you also agree that the best way to fight terrorism and public shootings is through locking up everyone who's ever said a dark joke in any social media outlet pending trial?
 

Hawk eye1466

New member
May 31, 2010
619
0
0
Strazdas said:
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.

He should have been slightly more thoughtful and the cops should have realized this wasn't serious when they first grabbed the kid.
 

Xyshon

New member
Feb 4, 2013
2
0
0
Speaking as someone who lives in the UK, I am genuinely shocked to see how far America has fallen when it comes to things like this. And to address the elephant in the room, you guys realize that the problem here is easy access to guns, right?

I mean, you are seriously worried about some kid shooting up a school. Just think about that for a second. You live in fear of children.

Over here, if some kid says something nutty, we worry if the kid is nutty or not. We don't worry if he's actually going to shoot up a school, because there is no way a kid, nutty or not, could get a gun in this country. Thinking on it, he's probably less likely to get one if he is crazy.

I know there are probably exceptions, but on the whole kids here can't get guns. So when one says something stupid, we don't have to play it safe and lock them up. You guys do. Because if you don't, the penalty could be another Newtown. Or Aurora. Or Columbine. Or Virginia Tech.

We don't have to worry about that here. Yes, we've got our share of violence, but on the whole, crazies packing heat is not something we have to worry about.

But then again, we don't have the NRA and good Ol' Wayne LaPierre firmly shafting our government over a barrel. After all, according to Wayne, the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

So the only thing that can stop a bad 6-year old with a gun...