Judge Refuses To Dismiss League of Legends Terrorist Threat Case

[chikusho]

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...

Also, if two there are two people with guns, and one of them shoots the other, what do you think that guy will tell the police?

 

[Icehearted]

Some things you can't joke about The frivolous use of the word rape, for example.

No, there are no things you cant joke about.
Also, may i direct you to the phenomenon of "Sloth rapists"?

I.... I don't wanna.


Good humor doesn't require good taste, but shock humor for the sake of shock over humor, that just seems in bad form. If you knew me personally you'd get the irony of that statement, which is to say I'm not above this as well, but context and delivery are a must if one doesn't want to come across a simply an asshole because they wanted to be funny but were just being mean spirited.

Also, rape? To a victim of this (I myself am unfortunately all too familiar), it's an overly misused statement to express something as terrible. There are better words that are more succinct, but people with a dull imagination and a weak vocabulary resort to the cheapest statements just so long as they may flagrantly make a point. There are better ways, one must first decide however to stop cheapening the impact o a word and it's implication. Saying over and over "DOOD I RAEP U AT COD!!1!" means then that saying "My friend drugged my drink and raped me while I was unconscious" carry equal meaning, and I'm here to say they don't.

 

[Qvar]

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.

Happened to me too. A friend of mine told a guard that she was a terrorist when he inspected her bag. At an airport. And she does in fact look like an stereotyped vasque (a region around here) terrorist.

Fortunately I don't live in a sick, paranoid state.

 

[Sarge034]

Spoiler: All three replies.

Prove intent? Prove that he was actualy going to do it? Explain to me exactly how they did that.

They haven't because he has yet to have his trial.

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".

For the same reason you can't say "bomb" on an airplane or "fire" in a theater. It incites panic. That is the law he broke basically and it is a misdemeanor at best, but because the statement also included the threat of bodily harm the charge was upgraded to terroristic threat.

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"

Here is the link to the law.
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/5/22/22.07

He is being charged with terroristic threats because "(a) A person commits an offense if he threatens to commit any offense involving violence to any person or property with intent to: (2) place any person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury;" among other sections.

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.

Actually Terrorism and Terroristic Threats are WAYYYYYY different. I'm going to assume you are not A US citizen from the wording of your claims, so why don't you become familiar with our laws before you try to lecture me on them?

Happened to me too. A friend of mine told a guard that she was a terrorist when he inspected her bag. At an airport. And she does in fact look like an stereotyped vasque (a region around here) terrorist.

Fortunately I don't live in a sick, paranoid state.

So I'm assuming your friend did this when Spain was in a heightened threat level after the Madrid train bombings? No? Well, this guy said he was going to shoot up a school right after a school shooting. See my point? Also, you kindda do live in a "sick, paranoid state" if your government is stereotyping people as terrorists. Welcome to the club.

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.

So what does "kid" mean to you? Cus this guy was 18 or 19 at the time of arrest. Stop trying to make him sound more sympathetic with the "think of the children" tactic. It is poor form. Now, my point was if we ignore the defendant's (the arrested, the one who made the statement) statement on the count of it "being a joke" then we can never arrest anyone for any threat ever again because they will ALL be jokes.

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.

Actions are also an expression of thought, so obviously nothing should be illegal least we infringe upon anyone's personal right to express themselves. If this was made in a private venue than I would be more willing to discuss the legality of it, but it was made on a public forum and became public record.

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 what I can gather from your cherry picked story is that you made a joke to someone you knew and they took it as a joke. Unless you are telling me you went up to an undercover and made the joke... So this means the joke was made in a social environment privately between two individuals. I'm saying just stand near a uniformed officer and say loudly enough for him/her to hear you say you are going to shoot children and eat their hearts.

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.

I even linked the law, why didn't you read it?

"(a) A person commits an offense if he threatens to commit any offense involving violence to any person or property with intent to:"

So, false as I never made a comment that could in any way imply harm to you or to property. Nice try though.

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).

He was not in jail for a crime, he was in jail because that's where you wait for your trial if you don't pay the bail. That's how the system works for severe cases... There is a clause in every terroristic threat law that details what the bail can be.

"...intent without means is not criminal..." False, read the law again.

"(a) A person commits an offense if he threatens to commit any offense involving violence to any person or property with intent to:"

You keep talking on a very personal level. I don't care. I'm reading the law. What you and I think should happen is irrelevant because up to this point everything has been done in accordance with the law.

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.

I have to leave this here, AGAIN...

"(a) A person commits an offense if he threatens to commit any offense involving violence to any person or property with intent to:"

Any evidence of that? because as far as im aware no school community reacted to this.

Not any more. There has been so much about this case on the web that the articles I were reading back at the beginning of this just don't float to the surface any more. But the cool thing is that I don't have to prove shit to you. That's what a trial is for.

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).

...? It does apply. I was making light of your comment about actually committing damage. That would be a completely different charge.

"(a) A person commits an offense if he threatens to commit any offense involving violence to any person or property with intent to: (2) place any person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury; (c) An offense under Subsection (a)(2) is a Class B misdemeanor, except that the offense is a Class A misdemeanor if the offense: (2) is committed against a public servant."

Make more sense now that I put it into one sentence for you?

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.

Not again...

"(a) A person commits an offense if he threatens to commit any offense involving violence to any person or property with intent to:"

 

[Strazdas]

Snip

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.

its a double standart that you want everyone to take the blame for him being arrested ("Everyones fault") as if it was a crime, yet when same is applied to real crime you no longer want to do that becuase then you may actually be blamed for something real.
Yes, people reading the comments dont have the context, thus they shouldnt be making assumtions and calling police. what they shouldnt be doing is stalking the facebook person and finding out his living adress. the canadian woman did a bigger crime than the arrested one in my eyes.

Some things you can't joke about The frivolous use of the word rape, for example.

No, there are no things you cant joke about.
Also, may i direct you to the phenomenon of "Sloth rapists"?

I.... I don't wanna.


Good humor doesn't require good taste, but shock humor for the sake of shock over humor, that just seems in bad form. If you knew me personally you'd get the irony of that statement, which is to say I'm not above this as well, but context and delivery are a must if one doesn't want to come across a simply an asshole because they wanted to be funny but were just being mean spirited.

Also, rape? To a victim of this (I myself am unfortunately all too familiar), it's an overly misused statement to express something as terrible. There are better words that are more succinct, but people with a dull imagination and a weak vocabulary resort to the cheapest statements just so long as they may flagrantly make a point. There are better ways, one must first decide however to stop cheapening the impact o a word and it's implication. Saying over and over "DOOD I RAEP U AT COD!!1!" means then that saying "My friend drugged my drink and raped me while I was unconscious" carry equal meaning, and I'm here to say they don't.

There is no objective "good taste" in humour. the only requisite for humour to be good is that YOU find it funny. COmedy is the most subjective thing. For some sloth rapist is a shock over humour, for others ts humour over shock. There was a context and there was a delivery in the case of this "Terrorist". but the police never bothered to look at it, only taking single out of context sentence and treating it as a threat.
Of course these example dont carry equal meaning, hence the context and delivery you mentioned. i dont see whats so bad about having ability to use same word (in this case rape) in two different context to have different impact. Its not like english language lack such words to begin with.

So what does "kid" mean to you? Cus this guy was 18 or 19 at the time of arrest. Stop trying to make him sound more sympathetic with the "think of the children" tactic. It is poor form. Now, my point was if we ignore the defendant's (the arrested, the one who made the statement) statement on the count of it "being a joke" then we can never arrest anyone for any threat ever again because they will ALL be jokes.

I didnt meant to emply the think of the children falacy. i hate it as much as it deserves. "kid" here basically means anyone young, inexperienced, and i realize it may not translate to other cultures that well.
Your point was wrong then. They keyword here is context. Context clearly show that this was a joke and allows seperation from actual threat (which is needs to be specific to begin with). YOu are using a slippery slope logical falacy, dont.

Actions are also an expression of thought, so obviously nothing should be illegal least we infringe upon anyone's personal right to express themselves. If this was made in a private venue than I would be more willing to discuss the legality of it, but it was made on a public forum and became public record.

"Your rights end where other persons rights begin". Actions that harm others should be illegal, jokes made on private facebook account however are not equal to, well, shooting up a school. You shouldnt mix freedom of speech with freedom of beating people up. your using false analogies.

So what I can gather from your cherry picked story is that you made a joke to someone you knew and they took it as a joke. Unless you are telling me you went up to an undercover and made the joke... So this means the joke was made in a social environment privately between two individuals. I'm saying just stand near a uniformed officer and say loudly enough for him/her to hear you say you are going to shoot children and eat their hearts.

And your "suggestion" isnt cherry picked? please.

I even linked the law, why didn't you read it?

"(a) A person commits an offense if he threatens to commit any offense involving violence to any person or property with intent to:"

So, false as I never made a comment that could in any way imply harm to you or to property. Nice try though.

Fair enough, i looked back and i dont know where i got the damages from.

He was not in jail for a crime, he was in jail because that's where you wait for your trial if you don't pay the bail. That's how the system works for severe cases... There is a clause in every terroristic threat law that details what the bail can be.

This wasnt one.
A facebook post is not a "Severe case". waving your gun in school would be a severe case.

"...intent without means is not criminal..." False, read the law again.

"(a) A person commits an offense if he threatens to commit any offense involving violence to any person or property with intent to:"

You keep talking on a very personal level. I don't care. I'm reading the law. What you and I think should happen is irrelevant because up to this point everything has been done in accordance with the law.

Laws can be wrong. considering the teorrorism laws in america, they are mostly wrong. What you and i think should happen shoud BE THE LAW. because laws should server people, not the other way around.
Also not everything has been done with accordance to law. For example law does not require you to throw people to jail and post half a million bails for facebook posts.

Not any more. There has been so much about this case on the web that the articles I were reading back at the beginning of this just don't float to the surface any more. But the cool thing is that I don't have to prove shit to you. That's what a trial is for.

Of course you dont have to prove anything, but it would give validity to your arguments. It was more of a curiuosity than anything anyway.

"(a) A person commits an offense if he threatens to commit any offense involving violence to any person or property with intent to: (2) place any person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury; (c) An offense under Subsection (a)(2) is a Class B misdemeanor, except that the offense is a Class A misdemeanor if the offense: (2) is committed against a public servant."

Make more sense now that I put it into one sentence for you?

So he has made.... school system (public servant) in fear of imminent seriuos bodily harm? Not only is that wrong but i dont even see how can you do bodily harm to an institution (since its not a human being and doesnt have "a body")
Then again this is probably just more obtuse laws being obtuse.

 

[Sarge034]

I'm going to keep this short because it is becoming quite tiring. You obviously have no intention of seeing this from my side's perspective and I gain nothing by arguing as I already see both sides' points.

Of course you dont have to prove anything, but it would give validity to your arguments. It was more of a curiuosity than anything anyway.

Does it really matter? I'm literally quoting the law at you to prove validity, or at the very least legality, and all you can say is, "NU HU! I don't think it's right so it is obviously an illegal arrest and suppression of his freedom of speech."

You wanna know what I think? I think it was a joke. However, because I know a thing or two about the law I also see the rational for having this go to trial. We don't even know what evidence the state has. Perhaps he is guilty, but then again perhaps he is not. That is the purpose of a trial and I don't see what the problem is with letting the system function like it was intended to. What if the trial comes about and the state shows several pieces of evidence that collaborate the claim that this statement was in fact malicious in intent? Will that be enough to persuade you to conceder all of the possibilities in the future? What if the court finds the defendant not guilty? Will the system working and the inevitable lawsuits afterward persuade you to have faith in the system? Imma guess not, but I will say that ruling by mob rule, especially when the mob is only partial to half the story, would be a mite more unconstitutional and illegal than ANYTHING that happened in this case. I want you to really think about that. We must apply the laws evenly or not at all.

To answer your question. When the locals were informed of what was going on, remember the investigation took a while, many concerned parents kept their children home, made inquires about police protection at local schools, and the like. You don't do that unless you are scared for your child's well being. That is enough to qualify.

So he has made.... school system (public servant) in fear of imminent seriuos bodily harm? Not only is that wrong but i dont even see how can you do bodily harm to an institution (since its not a human being and doesnt have "a body")
Then again this is probably just more obtuse laws being obtuse.

Where would one go to shoot school children? A school? Well, I guess that makes sense... Who also gets shot in school shootings? Teachers and admin staff? I guess that makes sense... Teachers and admin staff are public servants? I guess that makes sense as most work for the public school system... To threaten a school shooting is to threaten the lives of the children and the public servants who work there.

Clearer now?

 

[rokkolpo]

This kid aside.

How come school shootings are such a popular thing to do in the U.S?
I just don't get it.

 

[Strazdas]

Does it really matter? I'm literally quoting the law at you to prove validity, or at the very least legality, and all you can say is, "NU HU! I don't think it's right so it is obviously an illegal arrest and suppression of his freedom of speech."

You quoted the law that allows arrest of people who make "terrorist threats", but the person in question made no threat to begin with, therefore that law does not even apply.

You wanna know what I think? I think it was a joke. However, because I know a thing or two about the law I also see the rational for having this go to trial. We don't even know what evidence the state has.

We know that house search revealed nothing.

Perhaps he is guilty, but then again perhaps he is not. That is the purpose of a trial and I don't see what the problem is with letting the system function like it was intended to.

But its not. The kid already suffered torture before going to trail, for a crime he may or may not have commited.

We must apply the laws evenly or not at all.

Then why was not the law applied evenly in this case? (particularly the never seen in history high bail amount)

Where would one go to shoot school children? A school? Well, I guess that makes sense... Who also gets shot in school shootings? Teachers and admin staff? I guess that makes sense... Teachers and admin staff are public servants? I guess that makes sense as most work for the public school system... To threaten a school shooting is to threaten the lives of the children and the public servants who work there.

Clearer now?

Its possible to interpret it that way, yes, but only shows how badly the law is written if you need to make such huge assumption leaps, that arent always true (like the kid that didnt shoot any teachers because he was only taking revenge on the bullies, or the cases of shootings in private schools) just to make it work. Badly written law is badly written is all im saying.

Also nice how you lump people who protect basic human rights (which overrule local laws btw) as "mob rule".

This kid aside.

How come school shootings are such a popular thing to do in the U.S?
I just don't get it.

Give kids acess to guns in other countries and you will see the same.

 

[Sarge034]

You quoted the law that allows arrest of people who make "terrorist threats", but the person in question made no threat to begin with, therefore that law does not even apply.

So you are judge, jury, and executioner? Oh, you're not? Then you don't have the authority to decide if the comment in question was illegal or not. Only a court of law does.

We know that house search revealed nothing.

You know that the search of his house turned up no firearms. They confiscated his computer as evidence. Perhaps they found an off site location with incriminating evidence. Perhaps they found other, more direct, threats. I don't know. You don't know. Perhaps we should let the state present their evidence at the appropriate time before we go proclaiming if he is innocent or not.

But its not. The kid already suffered torture before going to trail, for a crime he may or may not have commited.

That was not at the hands of the law. If the perpetrators had been caught they would have been punished. Unless you are implying there is a law that requires people accused of terroristic threats to be beaten and raped...

Then why was not the law applied evenly in this case? (particularly the never seen in history high bail amount)

Ya know what? I'm tired of being the only one posting credible sources so YOU now get to do some research. Do tell me what the legally required bail for "terroristic threats" is in Texas and include a link. Did it ever occur to you that most lawyers don't see really high bails because they mostly deal with petty shit?

Its possible to interpret it that way, yes, but only shows how badly the law is written if you need to make such huge assumption leaps, that arent always true (like the kid that didnt shoot any teachers because he was only taking revenge on the bullies, or the cases of shootings in private schools) just to make it work. Badly written law is badly written is all im saying.

Be obtuse if you please, but figuring people who work in schools get shot in school shootings is not a stretch.

Also nice how you lump people who protect basic human rights (which overrule local laws btw) as "mob rule".

I'm not sure how it works in your country, but here "local laws", as you put it, have to abide by the constitution that deals with basic human rights.

And I will call people who wish to rule in place of the law "mob rule". Cus that's what it is. You don't have the full story and you don't care because you've already made up your mind. You don't want to wait for the trial, you don't want to wait for the evidence, you just want what you think is right, RIGHT NOW.

This kid aside.

How come school shootings are such a popular thing to do in the U.S?
I just don't get it.

Give kids acess to guns in other countries and you will see the same.

So then why were there not sprees of school shootings in early US history when every household had at least one rifle and one pistol? Why were there not scores of school shootings when the one thing every boy got at some point in his childhood was a .22 caliber rifle?

Nice of you to group things you don't like into an explanation for a bad thing with no tangible evidence of statistical proof. Cus, ya know. I'm sure the UK has no gun violence because guns are illegal... OH SHIT! Spoiler, they do.

 

[Strazdas]

You quoted the law that allows arrest of people who make "terrorist threats", but the person in question made no threat to begin with, therefore that law does not even apply.

So you are judge, jury, and executioner? Oh, you're not? Then you don't have the authority to decide if the comment in question was illegal or not. Only a court of law does.

No. I know the definition of a Threat.

You know that the search of his house turned up no firearms. They confiscated his computer as evidence. Perhaps they found an off site location with incriminating evidence. Perhaps they found other, more direct, threats. I don't know. You don't know. Perhaps we should let the state present their evidence at the appropriate time before we go proclaiming if he is innocent or not

If the appropriate time is after the kid was tortured - then we have a disagreement.

That was not at the hands of the law. If the perpetrators had been caught they would have been punished. Unless you are implying there is a law that requires people accused of terroristic threats to be beaten and raped...

It was, just jail caretakers were either incompetent or biased.

Ya know what? I'm tired of being the only one posting credible sources so YOU now get to do some research. Do tell me what the legally required bail for "terroristic threats" is in Texas and include a link. Did it ever occur to you that most lawyers don't see really high bails because they mostly deal with petty shit?

The bail, meanwhile, is set at $500,000, which Carter's attorney says he has "never seen" despite representing murderers, terrorists, and rapists in the past.

http://kotaku.com/life-behind-bars-extremely-traumatic-for-league-of-le-663988853
Now obviously you think i dont know anything, but i dont think murderers rapists and terrorists are "petty shit".

I'm not sure how it works in your country, but here "local laws", as you put it, have to abide by the constitution that deals with basic human rights.

Yet, somehow, ignore the very first amendment of it.

And I will call people who wish to rule in place of the law "mob rule". Cus that's what it is. You don't have the full story and you don't care because you've already made up your mind. You don't want to wait for the trial, you don't want to wait for the evidence, you just want what you think is right, RIGHT NOW.

I, and everyone else who read this thread, know enough of the story to know it was a joke. everything else is secondary proof and wouldnt be enough for a court case to begin with.

So then why were there not sprees of school shootings in early US history when every household had at least one rifle and one pistol? Why were there not scores of school shootings when the one thing every boy got at some point in his childhood was a .22 caliber rifle?

There were. They just werent as documented, as everything in early history of US. Also it was much harder sicne you had to reload every shot.

Nice of you to group things you don't like into an explanation for a bad thing with no tangible evidence of statistical proof. Cus, ya know. I'm sure the UK has no gun violence because guns are illegal... OH SHIT! Spoiler, they do.

Except that no, they dont really. They have some, but it is very small and insignificant amount. nothing to compare to gun violence of US, which is higher than most 3rd world countries.