Petition to Free Jailed League of Legends Player Reaches 100,000 Sigs

[faranar]

This is retarded. 'Murrica's law enforcement officials should pipe the f*ck down.

Why is everyone in this blasted country so damn scared of terrorists? The number of terrorist attacks per year has never been lower, and you are 8 times more likely to be killed by a police officer in the US than by a terrorist. Heck you are 35,000 times more likely to die from heart disease than to be killed by a terrorist, but no-one is raiding McDonalds and the like.

When did the USA turn from the land of the free and home of the brave to the home of the paranoid morons scared shitless of nonexistent threats that imprison children for sarcastic comments?


P.S. To all of you who think that the kid deserves a punishment for posting a joke on the internet: YOU JUST KILLED FREE SPEECH! Hope you are all proud of yourselves!

 

[Cecilo]

This is retarded. 'Murrica's law enforcement officials should pipe the f*ck down.

Why is everyone in this blasted country so damn scared of terrorists? The number of terrorist attacks per year has never been lower, and you are 8 times more likely to be killed by a police officer in the US than by a terrorist. Heck you are 35,000 times more likely to die from heart disease than to be killed by a terrorist, but no-one is raiding McDonalds and the like.

When did the USA turn from the land of the free and home of the brave to the home of the paranoid morons scared shitless of nonexistent threats that imprison children for sarcastic comments?


P.S. To all of you who think that the kid deserves a punishment for posting a joke on the internet: YOU JUST KILLED FREE SPEECH! Hope you are all proud of yourselves!

Except this isn't what free speech is.

"There are exceptions to these general protections, including the Miller test for obscenity, child pornography laws, speech that incites imminent lawless action, and regulation of commercial speech such as advertising."

The concept of Freedom of Speech was to allow people to speak against the government without fear of being censored or threatened. You cannot go anywhere, or say anything you want and then add "Lol jk" And expect people to treat it like a joke. They won't. What he said was a threat, and although the police may have overreacted, it should have been treated like a threat.

He could have easily said something else, but no, "Oh yeah, I'm real messed up in the head, I'm going to go shoot up a school full of kids and eat their still-beating hearts," this is not acceptable, in any setting. Should the police have investigated more? Yes. Ofcourse. But they aren't to blame, the police did what they had to do to keep the peace, and prevent a possible crime. Nothing more. They didn't do it to try to destroy our rights, they didn't do it because they hate him, they didn't do it because he was a gamer, they didn't do it because whatever reason you can think up. They did it because it could have been real. If he is truly innocent, he will be let go. If they have no evidence that he would do something like this, he will be let go.

And please stop using 'Murica, I don't use the idiots from your country as an example of your country. I would appreciate it if you would show me the same courtesy.

 

[Fearzone]

Is there any mention of where the charges of interruption of communications, public transportation, public water, gas, etc., where that comes from? I'm wondering if we aren't getting all of the story from his mom.

 

[poodlenoodles]

The kid is a fucking idiot. Should he be thrown in jail? No. Should he ever be allowed to have internet privileges again? Also no. People have to understand that the topic he made a 'joke' about is serious, and what he said about it was disgusting.

"Oh yeah, I'm real messed up in the head, I'm going to go shoot up a school full of kids and eat their still-beating hearts,"

But at least he said LOL afterwards, because otherwise I would have found that comment to be in very bad taste

 

[Sarge034]

1. i never said they didn't

Then what were you trying to say? You said, "i don't know about you, but if i was a terrorist(which im not. please don't call the cops) i wouldn't go on the Facebook telling the world how im going to go and shoot down a bunch of kids in a school and eat their hearts." The implication is that terrorists would not use social media to communicate their threats. At least that is how I read it. Please feel free to clarify.

2. i dont know how you read the comment but it was a JOKE! it was made in bad time (like joking about your uncle dying right after you grandma died) but it. is. a. FUCKING. JOKE!

I read the statement in question and then I read the law to become informed. This statement broke the law. That is how I read it.

3. ok then. if that is the case then all of us should be arrested. which one of us didnt in our lives at least once threatened to kill somebody? i know i did threat many people. many times.

I can only speak for myself, but I have never said anything to that effect. Perhaps it is because I was raised to understand violence of force is a very serious thing and not to be said lightly. I have had to warn people that I will kick their asses if they continue doing what they are doing, and I have had to proceed to kick some of their asses. Never threatened a life before though.

Yes, owning firearms is engrained into our culture because we had to fight an oppressive tyrannical monarchy for freedom once. The monarch kept the people disarmed to pacify them. Our founders made it so arms would never again be an issue if we had to once again raise up in revolution. This guy talked about killing kids in a school. I'm sure Jesus would have wept more if it had actually happened.

im sorry dude but after this i couldn't take your post seriously

Why not? Was it the history lesion, the guy's statement, or Jesus weeping over school shootings?

 

[sagitel]

1. i never said they didn't

Then what were you trying to say? You said, "i don't know about you, but if i was a terrorist(which im not. please don't call the cops) i wouldn't go on the Facebook telling the world how im going to go and shoot down a bunch of kids in a school and eat their hearts." The implication is that terrorists would not use social media to communicate their threats. At least that is how I read it. Please feel free to clarify.

i meant that while terrorists use social networks they wont go around telling everyone what are their plans and how they are going to do it.correct me if im wrong but i dont think those who did the shootings also went on facebook saying "gonna shoot some kids. wish me luck".

3. ok then. if that is the case then all of us should be arrested. which one of us didnt in our lives at least once threatened to kill somebody? i know i did threat many people. many times.

I can only speak for myself, but I have never said anything to that effect. Perhaps it is because I was raised to understand violence of force is a very serious thing and not to be said lightly. I have had to warn people that I will kick their asses if they continue doing what they are doing, and I have had to proceed to kick some of their asses. Never threatened a life before though.

i find that hardly unlikely but congratulations. you really do know the meaning of a life and a death threat.

Why not? Was it the history lesion, the guy's statement, or Jesus weeping over school shootings?

is this real history? im not informed on USA's history at all. (i just know what are the main events) but is this real?
the founding fathers thought of giving everyone firearms so an oppressive tyrannical monarchy could not easily take over USA is a good idea? and no one after that thought that the threat of an oppressive tyrannical monarchy is over and the should rethink about that? please tell me this isn't the case.

 

[Wolf In A Bear Suit]

Jesus this is like the Red Scare. One day people will look back on how this ever happened and scratch their heads as to how this was EVER allowed to happen. It's sick paranoia, and whoever jailed the idiot needs to lose their jobs, and be fired from a cannon. Oh shit cannon firing threat, I'm fucked now. Luckily I live in Ireland, where I can't honestly see this flying. In a country as big as America, with so much going on, this has flown under the raydar. It would be national news in a lot of places.
Looks like he was released after a huge amount of donations from supporters. That's good to see, but I would have liked to see the prosecutors manshamed in court by common sense. Oh well, at the end of the day, it's some lad's life.

 

[Xenedus]

Sigh... This is why I stopped reading crap on the news... it just makes me angry and sad although not always in that order.

 

[MCerberus]

is this real history? im not informed on USA's history at all. (i just know what are the main events) but is this real?
the founding fathers thought of giving everyone firearms so an oppressive tyrannical monarchy could not easily take over USA is a good idea? and no one after that thought that the threat of an oppressive tyrannical monarchy is over and the should rethink about that? please tell me this isn't the case.

As written, the second amendment allows for state militias to both keep the peace and prevent tyranny. The concept of a constitutional right for individuals to have guns when their livelihood isn't dependent on it is actually pretty new. The courts have deemed it not an unlimited right and have allowed the legislature (with federal law superior) to mostly fill that out.

Unfortunately the whole system is really, really, REALLY derping about it.
Did you know that language in the Patriot Act has been preventing the ATFE from having a department head?

Or are you talking about McCarthyism. If so ugh I hate talking about that brand of stupid

 

[SinisterGehe]

If this poor kids ends up killing himself, the government is going to have lot of blood on their hands.
War on terrorism is no longer a threat to America. It is a weapon used by American politicians to control the people. If someone still really thinks America is land of the free, land of the brave - they haven't been in touch with reality for a while.

This is sick... Also, I understand putting him to solitary for hes safety. Ever crossed their minds to send him to minimum security prison? Or house arrest? Because solitary confinement will not help hes depression. Hell even closed ward on psychological hospital would be better, there he would get treatment at least.

Also 8 years, for "crime" that had no effects or even victims.
Hes a nerd, not a terrorist mastermind. Also I think even police is not taking this seriously - searching month after the arrest... Finding nothing but a PC with games and most likely some porn on it - woah what evidence.

Seriously American government should just take the constitution, bill of rights and human rights constitution from UN and just burn them. They got as much value as ash as they seem to have now.

Also. Someone paid the bail and he is out with hes family.

 

[Something Amyss]

I wonder about these people saying that this can't happen in the UK. Several hits on Google claim otherwise, including at least one from the Guardian.

Joking about school shootings is covered by the first amendment.

You can say it til you're blue in the face. Doesn't make it true.

More to the point, you're unlikely to get any court to decide tacking on "lol" after the fact will protect someone from consideration as a threat.

Supposed moral high ground is a poor pillow.

A comment made on a public forum, one that can either be ignored or dismissed as simple GIFT is nowhere near the same as someone screaming 'bomb' at an airport. The former action does not and cannot incite a panic in anywhere near the same way.

That's great. Except I said "joking" about a bomb at an airport. You changed the wording to try and invalidate what I said. I actually said "joke" multiple times to clarify, so I'm just going to assume you know that by now and are purposely changing the scenario.

You're missing the larger point anyway. The original claim was you could say whatever whenever you wanted. I pointed to two examples: one germane, one admittedly not. You came along, not only fiercely proclaiming untrue things but also taking a "how dare you" approach to something I didn't say or do.

Do you honestly think you have the right to say whatever you want wherever you want? If yes, you are wrong. If no, then where's the problem?

I mean, aside from the one you and McKinsey made by retconning my words on me.

 

[Callie]

If this kid got arrested for a comment like that for 8 years, I'm glad I don't live in America or I feel I would be getting a life sentence. This is a bit extreme, wasting tax payers money and his life doing this, while more dangerous people don't get arrested because of 'lack of evidence'.

What evidence do they have that this kid eats dead children? jk. LOL

 

[Sarge034]

i meant that while terrorists use social networks they wont go around telling everyone what are their plans and how they are going to do it.correct me if im wrong but i dont think those who did the shootings also went on facebook saying "gonna shoot some kids. wish me luck".

Terrorists use Al Jazeera all the time to disseminate their threats. Now usually they don't say a specific place so the authorities can't just wait for them. Kinda like saying you are gonna shoot up "a school"...

Also found this. While it does not specify social networks, it does make a statement including all forms of communication.

"The study found that school shootings are rarely impulsive acts. Rather, they are typically thought out and planned out in advance. In addition, prior to most shootings other kids knew the shooting was to occur - but did not alert an adult. Very few of the attackers, however, ever directed threats to their targets before the attack."
http://www.secretservice.gov/ntac_ssi.shtml

i find that hardly unlikely but congratulations. you really do know the meaning of a life and a death threat.

I know the meaning, and ramifications, of a death threat. The meaning of life is stretching it a bit though. I am still human... most of the time.

is this real history? im not informed on USA's history at all. (i just know what are the main events) but is this real?
the founding fathers thought of giving everyone firearms so an oppressive tyrannical monarchy could not easily take over USA is a good idea? and no one after that thought that the threat of an oppressive tyrannical monarchy is over and the should rethink about that? please tell me this isn't the case.

This is real. However, you misunderstand. The 2nd amendment was not added to prevent an outside force from sizing power, as that is the duty of the armed forces. The 2nd amendment was added so US citizens would have some recourse if powers within our own government tried to forcefully turn our democratic republic into anything else (monarchy, oligarchy, dictatorship, ect.). The monarch of England started sizing hunting rifles and other firearms when the colonies (later to be the US) became restless. This was to make sure the British troops could pacify the colonies without much effort. In the end the founding fathers made sure to give the citizens several weapons to keep the government in check. The 1st amendment is "the voice" of the people while the 2nd amendment is "the teeth". That, and the fact that the US has spent a lot of time as a frontier country has engrained guns as a fundamental part of our culture.

Also, the threat of an oppressive tyrannical monarchy is never over. My government has done several things over the last few years that are rather alarming. However, the government is still a democratic republic so the 2nd amendment does not come into play.

This is an interesting read.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

 

[CaptainThom]

Well so much for land of the free..

 

[Kl4pp5tuhl]

This is borderline insane, he was not serious in he least! Has the law gone mad!? Freedom of speech for crying out loud, if he wants to make an insane comment let him! If you think this should be something authorities should talk to him about and sit him down for a moment, ok. But locking him up? Throwing him in prison? For what, an online comment?

What the hell is wrong with this world!? *Anger*

 

[Therumancer]

This is borderline insane, he was not serious in he least! Has the law gone mad!? Freedom of speech for crying out loud, if he wants to make an insane comment let him! If you think this should be something authorities should talk to him about and sit him down for a moment, ok. But locking him up? Throwing him in prison? For what, an online comment?

What the hell is wrong with this world!? *Anger*

I see a lot of this, and really it's half the problem with the American people right now.

Read the article closely, you'll notice that the authorities are being quite blunt about how they cannot share details about the case. This is pretty much par for the course with criminal matters. The accused and their family can go screaming and yelling to the media and anyone that will listen with their side of the story and make whatever claims they want, but the authorities will only present their case in court.

Right now, people are making a HUGE assumption in this kid being arrested, held, and tried, only because of a sarcastic comment on the internet. You think this, because that's what his family is saying, and because the media is jumping all over that in order to spread controversy and get attention. Right now, we don't know that this is the sum total of the case being made.

Let me put it to you this way, let's say this kid was making pipe bombs and stocking up on guns and ammo and keeping it in a private locker in preparation for a school massacre. That would change the entire situation now wouldn't it? Of course the authorities won't tell you what they have, they will only comment if the media finds out about it on their own, and if they haven't, it remains quiet. I'm not saying that they found anything like this, simply that we do not know at this point. Save the outrage and petitions until after the trial. Anyone who protests/petitions for something like this before they have heard both sides is being pretty bloody silly. The authorities have heard of "freedom of speech" needless to say and chances are if they only had an internet rant to go on, they wouldn't be wasting the time or money to prosecute this. IF it turns out the worst suspicions are correct, they have nothing else, and he gets convicted, that's when you start writing the petitions and drumming up the outrage to demand a pardon from the governor or whatever.

I've said all this before, but honestly I'm beginning to get rather slotted off as I see a lot of this happening today and it's causing a lot of chaos for no good reason. This case is fairly mild, but we have that entire "Zimmerman" trial going on as well, which is the same basic garbage. A distraught mother went to the media and as many political groups as she could to QQ and turned a clear cut case of self defense into a media circus, one which has gone so far as to try and convince people that Trayvon (the victim) was some baby-faced kid when he looked nothing like that when this went down, yet it did drum up a ton of sympathy and caused things to start getting crazy before there was even a trial, and even after the ruling there was concern about riots and stuff.

As odd as this sounds, I'm a big believer in free speech, but I'm beginning to think we need to limit "Freedom Of The Press" in criminal matters, making a crime if the press interferes with or creates bias (in either direction) with an ongoing criminal investigation or legal process. I mean it's fine to report on what's going on, but this is one of those cases where I think something similar to the "equal time" doctrine needs to apply, and if the authorities don't say anything neither should the defense. The media should however be allowed to know it's going on, and of course be able to report on the trial when it's going on. Giving a grieving mother air time (she'll stand by her kids no matter what usually), or telling people someone is being held for trial over internet threats (when that is probably only part of the story if it's gone this far) is socially irresponsible.

I don't mean this to be offensive, but really, while I can see people are all upset, I think it's just silly right now. I'll be outraged too if this kid is in legal trouble for mouthing off on the internet, but right now I simply do not know that this is all there is to the case, so I'm not going to take a side yet.

 

[kasperbbs]

Thats just retarded. Soon Americans will arrest people who fart too loudly at airports.

 

[MCerberus]

Thats just retarded. Soon Americans will arrest people who fart too loudly at airports.

Of course. They'd need to be taken away to protect us all from the dangerous chemical weapon attacks.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

This is incredibly silly and dangerously stupid on behalf of the American Whatever Deparment.

 

[unpronounceable]

I dont think he needed an 8 year sentence, but he did need something for that completely dumbass comment. you cant just say jk or lol after something like that in the recent events of newtown and the boston bombing and think thats alright.

Stupidity is not a crime. The hysteria of other people is not a reason to jail a person who's barely an adult.