Petition to Free Jailed League of Legends Player Reaches 100,000 Sigs
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
I state a different opinion and the whole thread loses their minds!
>One, terrorists do use social media to communicate.
>Two, there is a difference between being a terrorist and making terroristic threats.
>Three, we must take every threat, made jokingly or not, as being dead serious or it will be the same story over and over again. "Yea we got warnings, but we thought s/he was just joking!" And bunches of dead and wounded kids will be our prize.
He made a threat. All cases must be handled the same way or the court could end up making a legal precedent. That would be bad. Look it up, too long to adequately explain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent
What Law did he break? The one that says you can't make terroristic threats... I'll educate you since you can't be bothered to look it up.
He did this, adding "LOL, JK" don't make it any less true.
One where people realize the internet is a public space, there are no more murders, no more rapes, no more shooting sprees, no more crime at all for that matter. No racism, equal treatment under the law, no inflation, and a really good utilities infrastructure.
Until then, every threat is considered viable and is punishable under the law.
If I had a kid in school and I saw someone post something like that I would be worried enough to report it. A vague threat is still a threat. So now you know of TWO individuals who would have felt threatened. The woman who reported it and me.
Honestly, never. I hear that they are "gonna beat their asses" or "teach them a lesion", but I have never heard a parent say anything to the effect of killing their kids.
This is the problem with people's attitude about the internet. If you are talking to a friend or friends in confidence and you say something like that it stays between you, but on the internet EVERYONE can see what you said. It is no longer a private conversation and someone might become concerned. It became worthy of jail time when he made a comment about killing kids in a school and someone felt worried enough to involve the cops.
Actually, writhing a comment on facebook is worse then going up to a cop. If you say it to a cop it is your word against theirs in court. A comment on facebook is admissible, irrefutable, evidence. It is a transcript of what you said.
I'm saying it didn't violate the 6th amendment. I asked you how it did and you failed to answer.
Careful now, this is starting to sound like a personal attack. The short answer is anyone with a kid in school.
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.
A restraining order IS something. It is now a crime to be around that person. A much easier crime to prove. Now, if that same person came to the cops with a screen cap of a threat of bodily harm sent via IM, facebook post, e-mail, or any other text that identifies the sender they can arrest the sender. The physical evidence is enough to prosecute.
I was referring to the text as being physical proof thing I hit on. Threatening someone with bodily harm is a crime.
You are only paranoid if you are wrong. I call it being alert. And you would be surprised at the number of murders who try to run self defense when they know they are tied to the scene of the crime.
True, verbal threats are hard to pursue and it was my fault for not being clearer, although they can issue a restraining order which is technically doing something. I was focusing on the "known sender text" aspect. If you went to the cops with an e-mail, facebook post, ect, ect, you could press charges for the threat due to having physical evidence. This eliminates the "their word vs mine" problem.
Credible threat or not, this MAN (18 years old people, ADULT!!!) broke the law. see above replies for clarification.
It fulfilled the legal definition of a terroristic threat and that is why they are pursuing it as such.
And I say that we will prosecute 99 people for terroristic threats and 1 for legitimately planning to do it. Your way has 1 school shooting and mine has 0. Imma go with mine because 1 school shooting is too many. I have no sympathy for those too stupid to realize their actions have consequences.
sagitel said:
>One, terrorists do use social media to communicate.
>Two, there is a difference between being a terrorist and making terroristic threats.
>Three, we must take every threat, made jokingly or not, as being dead serious or it will be the same story over and over again. "Yea we got warnings, but we thought s/he was just joking!" And bunches of dead and wounded kids will be our prize.
He made a threat. All cases must be handled the same way or the court could end up making a legal precedent. That would be bad. Look it up, too long to adequately explain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent
Flatfrog said:
What Law did he break? The one that says you can't make terroristic threats... I'll educate you since you can't be bothered to look it up.
A terroristic threat is a crime generally involving a threat to commit violence communicated with the intent to terrorize another, to cause evacuation of a building, or to cause serious public inconvenience, in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience. It may mean an offense against property or involving danger to another person that may include but is not limited to recklessly endangering another person, harassment, stalking, ethnic intimidation, and criminal mischief.
The following is an example of a Texas statute dealing with terroristic threats:
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:
cause a reaction of any type to his threat by an official or volunteer agency organized to deal with emergencies;
place any person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury;
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;
cause impairment or interruption of public communications, public transportation, public water, gas, or power supply or other public service;
place the public or a substantial group of the public in fear of serious bodily injury; or
influence the conduct or activities of a branch or agency of the federal government, the state, or a political subdivision of the state.
The following is an example of a Texas statute dealing with terroristic threats:
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:
cause a reaction of any type to his threat
place any person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury;
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;
cause impairment or interruption of public communications, public transportation, public water, gas, or power supply or other public service;
place the public or a substantial group of the public in fear of serious bodily injury; or
influence the conduct or activities of a branch or agency of the federal government, the state, or a political subdivision of the state.
He did this, adding "LOL, JK" don't make it any less true.
One where people realize the internet is a public space, there are no more murders, no more rapes, no more shooting sprees, no more crime at all for that matter. No racism, equal treatment under the law, no inflation, and a really good utilities infrastructure.
Until then, every threat is considered viable and is punishable under the law.
If I had a kid in school and I saw someone post something like that I would be worried enough to report it. A vague threat is still a threat. So now you know of TWO individuals who would have felt threatened. The woman who reported it and me.
Honestly, never. I hear that they are "gonna beat their asses" or "teach them a lesion", but I have never heard a parent say anything to the effect of killing their kids.
This is the problem with people's attitude about the internet. If you are talking to a friend or friends in confidence and you say something like that it stays between you, but on the internet EVERYONE can see what you said. It is no longer a private conversation and someone might become concerned. It became worthy of jail time when he made a comment about killing kids in a school and someone felt worried enough to involve the cops.
Actually, writhing a comment on facebook is worse then going up to a cop. If you say it to a cop it is your word against theirs in court. A comment on facebook is admissible, irrefutable, evidence. It is a transcript of what you said.
I'm saying it didn't violate the 6th amendment. I asked you how it did and you failed to answer.
Careful now, this is starting to sound like a personal attack. The short answer is anyone with a kid in school.
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.
A restraining order IS something. It is now a crime to be around that person. A much easier crime to prove. Now, if that same person came to the cops with a screen cap of a threat of bodily harm sent via IM, facebook post, e-mail, or any other text that identifies the sender they can arrest the sender. The physical evidence is enough to prosecute.
I was referring to the text as being physical proof thing I hit on. Threatening someone with bodily harm is a crime.
Kamille Bidan said:
You are only paranoid if you are wrong. I call it being alert. And you would be surprised at the number of murders who try to run self defense when they know they are tied to the scene of the crime.
True, verbal threats are hard to pursue and it was my fault for not being clearer, although they can issue a restraining order which is technically doing something. I was focusing on the "known sender text" aspect. If you went to the cops with an e-mail, facebook post, ect, ect, you could press charges for the threat due to having physical evidence. This eliminates the "their word vs mine" problem.
Credible threat or not, this MAN (18 years old people, ADULT!!!) broke the law. see above replies for clarification.
Father Time said:
It fulfilled the legal definition of a terroristic threat and that is why they are pursuing it as such.
And I say that we will prosecute 99 people for terroristic threats and 1 for legitimately planning to do it. Your way has 1 school shooting and mine has 0. Imma go with mine because 1 school shooting is too many. I have no sympathy for those too stupid to realize their actions have consequences.
I am 100% glad he got arrested. Perhaps 8 years is severe, but I think stupid kids like this need a gods-damned wake up call. You make rape threats, shooting threats, etc and expect to get off scot-free? Hah! Just because its the internet, doesn't mean it's all some big joke and nothing matters.
You're talking to real people. If this kid had flown off the bat and said it IRL to someone in school, he'd have been taken deadly seriously because this sort of thing CAN happen. All of you saying he's "innocent" or "harmless" have no idea the ramifications of what you're saying.
So someone makes threats on the internet, scoffs as a joke, and gets arrested only for people to go "SORRY JUST KIDDING HE WAS JOKING" and then it's suddenly all-fucking-right?
No, it isn't. And the sooner you learn that "sorry jk" isn't a get out of jail free card, the better.
You're talking to real people. If this kid had flown off the bat and said it IRL to someone in school, he'd have been taken deadly seriously because this sort of thing CAN happen. All of you saying he's "innocent" or "harmless" have no idea the ramifications of what you're saying.
So someone makes threats on the internet, scoffs as a joke, and gets arrested only for people to go "SORRY JUST KIDDING HE WAS JOKING" and then it's suddenly all-fucking-right?
No, it isn't. And the sooner you learn that "sorry jk" isn't a get out of jail free card, the better.
I signed, it was all because of a dumb fear mentality and lack of context and should never have happened, can we jail the woman who phoned him in instead, she's clearly more of a public menace then anyone else in this story. And yes a joke is a joke, tasteless it may be to some of you nothing is sacred and lets not get into the habit of snatching people up for what they say , k?
Freedom of speech and innocent until proven guilty, pick one and argue that, the fact that so many people want him locked away sickens me to no end.
Freedom of speech and innocent until proven guilty, pick one and argue that, the fact that so many people want him locked away sickens me to no end.
Even though I found the whole idea of making a terrorist threat specifically aimed toward a school stupid in itself, the reaction that occurred in response was blown way out of proportion, and it just makes the US justice system, MY justice system, look extremely incompetent as a result.
I find the recent events at Sandy Hook and Boston important, yeah, and I did want some kind of response to ensure that something like that doesn't happen again, but this is ridiculous. It's not even like a police state; it's just the authorities flailing wildly at anything that might constitute a mild threat in order to calm an erratic mass. It just makes everyone look stupid in the end.
Nice to see the guy getting some attention. With hope, he'll be released and some people will try to calm down the public. This is just embarrassing.
I find the recent events at Sandy Hook and Boston important, yeah, and I did want some kind of response to ensure that something like that doesn't happen again, but this is ridiculous. It's not even like a police state; it's just the authorities flailing wildly at anything that might constitute a mild threat in order to calm an erratic mass. It just makes everyone look stupid in the end.
Nice to see the guy getting some attention. With hope, he'll be released and some people will try to calm down the public. This is just embarrassing.
I wonder if it would get the message across that their overreaction caused more damage than good if the kid ended up committing suicide.
Edit- all the people saying you need to be jailed for obviously sarcastic comments on the internet disturbs me. Just because you're not allowed to state your plan on the internet doesn't mean a person's not going to still do it. Jeezus people.
Edit- all the people saying you need to be jailed for obviously sarcastic comments on the internet disturbs me. Just because you're not allowed to state your plan on the internet doesn't mean a person's not going to still do it. Jeezus people.
1. i never said they didntSarge034 said:
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!
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.
im sorry dude but after this i couldn't take your post seriously
l
This. I can't believe that in a country that prides itself on freedom of speech, that this shit could happen. It was a JOKE, I can't even believe that people on this website are saying he should be punished at all! It was a joke, don't like it? Don't laugh. It scares the shit out of me that in the western world this shit can occur.Phrozenflame500 said:
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!
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.faranar said:
"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.
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
"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
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.sagitel said:
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.
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.
Why not? Was it the history lesion, the guy's statement, or Jesus weeping over school shootings?
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".Sarge034 said:
i find that hardly unlikely but congratulations. you really do know the meaning of a life and a death threat.
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.
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.
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.
sagitel said:
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You can say it til you're blue in the face. Doesn't make it true.Father Time said:
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.
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.Kamille Bidan said:
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.