Teenage League of Legends Player Jailed For Months For Facebook Joke 743
Kohath writes "Eighteen-year-old Justin Carter of Austin, Texas was arguing with a friend on Facebook about League of Legends back in February. After being called 'insane,' he responded with '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.' Below that, he wrote 'lol' and 'jk.' He was arrested March 27, 2013 and has been in jail since that time. A hearing to review his case is scheduled for July 1, 2013. His parents have launched a change.org petition to convince the authorities to release their son."
So much for... (Score:5, Insightful)
He wasn't actually making a direct threat at any place or thing...just shooting off his mouth.
Sad that you can be arrested for just a general saying of something.
Re:So much for... (Score:5, Insightful)
Im most likely moving to austin in the next few months, not a fan of hearing this though
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, that's not always the case. [cnn.com]. And when hindsight reveals that a killer had joked or made facebook posts or otherwise gave warning signs about the destruction to come, and police write it off as just some kid harmlessly blowing off steam, the public invariably crucifies them for failing to follow up on the warning signs.
So... they're damned if they do, and damned if they don't. Yes, in retrospect it's easy to see which ones really were just harmless sarcastic jokes and which ones were obvious warning
Re:So much for... (Score:5, Insightful)
Two wrongs don't make a right...
Re:So much for... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So much for... (Score:5, Insightful)
The public is wrong for crucifying them for not arresting the 50,000 or so teenagers who, each month, make a crass joke about violence on the Internet.
That doesn't make them justified to arrest this kid, unless we're seriously short on information and he was clear that he owned a bunch of guns and planned to use them.
I don't have a problem if this anonymous Canadian lady perhaps called his parents and told them... nosy as hell, but not life destroying.
But phoning police is absurd.
Re: (Score:3)
Total cop out (Score:5, Insightful)
No, they are MOST CERTAINLY NOT "damned if they do and damned f they don't". There is a big difference between doing an ACTUAL INVESTIGATION, and arresting someone without any critical thought or due process.
If any actual critical thinking was applied here, this kid would not be arrested.
No one has a problem with the police investigating threats. They are not "damned if they do". The problem starts when they just go off arresting people without any thoughts on if, you know, they actually meant whatever was being written.
Re:Total cop out (Score:4, Insightful)
"They have a responsibility to arrest him and see what his intentions were" is one of the scariest statements I've read in this thread.
Re: (Score:3)
And when hindsight reveals that a killer had joked or made facebook posts or otherwise gave warning signs about the destruction to come, and police write it off as just some kid harmlessly blowing off steam, the public invariably crucifies them for failing to follow up on the warning signs.
Sure, some people often suffer from jerky-knee syndrome, but one (non-specific) joke/comment doesn't really constitute "warning signs".
Re:So much for... (Score:4, Informative)
And when hindsight reveals that a killer had joked or made facebook posts or otherwise gave warning signs about the destruction to come, and police write it off as just some kid harmlessly blowing off steam, the public invariably crucifies them for failing to follow up on the warning signs.
Educated people, such as doctors or statisticians, have a term for this: "low specificity". It basically means you can't take a single symptom as a reason to throw somebody in jail/prescibe a treatment until you also have other symptoms to back your hypothesis up.
Re: (Score:3)
They really should do some actual investigating before just locking him up. If he had plans for bombs, or bombs, or some sort of credible weapon, then yeah you can arrest him. Until then, keep an eye on him. They do shit like this blowing things out of proportion, while some crazy person is really planning on doing it, but they don't do their jobs. It should have been pretty easy to get a search warrant for his premises and then to have actually searched them.
School shootings aren't really that common,
Re: (Score:3)
Yes everyone should have the right to exercise freedom of thought and speech as long as they don't commit crimes. He shouldn't be arrested. Kept an eye on, maybe, I'm not actually making that argument either. I'm just pointing out that they should do their actual jobs (it's okay to investigate such a case, get a warrant from a judge, search around, keep an eye on the kid, station an officer outside said elementary school during school hours, patrol the neighborhood a little more, I'm sure there are a hundred other things that could have been done besides arresting the guy)
Like: NOTHING.
Otherwise, it is harassing an innocent. A joke is not probable cause.
If we're so scared shitless that we can't even handle jokes, what right do we have to call ourselves the home of the brave?
(Land of the free went down the drain a long time ago.)
Re: (Score:3)
Making a threat is an actual crime.
And that's plain wrong. If you deliberately cause fear by threatening someone, then it's causing fear that's the crime, not the words. Whether you do that by words or waving a bazooka doesn't change the crime, which isn't the words.
A threat in itself should never be a crime. That's punishing thoughts.
If I say "I am going to cut off your tonker" and you laugh it off with "with both your arms broken?", no crime has been committed. Even if both of us are capable of those acts - if they don't cause fear an
Re:So much for... (Score:5, Insightful)
the public invariably crucifies them for failing to follow up on the warning signs
Do they really? I see exponentially more outrage at the war on drugs, the patriot act, PRISM and TSA than I do at law enforcement letting the odd criminal slip by. Law enforcement seems to withstand YEARS of complaints about racial profiling and jail for nonviolent offenders, yet they have to utterly destroy this teenager because they might be questioned if he were to have done something?
Lets not make excuses for them. They crushed him like a bug for a trifling offense because they could.
He did not make any threat, not even in jest. (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Was the jail sentence an overreaction? Perhaps.
Perhaps?? It was't even a *sentence*. He hasn't even had a trial yet. According to the article the police didn't even question him for a MONTH after they arrested and imprisoned him, and now over 4 months later he's still sitting in jail for a silly comment on a Facebook page. This is not only "overreaction", it's practically Guantanamo, Texas.
What if someone on slashdot cut and pasted the quote into a post but forgot to use quotation marks? There is no
Re:So much for... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So much for... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So much for... (Score:4, Insightful)
I already replied to this thread, so I can't mod you up. I'm going to agree with you and disagree with the other respondents. When people make comments like he did, there is at least limited probable cause for investigation.
No, there isn't. Can you show me any statistical significant link between making jokes like this and committing the crimes?
If you note the ONE guy who went postal who also posted stuff online, that's not a statistical significant link. He also carried a red backpack. Should everyone carrying a red backpack be investigated then?
Re:So much for... (Score:4, Informative)
I have a cousin who spent ten years in prison for posession; not sure what drug or what amount, but considering your username I'd move to Colorado or Washington State if I were you (possession of small amounts is a civil offense with a small fine here in Springfield). Texas is the closest thing to Singapore the US has when it comes to laws.
Seriously, you should stay out of Texas. Ever heard Uneasy Rider? [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
By this criteria, half the 13 year-olds on XBox Live should be in jail.
Alec Baldwin (Score:5, Interesting)
Contrast that to Alec Baldwin, who was making a direct threat: Alec Baldwin Melts Down On Twitter, Threatens To 'F*ck Up' Reporter
http://gawker.com/alec-baldwin-melts-down-on-twitter-threatens-to-fuck-604856776 [gawker.com]
I wonder if the rich still have their rights?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
what's really funny is that Obama, by his own words in autobiography, used racist words and held racist beliefs couple decades ago, moreover went to a church that taught hate and racism from the pulpit. so should Obama lose his job?
Re: (Score:3)
It's all about who the mainstream media wants to love or hate that day. Certain groups can do no wrong, while other groups can't breathe without being called a child molesting coke snorter who hasn't paid his taxes.
Re: (Score:3)
If he plays his cards right he can retire before he's 20. As you noted, this was a gross violation of his civil rights. With the right lawyer, he'll be a rich man when he's grown.
Re:So much for... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes Freedom is more important than general safety.
When the government says you can't have or do X because it is unsafe. It allows them to take the next step and say the next thing is unsafe and you shouldn't do it.
Re:So much for... (Score:5, Insightful)
It happened countless times. It shouldn't count as a fallacy anymore.
How can you say that?! (Score:5, Insightful)
Fallacy: Slippery slope argument.
How can you say that considering all the bullshit coming out of Washington, DC lately? The government always abusing their power? The NSA was able to get away with it for so long because of abuse of the PATRIOT Act. The TSA is constantly going way beyond their original purpose.
The Slippery Slope argument is not only true but it is a fact.
Actually, I can't think of when it's NOT true.
not really in this case... (Score:3, Insightful)
slope produce proven, no fallacy (Score:4, Insightful)
It's well produce proven that government will in fact stretch any powers they are given to the limit. As example, the US federal government was given the power to regulate commerce between the states. Based on that power, they made it illegal to grow vegetables in your home garden, for you to eat. There's nothing interstate about that, and no commerce, but nevertheless govt did that under the interstate commerce clause.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
Re:So much for... (Score:5, Insightful)
Right, so the slippery slope in the gun control debate is that the constitution only allows for a well-trained militia to keep their guns, but gun-owners have forced it to become anybody's right regardless of training or participation in a militia. The government is trying to go back up the slope (with mandatory ID and criminal record checks), but they just keep sliding back down.
No, the constitution recognizes the need for a regulated militia and the right of the people. Otherwise:
1. It would be self contradictory, since regulating your militia is, in turn, regulating arms, which the text says shall not be infringed
2. It wouldn't be located next to the third amendment, which also puts the freedom of the people over soldiers of the union
3. It would be unique, as the fifth amendment also refer to the militia as external to the people
4. It would be misplaced, as rights specifically granted to a government entity (states) that wasn't already addressed in the articles is all the way in the back at amendment ten
5. It would be redundant, since the military is already presumed to exist as in Article 2
Anyone can argue whether they like it or not, but the fact is the second amendment, quite clearly, refers to the right of the people. Anyone claiming otherwise is mistaken at best and selectively manipulative at worst.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Those too. You should want to wear a seatbelt and helmet. However if you do not, it is your own damn fault if something happens. However you should have to have insurance because if you do get injured or killed, then you are affecting other people from your injury.
Sure there are stats showing how many lives have been saved from seatbelts and helmet laws, I don't have any cause to disbelieve them. But really should government say we should do something just because it is safer.
Re:So much for... (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, there is good reason to disbelieve that bicycle helmet laws (as distinct from motorcycle helmet laws) have a beneficial effect: Simply put, the desired effect doesn't show up on country-level statistics after these laws have been implemented.
One of the more plausible explanations for this related to its interaction with the safety-in-numbers effect: The more cyclists are on the roads, the more motorists are watching for them. Requiring helmets reduces the number of cyclists on the road on a scale reaching towards 50%, both directly from inconvenience and vanity, and less directly by making cycling seem so unsafe that it needs to be regulated... but by making cycling seem unsafe, it thus becomes actually unsafe: Every time the cyclist population doubles, the per-person accident rate drops by about 1/3rd.
So -- cut the cyclist population in half with a helmet law, and you reduce the safety-in-numbers effect enough to entirely lose what little you gained. And that's presuming that people are actually wearing appropriately sized and fitted helmets correctly -- there's no shortage of studies showing that the percentage of people doing so in areas where helmet usage is mandatory is in effect is low enough that the beneficial side of the law is of little help as well.
There are other reasons to be skeptical of bicycle helmets -- motorists are measurably more careless when driving near a cyclist with a visible helmet, and the risk compensation effect (in which a helmeted cyclist behaves more recklessly on the belief that they're safer) is clearly a factor as well. Me? I wear a helmet when I ride anywhere with traffic (it's where my mirror and headlight are mounted)... but I'm vehemently opposed to any attempts to make the practice mandatory.
[And another addendum, to be fair -- there's some new work on helmets that effectively dampen rotational inertia; if those actually make it to market, something which has been effectively suppressed in the US by manufacturers having no incentive to exceed CSPC regulations, I might want to review parts of my position -- they've been shown to be quite effective at preventing concussions, which widely available bicycle helmets don't do].
Oh -- and about seatbelts: There's no question that they make folks who are belted in safer. However, it's also well-established that they make people who aren't belted in -- such as pedestrians -- less safe: Drivers behave more recklessly when they feel secure, and seat belts and anti-lock brakes provide such security.
Re:So much for... (Score:5, Insightful)
And yet he is still allowed to own guns... Because that freedom is so much more important
Flamebait, but I'll bite:
If he made a joke about drunk driving, do you think his driving privileges should be permanently revoked too?
There's a *huge* difference between a credible threat leveled at a specific target, and just farting around. If you cannot tell the difference, kindly stop your internet service, burn your computer, and cancel your TV/cable/sat subscription.
Re:So much for... (Score:5, Informative)
Can we take them away just because he is a teenager?
We have the drinking age and driving age totally backwards in this country.
Re: (Score:3)
Can't move adulthood to 21, we'd lose half of the cannon fodder for the armed forces.
Re: (Score:3)
In the USA we let 16 year olds drive cars, we have no real driving tests or lessons to speak of. Passing the test on the first try is the norm for 95% of people.
You can't even compare driving anywhere in Europe with that in the USA.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We've already institutionalized "no joke" zones at airports. Unfortunately, it is only a matter of time before there are more such restrictions.
Re:So much for... (Score:5, Insightful)
And yet he is still allowed to own guns... Because that freedom is so much more important
Both freedom of speech and freedom to bear arms are explicitly enumerated in the constitution so what's your point, exactly? Other than his free speech is being trampled upon?
Re:So much for... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm curious as to what 'crime' he made by expressing himself this way.
I think the problem is a little more complicated than that.
1) Somebody got a phone call from an idiot saying that they believed someone was making a threat.
2) This person realizes that there is no threat, BUT, if the kid for some unrelated reason commits some act of violence and the media finds out that a warning was ignored, they'll have a field day and the person will be crucified.
3) So, the person who received the phone call passes along the fact that they got it and it's in somebody else's lap who, using the same logic, feels the need to at least make a show of taking some sort of action.
4) Spirals out of control and we get a ridiculous arrest over a stupid, but innocent, sarcastic comment.
Welcome to the modern age...
Re:So much for... (Score:4, Insightful)
There should be no remorse for what was said. Out of all the countless conversations that get monitored and picked up, what this kid said amounts to saying "I will blow up the President with a billion nuclear bombs." It's just a completely ridiculous statement, especially when it's followed up with a "lol", "jk".
This is not a threat to shoot up a school, this is - if anything - some kind of morbid joke that highlights the ridiculousness of the earlier accusation that he was insane.
Poe's Law.
Re:So much for... (Score:4, Insightful)
I think a stand-up comic making this same joke might make people uncomfortable, but wouldn't be jailed for it. That's one of the (many) problems with arresting people for thoughtcrimes...there's no way to be objective about humor.
If "lol...j/k" isn't enough to indicate that a statement shouldn't be taken seriously, then what is? What's on the government-approved list of acceptable metaphors for "batshit crazy"?
Re:So much for... (Score:4, Interesting)
Although I believe he's not guilty of any crime other than being idiotic, it is not up to the police to judge whether he's guilty. It's up to the justice system. He will have his day in court, like any other person charged with a crime.
Will he? You do realize, that in this country, it's entirely legal to indefinitely imprison a terrorist in secrecy? The definition of terrorist being anyone they deem to be a terrorist. And they are saying the kid made a terrorist threat. They can legally disappear this kid for making an obvious joke online with some friends. Does that give you some idea how out of control the US government is?
Re: (Score:3)
Just because it's not funny doesn't mean it's a credible threat. If that were the case, pretty much everybody would be jailed at one point or another.
Re: (Score:3)
>pretty much everybody would be jailed at one point or another.
I think that's the point, you're supposed to be so inhibited and shitscared of everything that you don't dare to do anything but follow the approved guidelines.
Re:So much for... (Score:5, Insightful)
In a Twilight Zone revelation, the authorities do exactly what the people want them to do.
They're showing a "tough and uncompromising stance on terror" which gets you public support. What if? Think of the children! (except the ones you jail, obviously). If he did happen to have something they could pin on him, they've "stopped a terrorist", gaining more public support.
If they had done nothing and nothing happened, no one would have cared either way. If they had done nothing and something happened, there would be public outrage, mass firing and countless inquisitions.
Arresting him was the logical thing.
Re:So much for... (Score:5, Informative)
You cited the wrong section. This [wikipedia.org] is what you should have cited: imminent lawless action. There are three parts of the test:
intent, imminence, and likelihood.
If you say "Jews should be killed", it doesn't imply imminence. If you say "Let's go put some Jews in gas chambers", it doesn't have likelihood. And if you say "It would be funny if y'all went and lynched a Jew" it wouldn't have intent.
For the Facebook post, it didn't have likelihood or any real intent (it was a joke). The imminence of it could be argued. In any case, it fails the test and his speech is protected.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So much for... (Score:5, Insightful)
Freedom of speech does not absolve one from responsibility for the consequences of the speech in question.
Depends on what consequences you're talking about.
People around you thinking you're an asshole and never talking to you again? No, it doesn't protect you from that.
Getting arrested and jailed? Yes, in fact, it does protect you from that; that's the entire meaning of the term.
Re: (Score:3)
According to their logic, North Korean citizens have exactly as much freedom of speech as we do in the US...
Um, no. I'm pretty sure you can say Very Bad Things about the U.S. president, your Senator, congressperson, etc., without being disappeared. What you can't do is make threats against their lives.
Re: (Score:3)
PhxBlue, I am going to shoot you and eat your still-beating heart.
I'm going to do this is person, and I'm specifically threatening you which is more than what this teenager did. Since he had more of a blanket threat against a nebulous "school" and did it online over facebook.
But relax, I'm joking. It's just something to try and make a point.
And no, you can't have me arrested, you can complain to the cops who make a judgement call about whether or not they feel the need to arrest me or really do anything at
Re: (Score:3)
Might I suggest the Department of Truth?
Re: (Score:3)
OK, when you're done being snarky, riddle me this: What forms of expression are not protected under the First Amendment?
Do some research, and you'll find threats are on that list.
Re:So much for... (Score:4, Insightful)
and I am also free to take the consequences of my action.
Then countries such as North Korea must have as much freedom of speech as the US... but there are consequences for exercising the right. That's all. Just consequences.
Sarcasm (Score:5, Funny)
A teenager being sarcastic? No way that *never* happens.
Re:Sarcasm (Score:4, Insightful)
This is just the perfect thread to remind everyone that text has no tone. And a perfect time to remind everyone that we need to stop letting this kind of nonsense by law enforcement go unchallenged. There's nothing about that statement that implies seriousness, and in fact the eating of hearts makes it even more obvious that there is nothing to justify what they've done here.
Oh, Canada... (Score:5, Funny)
The statements “lol” and “jk” — meaning “laughing out loud” and “just kidding” — indicate that Justin’s statement was entirely sarcastic, said his father.
But a Canadian woman who saw the post looked up Carter’s Austin address, determined that it was near an elementary school, and called the police.
Fucking Canadians...
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Oh, Canada... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's something this particular American and many more here on /. regularly call for an end to.
Re: (Score:3)
You tell 'em! Time to show you Yanks you're not the only ones who can act like douchebags!
Some of us Yanks get regular reminders of that fact. One reminder we Slashdot denizens receive is when a European Slashdotter feels compelled to talk about how much more sophisticated and enlightened they are, when compared to their American counterparts.
But a Canadian! I expect better from them...
Re:Oh, Canada... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Teens and their thousands of Facebook "friends" (Score:5, Insightful)
The teen's stupid, the woman's human waste, and... the authorities don't know what jk means. When he gets out I hope they sue for 1st amendment rights violations. Whoever issued that warrant is the real monster here.
Re: (Score:3)
"Why should facebook posts by a teen in Austin TX even be visible to a woman in Canada?"
Why shouldn't they? Unless he marked his post private or friends only, anyone can see it.
Common sense should tell you that.
Re: (Score:3)
The issue isn't nosy ladies who want to poke their nose into stuff ... we'll never get rid of those, any more than you'll get rid of the Westboro idiots who want to protest every funeral.
The issue is the epic stupidity of the police for not being able to look at this in context and realize he wasn't actually making a real threat.
It used to be you could make a joke in bad taste and people w
Re: (Score:3)
there's nothing funny about threatening violence against another human being.
That's the point - he didn't. He said he was kidding immediately afterwards. He explicitly said he was not going to shoot up a school.
I'm going to shoot up a school.... jk. Should I be arrested now? Because if the answer is no, you're applying the law differently.
Besides, threatening violence can be funny [youtube.com]. There's loads of comedy based around violence.
Re: (Score:3)
Uhhh what? (Score:5, Interesting)
A Change.org petition? Do people still think those have any relevance to the people they petition? Has a Change.org petition ever had any meaningful effect?
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, they made national news.
Re: (Score:3)
Au contraire! These petitions are very valuable to identify malcontents, troublemakers, politically unreliables and other enemies of the state and all that is good and proper. When they begin to round up all these dangerous criminals in the not too distant future, the list generated will come in very handy.
Appropriate response (Score:5, Insightful)
Your tax dollars at work here people.
Old News?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: Ugh, this is disgusting. (Score:3)
are you aiding this guy in his terrorIzIng? ...knock knock...
Re:Ugh, this is disgusting. (Score:4, Funny)
The article doesn't mention it, but this is actually why he is in prison.
Re:Ugh, this is disgusting. (Score:4, Funny)
(Scene: prison cafeteria)
"So kid, what are you in here for?"
"I spelled lose with two 'o's."
(everyone at the table moves away a few inches)
his crime? (Score:5, Informative)
I also found this bit from the article hilarious: "“Justin was the kind of kid who didn’t read the newspaper,” said [father] Jack Carter. “He didn’t watch television. He wasn’t aware of current events. These kids, they don’t realize what they’re doing. They don’t understand the implications. They don’t understand.”
Re:his crime? (Score:5, Interesting)
Greetings, humans. I am a traveler from another world, trying to study your civilization. You humans are a strange race. In all my travels I've never seen a single race capable of such altruism and beauty as humans. And yet, conversely, I've also never seen a race capable of such evil and ugliness. One wonders your future: will both sides even out, resulting in mediocrity? Or will one side triumph out over the other, either blessing--or cursing--the entire galaxy and all life as a whole?
Such a peculiar species.
Another mystery, which has been solved just now, was the bizarre and disproportionate punishments and reactions to certain speech, such as this pre-adult being arrested for an obviously ficticious statement of no malicious intent. But I understand now! If something gets labeled "terrorism", then regular laws and common sense do not apply! Authority figures are allowed to do anything they want, arrest anyone they want, or attack anyone they want. All that is needed is the "terrorist" label.
I don't see the sense in this personally. In fact, it seems awfully silly. But then again, it's your civilization--you should be free to explore your own destiny. I'm just here to observe. (This statement won't be interpreted as terrorism will it?).
Re: (Score:3)
Texas law [onecle.com] does calls all threats a "terroristic threat". They differentiate the severity by the class of penalty type ranging from Class B misdemeanor to felony of the third degree. Since the threat was against a school which could be considered a "place the public or a substantial group of the public in fear of serious bodily injury" it would be a third degree felony punishable by 2-10 years [onecle.com]. I bet that this statute has been on the books for decades and has nothing to do with the
Re: (Score:3)
But the absence of the "reasonable man test" in practice is new.
Sad (Score:5, Insightful)
The revenge of the humorless... (Score:3, Funny)
This is the age when the humorless will finally get their revenge.
Be aware, we are on to you!
this makes me so mad (Score:4, Funny)
I'm gonna go shoot up a school, perhaps bomb wall street and throw M80's at the white house
jk
jk = just killing
Re: (Score:3)
Boy I sure hope someone doesn't decide to call the cops on you 4 months from now.
I type this as a joke but now, looking at this story again... I actually really hope nobody decide to call the cops on you - because apparently what you have typed is now a clear legitimate threat?
I don't want to live on this planet anymore.
which city? (Score:4, Interesting)
So is this kid from Houston or Austin? I've read it both ways. One of my wife's co-workers had a problem with the pizza delivery guy. Her husband made some choice comments to the little jack-ass. Later that night the cops came a-knockin'. Threw the guy in jail. The little bastard pressed charges of making a terrorist threat. This was in Houston. So no big surprise with this story. The only shocking thing is that we didn't hear about it three months ago.
HPD and friends have a history of shitty things like this. Just last Christmas an off-duty sheriff shot and killed a shoplifter in a Walmart parking lot. He claimed they were trying to run him over. I got pulled over for going 35 in a 35, because it was "almost time" for it to be a school zone. They arrested hundreds at a parking lot for trespassing even though some of them were actually eating at Sonic or shopping at Kmart.
Charged with "making terroristic threat" (Score:5, Informative)
For once I actually RTFA, because I couldn't think of a crime this kid could have been charged with. He is charged with "making a terroristic threat."
Then I wondered what that means, feeling a bit surprised that this kid's actions could be interpreted as a terroristic threat (though, I think we can all agree that sometimes summaries on /. and descriptions in news can be innaccurate, which may very well be the case here), so I found this summary of the common elements of the crime of "making a terroristic threat":
http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/making-a-terrorist-threat.html [legalmatch.com]
Basically, my conclusion is that, yes, we should all be afraid--This is getting into "thought crime" territory.
Why is subject denied bail? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is this chap still in jail?
I've read the articles. Maybe my Google-Fu is weak today. But I cannot find anything that explicitly states why either he was denied bail or the bail was set ludicrously high.
Having to go to court for this is silly enough. But did a judge seriously deem this teen so much a threat as to deny him bail? I'd really like to know because it would seem to me a judge is who should have added some sanity to this issue.
Re: (Score:3)
Here in the US it is impossible to take two steps forward without taking a step and a half back.
This week has been pretty scary in those regards...
Week? Last decade, surely.
Re: (Score:3)
I was wondering why that black van was parked in front of my house for the past 2 weeks. My wife offered them some coffee, and they just pointed guns at her. Maybe I shouldn't go back home anytime soon.
Black, huh? In my one experience with asshole government agents doing surveillance, they were rollin' in a gold Escalade.
FYI no, they weren't watching me, they were using my parking lot to watch the meth cooks in the trailer park across the way. Which I was OK with.
Re:Ah Crap.... (Score:4, Interesting)
I had an incident with a black SUV with large, armed men a few years ago. All I did wrong was park in front of the wrong house. Scared the hell out of me, afterwards it just pissed me off that my 4th amendment rights were violated when they searched me and my car with no warrant. They didn't bother asking, they just pointed their tasers at me. Coats read SPD, FBI, and the guy in the ski mask (in July!) had a coat that read DEA. And I'm an old white guy, imagine if I was 20 and black.
Really lessened my respect for cops. No, fuck calling them cops, here's a handle from my youth - PIGS.
Re:Teenager? (Score:4, Funny)
"is something wrong with a statement "18 year old teenager". I kinda thought "teenagers" ended right about 16, "
SevenTEEN
EighTEEN
NineTEEN
Re:Teenager? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, he should know when not to say the bad things! You might not know what they are, so be careful and keep your mouth shut!
Except it wasn't a direct threat.
He's a sociopath, huh? How'd you figure that one out?
And now he's mentally ill?
Hasn't stopped you from casting judgement.
Therefore no amount of abusive, oppressive investigation and imprisonment is too much!
Re: (Score:3)
If someone high up in the federal government puts pressure on a state/county/local government, then that state/county/local government will most likely comply. As it is, it's probably one of many methods they're using to get the word out... I really doubt their thought process is "Whelp, made a change.org petition. Guess that's all I can do."
Re: (Score:3)
nonsense, anyone can make a statement like that. something is wrong between your ears, you are the one needing mental evaluation as you are a psychological marshmallow.
Re: (Score:3)
No, not anymore. Remember, we no longer have any right to be forgotten. :) Seriously, though, we not leave an indelible mark on the world when we say things on the internet, and future employers will scrutinize us based on that. There's no getting around that. This is particularly an issue in today's economy with floods of peolpe looking for jobs but so few jobs. Employers look for anything superficial to take you out of consideration, and they're not going to hire someone who did some stupid things as
Re:Battling "the man" requires better planning! (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, you're going to have to figure out some way to make kids not be stupid then. After thousands of years of failure, I don't think you will have much luck on that score.
A more prudent approach would be to make adults accept the fact that kids are stupid.