A teenager from Texas could spend the next eight years in prison if a court decides that the sarcastic comment he made during an online argument is enough to convict him of issuing a terroristic threat.
Justin Carter was only 18 years old when he and a friend got into an online spat over Facebook back in February with another person. They were arguing about the computer game “League of Legends,” his dad told a local ABC affiliate, but one snarky remark made by the teen was apparently enough to raise suspicion in one woman who was watching the conversation unfold all the way up in Canada.
“Someone had said something to the effect of 'Oh you're insane, you're crazy, you're messed up in the head,’” father Jack Carter told KKVUE News, “to which he replied '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.’”
According to the parent, the teenager from Texas followed up that remark with the phrases “LOL” and “JK”— Internet shorthand for “Laugh out Loud” and “Just Kidding.” The Canadian witness wasn’t amused, however, and reportedly conducted a cursory Google search to find out more about the sarcastic gamer. That information led her to learn that the Carter household is located close to a local elementary school, prompting her to alert the police.
Carter, who has since turned 19, was arrested in late March and has so far spent three months and one day behind bars. His trial is slated to begin in July, and if convicted of “making a terroristic threat” he could spend most of his twenties in federal prison.
Under Texas law, a person could be charged with a misdemeanor if he or she “threatens to commit any offense involving violence to any person or property” with the intent to prompt a reaction, cause fear in another or interrupt the occupation of a public place. If the defendant is thought to have made a threat to cause impairment or interruption of a public service, it’s a felony in the Lone Star State.
“These people are serious. They really want my son to go away to jail for a sarcastic comment that he made," Jack Carter told KVUE.
It’s likely that the timing of the teenager’s quip — only two months after the tragic Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting left 26 people dead in Connecticut — didn’t discourage authorities from launching an investigation. His father said his son didn’t mean anything of it, though, and was just being behaving like an average teenager.
“Justin was the kind of kid who didn't read the newspaper. 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 public space,” said Jack Carter.
“If I can just help one person to understand that social media is not a playground, that when you go out there into social media, when you use Facebook, when you use Twitter, when you go out there and make comments on news articles, and the things you are saying can and will be used against you," he said.
Carter’s trial is expected to begin July 1 in Texas. Earlier this month, a grand jury in Massachusetts declined to indict an 18-year-old aspiring rapper who was accused of making terrorist threats after posting prose on his Facebook page that referenced the Boston Marathon bombing. Cameron B. D’Ambrosio was detained for one month in jail and stood to serve as much as two decades if convicted.
What do we think Dakka? I'm frothing at the mouth over the sheer stupidity of this.
"He's very depressed, very scared, and ... concerned that he's not going to get out," Carter's father, Jack, said in an interview with CNN Tuesday. "He's pretty much lost all hope."
Carter, 19, was arrested in February of this year following an argument he had on Facebook regarding "League of Legends," an online video game.
"[S]omeone had said something to the effect of 'Oh you're insane, you're crazy, you're messed up in the head,’" Jack recalled to ABC affiliate KVUE in an earlier interview. "To which [Justin] replied '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,’ and the next two lines were 'lol and jk' [all sic]."
Despite the teen's insistence of "lol" and "jk" -- internet shorthand for "laughing out loud" and "just kidding," respectively -- a woman who came across the comment on Facebook failed to see the humor. She alerted police after realizing Carter lived near an elementary school. On February 13, a judge authorized a search warrant. A warrant for Carter's arrest came one week later, reports WPTV.
Given recent school-related violence, the threat was taken seriously, meaning Carter has been charged with making a "terroristic threat," a felony that carries up to an eight-year prison sentence. His bail: $500,000, reports NPR, an amount his family can't pay, thus keeping him behind bars.
"Without getting into the really nasty details, he's had concussions, black eyes, moved four times from base for his own protection," Jack elaborated on Justin's current condition in jail. "He's been put in solitary confinement, nude, for days on end because he's depressed. All of this is extremely traumatic to this kid. This is a horrible experience."
He did cross a line. While the authorities may be a bit over-zealous here, he obviously has no internal censor to know what may or may not be misinterpreted.
SoloFalcon1138 wrote: He did cross a line. While the authorities may be a bit over-zealous here, he obviously has no internal censor to know what may or may not be misinterpreted.
The guy is obviously a knobber and MOBA games like this tend to be cesspits of nasty little manchildren anyway but the authorities are definately over reacting.
The real issue is, would he have been arrested if he had said the exact same thing in a face to face setting?
SoloFalcon1138 wrote: He did cross a line. While the authorities may be a bit over-zealous here, he obviously has no internal censor to know what may or may not be misinterpreted.
Few people have internal censors on the internet, I have said much nastier things in a game of LoL.
Because he isn't being censored by the government. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences, or that all speech is protected. I doubt much will come of this, other than using it to gather a few hits on a website using an outrageous title to get attention. Once the woman called the police and told them that a threat was made they can't ignore it and have to look into it. Imagine the fallout if they dismissed it without looking into it and something happened? The article reads more like an op-ed than an investigation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JWhex wrote: The people that need a damn filter are the ones that cannot tell some kid on the web is being a kid from someone that is a real threat.
And pray tell how do you know that just from looking at the text? Do disturbed people use a special font to warn others it isn't a joke? When the Virginia Mall shooter posted on 4chan he was going to do it people just laughed at him and egged him on, until of course it was discovered that it wasn't a joke at all.
Because he isn't being censored by the government. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences, or that all speech is protected. I doubt much will come of this, other than using it to gather a few hits on a website using an outrageous title to get attention. Once the woman called the police and told them that a threat was made they can't ignore it and have to look into it. Imagine the fallout if they dismissed it without looking into it and something happened? The article reads more like an op-ed than an investigation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JWhex wrote: The people that need a damn filter are the ones that cannot tell some kid on the web is being a kid from someone that is a real threat.
And pray tell how do you know that just from looking at the text? Do disturbed people use a special font to warn others it isn't a joke? When the Virginia Mall shooter posted on 4chan he was going to do it people just laughed at him and egged him on, until of course it was discovered that it wasn't a joke at all.
You do that by conducting a competent criminal investigation before you arrest him and box your self into a political corner.
1Did he have a history of violence
2 Any aressts at all
3 Finish high school?
4 Threaten family, friends or others
5 Have ready access to firearms?
Not that hard of an investigation unless you are a moron, actually.
There have been people that didn't tick off numbers 1-4 of that checklist and still done horrible things. As far as the cops are concerned, they don't "know" he's joking.
It was 2 months after sandy hook, and apparently the original comment didn't have any "lol's" or "jk's". A lot of people were paranoid. Of course the police are going to arrest him. Read that original comment he made again. To you or me, we think "yeah that's sarcasm", but in legal terms, he just made an outright threat to kill a bunch of children.
I don't think he'll go to jail, but hopefully he learned his lesson. People who "joke" about killing the president have been arrested in the same way many times.
What I want to know is what the heck was some lady from Canada doing watching two nerds argue over LoL. Do you guys really have nothing better to do up there?
the Carter household is located close to a local elementary school
This part immediately roused up my instincts and caused me to fetch a big bag of salt from the cupboard to sprinkle the entire article with.
Oh, noez, he LIVES CLOSE TO A SCHOOL!! ...one, exactly how are we defining "close"? Two, excluding those of us in rural locations (and we don't know if it's the case here), who DOESN'T live close to a school? Being in a *fairly* large UK town (which of course is smaller than your average large US town), there's about 15-odd schools within 5 miles of here. You can't even set foot in the town without being "close" to at least one of them.
Someone posted in an internet forum. Which means he has connection to the internet. Which means he watched porn. Which means he visited a site wwhose content violates copyright law. Which means he is a criminal!
Considering the number of schools that have been shot up by people, and the fact there is a law against saying what he did say, I am not too surprised he would be investigated.
I do think it is a bit of an over-reaction, though. A police caution would be a more suitable punishment for a silly teenager than eight years.
Who is familiar with Skrillexes song "Kill everybody"
At one point the song just says "I want to kill everybody in the world" over and over.
I was listenin to the album while walking to class, I took the headphones of when i got to the hall. but my phone somehow skipped to that song. The song got to the point i mentioned and played it outloud.
The second to the dean of the department came up to me after class and asked me to his office, said i was in trouble for making threats. When the dean came by I explained to him. The dean then yelled at the vice dean for being an idiot.
If they sent people to prison for making immature asses out of themselves online....
Seriously, recently people were basically advocating on this website to go to someone's home and literally beat them but I haven't heard of anyone being arrested over it. Meanwhile this kid says something OTT and *poof* prison for him.
However, I'm going to assume he has a massive friend list on his facebook. In getting that friend list he picked up a snitch. Let that be a lesson to you children, don't friend people who aren't, well, your friends.
A friend of mine says he isn't sure what disturbs him more. A kid threatening to eat children's hearts, or a Canadian woman who hunted him down over a face book comment from a person she doesn't know in the slightest XD
What's even scarier are the countless real threats that go unpunished every day.
Recently in the news were some pastors who advocated the killing of homosexuals. Others who advocate killing abortion doctors, etc. but a loud-mouth kid goes to jail.
agnosto wrote: What's even scarier are the countless real threats that go unpunished every day.
Recently in the news were some pastors who advocated the killing of homosexuals. Others who advocate killing abortion doctors, etc. but a loud-mouth kid goes to jail.
Dude, there's only so many canadian ladies out there, you can't ask them to do all the work, they also have to look after us.
agnosto wrote: What's even scarier are the countless real threats that go unpunished every day.
Recently in the news were some pastors who advocated the killing of homosexuals. Others who advocate killing abortion doctors, etc. but a loud-mouth kid goes to jail.
Dude, there's only so many canadian ladies out there, you can't ask them to do all the work, they also have to look after us.
Meh, make an example of him. Might make one or two of the other tools think twice. Probably doubt that, and it is an over reaction, but still its not as if this is the first case of this (or at least over the past few years in the UK people have been being served time for internet comments. Then again the UK is touchier about these things I suppose).
Wyrmalla wrote: Meh, make an example of him. Might make one or two of the other tools think twice. Probably doubt that, and it is an over reaction, but still its not as if this is the first case of this (or at least over the past few years in the UK people have been being served time for internet comments. Then again the UK is touchier about these things I suppose).
Reminds me of a joke: Why have you never met a rude Englishman? Because they're all in jail.
Wyrmalla wrote: Meh, make an example of him. Might make one or two of the other tools think twice. Probably doubt that, and it is an over reaction, but still its not as if this is the first case of this (or at least over the past few years in the UK people have been being served time for internet comments. Then again the UK is touchier about these things I suppose).
Reminds me of a joke: Why have you never met a rude Englishman? Because they're all in jail.
If you're in the public eye in the UK and post anything on your twitter that can be deemed offensive there's sure to be a scandal over it. I think a couple of footballers have gone done over stupid comments lately on their social media pages, as did the head of the youth police force (or whatever bureaucratic name their calling themselves) lost her position over it. During the riots people were being given sentences for posting stuff like "wouldn't it be fun if we all rioted here, lol" too, so I guess its now got a clause in the law here. However, unless its relevant to whatever people are concerned about at the time I doubt that people are actually prosecuted for their stupid comments. Ie if there's riots then we apprehend people making comments about starting riots, if there's been a string of sexual assaults then they're be a new campaign to stop making such comments "socially acceptable" or whatever. ...That is until the next fad appears. =P
Kid said something dumb, and the cops were right to investigate it. HOWEVER: I'm pretty sure the part about eating still beating hearts is probably enough to prove it wasn't entirely serious. Kid should get some community service hours, but 8 years in jail? If he wasn't a psychopath before, he will be after 8 years in the big house for a moment of sarcasm.
'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.’”
I'm going to say I might have made similar comments over a 22 year span of "Hooah" experience. Though I never said I was messed up in the head.
Doesn't some states or is it federal law? Not sure which. 48 hours observation for a mental health check or something to that effect? 19 year old kid probably went even more "nuts" by vocalizing how much the situation he is in all jacked up. Using lots and lots of colorful metaphors and acting tough? Granted the 19 year olds I deal with are more mature and see the "easy out" option I give them and take the physical punishment I deal out like a Hardcore Paratrooper he/she is.
timetowaste85 wrote: If he wasn't a psychopath before, he will be after 8 years in the big house for a moment of sarcasm.
It's just a show of force. You then get him to plea bargain down to a "reasonable" punishment, like a year in prison.
He then admits his guilt, reinforcing that there is "guilt" to be had, the news reflects that "justice" has been served, the people go on seeing the punishment for flippant comments, and he's still undesirable enough in the real world after a year of prison such that he will likely become desperate enough to survive to resort to other acts of crime, and then they can say, "Hey, we were right about that kid: Bad apple. We caught him again. If we had a harsher first-time offender punishment, maybe he would have learned his lesson."
So, all those times I did jokes about me being the pedo-bear (I have the nickname of panda in real life... Long-story) when talking to my friends and saying the usual jokes could get me to jail because I obviously am a sexual predator that's after children?
Wow, the world just went full "slow" (aah, dakkadakka filter ) when I wasn't looking.
Just on practical level this seems to be more trouble than it's worth. With this kind of thing showing up against his name this kid isn't ever going to get a job. No matter if through services for the poor, or future crimes this kid is now basically guaranteed to be putting pressure on the system for the next 60-odd years because of the decisions to peruse this so aggressively. I get you just can't ignore credible threats but unless we're missing a big piece of information here it really wasn't worth flushing a potentially productive member of society down the toilet permanently. Oh well. Guess I can just be glad i got my teen years done with before the the stupid things you say on the internet got this much scrutiny.
Building on Chongara's last point, I am actually very thankful the internet wasn't really that much of a thing when I was a teen. I shudder to think what kind of depraved, jaded monster I would be if I had access to the vast gamut of smut the internet has to offer during my formative years.
I don't see how it serves the public interest to prosecute this. It clearly wasn't serious, an investigation was fine. An investigation should be led by common sense to find that there was no real threat, and no attempt to make a hoax threat (like phoning in a hoax bomb scare). A simple warning to consider their words more wisely would have been sufficient. I'm sure many of us have said things that went taken out of context wouldn't be far off what this boy said. He did qualify it with a 'jk' and 'lol', what more can you do to show that you're not making a literal threat? It prosecutors are going to ignore any context in which your comments are made we could all be in trouble for saying the slightest I'll considered thing.
Before declaring that the lad deserves 3 months or more, have a look around this forum. There are people on another thread here suggesting vigilante action and use of guns against a bad neighbour. Not being serious? Well it's only as serious as the threat this boy made.
I want you all to think back 8 years ago and see where you were and what you were doing. Then think about how long ago that was. That's how long this kid might be in PRISON for.
I've made a threat about a poptart blowing up a school (yes it was stupid but i was making an OBVIOUS joke to a friend) and got a slap on the wrist.
Now people have to fear what they say on the internet? Holy feth. It's one thing to find a website dedicated to planning an assassination or shooting and its another when your playing a fething video game which is filled with trolls who say gak like that all the time.
I'd bet none of you have been in prison before and the people I've talked to who have been there really iterate that its "No fairy tale land"
TLDR:
The kid deserves no punishment at all. Bottom fething line. Why? So people don't have to fear the government as much as they do right now.
I admit I missed the part about him being in jail for three months the first time, and that is really stupid. I can understand having to pick him up as part of investigating the incident, but three months in prison makes no sense. The only reason for that would be if there is more to the story, which considering the main perspective we are given here is the father's recounting of what his son said, which isn't exactly the word of Solomon. If there is more to it I imagine we'll find out, if not he should sue the city.
In the current climate where a kindergardner gets suspended because the way he eats his Pop Tart makes his teacher think it looks like a gun I'm not surprised. Saddened, but not surprised.
Is the maximum sentencing. For threathening to commit multiple murders. Yes, everyone knows that his threats should not be put on the same level as the ones we receive from organizations with means and intent of accomplishing them. But that's how law works ; it finds a category under which is can fit your actions, and then judge them according to the legal standard of that category. Arguing against a legal action based on the maximum sentence the crime could get is nothing but demagoguery.
The kid deserves no punishment at all.
And you'd know that how, given that we were only provided with hearsay from the criminal's father?
Kovnik Obama wrote: And you'd know that how, given that we were only provided with hearsay from the criminal's father?
Criminal? I wasn't under the impression that he'd been convicted yet. Strange for you to lecture another community member about the legal process, and then disregard it yourself
Relapse wrote: In the current climate where a kindergardner gets suspended because the way he eats his Pop Tart makes his teacher think it looks like a gun I'm not surprised. Saddened, but not surprised.
Kovnik Obama wrote: And you'd know that how, given that we were only provided with hearsay from the criminal's father?
Criminal? I wasn't under the impression that he'd been convicted yet. Strange for you to lecture another community member about the legal process, and then disregard it yourself
Relapse wrote: In the current climate where a kindergardner gets suspended because the way he eats his Pop Tart makes his teacher think it looks like a gun I'm not surprised. Saddened, but not surprised.
The fact that something like the pastry act even has a reason for existing makes me want to facepalm so hard I can taste my elbow.
I don't even know what it would be like for kids wanting to play army on the play ground. They'd probably be taken from their homes and put into reform school, what with all the pretend shooting, blowing up, and knifing of each other.
Relapse wrote: In the current climate where a kindergardner gets suspended because the way he eats his Pop Tart makes his teacher think it looks like a gun I'm not surprised. Saddened, but not surprised.
The fact that something like the pastry act even has a reason for existing makes me want to facepalm so hard I can taste my elbow.
I don't even know what it would be like for kids wanting to play army on the play ground. They'd probably be taken from their homes and put into reform school, what with all the pretend shooting, blowing up, and knifing of each other.
And playing cowboys and indians in this age of PC hell would probably see the kids sentenced to a reeducation/work camp until they're 18.
Relapse wrote: In the current climate where a kindergardner gets suspended because the way he eats his Pop Tart makes his teacher think it looks like a gun I'm not surprised. Saddened, but not surprised.
The fact that something like the pastry act even has a reason for existing makes me want to facepalm so hard I can taste my elbow.
I don't even know what it would be like for kids wanting to play army on the play ground. They'd probably be taken from their homes and put into reform school, what with all the pretend shooting, blowing up, and knifing of each other.
And playing cowboys and indians in this age of PC hell would probably see the kids sentenced to a reeducation/work camp until they're 18.
It wouldn't surprise me to see that pop up in the news.
If he's still in jail and not out on bail something else is going on.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JWhex wrote: The people that need a damn filter are the ones that cannot tell some kid on the web is being a kid from someone that is a real threat.
Fething morons
How do you know he's not a real threat? next thing you're telling me, people in college and aspiring olympic boxers could make bombs out of pressure cookers. Crazy stuff like that never happens.
Frazzled wrote: If he's still in jail and not out on bail something else is going on.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JWhex wrote: The people that need a damn filter are the ones that cannot tell some kid on the web is being a kid from someone that is a real threat.
Fething morons
How do you know he's not a real threat? next thing you're telling me, people in college and aspiring olympic boxers could make bombs out of pressure cookers. Crazy stuff like that never happens.
This clearly means we should automatically assume EVERYONE is a terrorist.
Seriously, that kid needs to sue the feth out of those who arrested him. This is beyond the pale.
Thank you
It was a needless situation that should have been handled better by the trained law enforcement officer(s), and the District Attorney. The fact that such a ridiculous case almost made it to trial is a shocking indictment against all those mentioned.
(edited because some idiot thought he was replying to a different thread )
Right now they are stupid because they arrested him.
But if he would have done something then other people would call them stupid for now arresting him.
The kid is the stupid person here, plain and simple, and the Internet has only made people stupider. We continually forget that the Internet is an open forum that reaches the world, and we need to act accordingly. Saying crap like be did would have been fine in a small group of friends, or even between two kids fighting in a playground.
But saying crap like that online, in the open for everyone to see, is no different than dragging that person to the police station and threatening them in front of the cops there. In the end they will see it and will have to do something about it.
If you are not smart enough to realize that open online communication on Facebook is not the same as a private conversation between two people, then you deserve the consequences.
If the cop is standing nex to you and hears you make threats, then they will act. If you leave your stupid comments in an open forum with your identity attached for cops to see, they will act.
Realize that being an idiot on Facebook is the same as being an idiot in real life and that you will face the same consequences. "It's the Internet" is no excuse for being an idiot.
d-usa wrote: Right now they are stupid because they arrested him.
But if he would have done something then other people would call them stupid for now arresting him.
The kid is the stupid person here, plain and simple, and the Internet has only made people stupider. We continually forget that the Internet is an open forum that reaches the world, and we need to act accordingly. Saying crap like be did would have been fine in a small group of friends, or even between two kids fighting in a playground.
But saying crap like that online, in the open for everyone to see, is no different than dragging that person to the police station and threatening them in front of the cops there. In the end they will see it and will have to do something about it.
If you are not smart enough to realize that open online communication on Facebook is not the same as a private conversation between two people, then you deserve the consequences.
If the cop is standing nex to you and hears you make threats, then they will act. If you leave your stupid comments in an open forum with your identity attached for cops to see, they will act.
Realize that being an idiot on Facebook is the same as being an idiot in real life and that you will face the same consequences. "It's the Internet" is no excuse for being an idiot.
Although I think the kid could have used better judgement, there are innumerable cases where threats were made against people under far more dire seeming circumstances and the cops just stood back and said they couldn't legaly do anything until something was physically attempted. The reason for that response is just because of things like this case where they open themselves up for a law suit.
What's interesting is that it is an arrestable offense in all 50 states that I know of.
daedalus wrote: But people have been saying emotionally charged stupid gak online since the days of newsgroups and BBSs. That's not new.
Arresting people for the emotionally charged stupid gak they say online? That is new, and why some of us are surprised/bothered.
Same logic with piracy, really. Doesn't mean the complaints are in any form legitimate.
Relapse wrote: Although I think the kid could have used better judgement, there are innumerable cases where threats were made against people under far more dire seeming circumstances and the cops just stood back and said they couldn't legaly do anything until something was physically attempted.
daedalus wrote: But people have been saying emotionally charged stupid gak online since the days of newsgroups and BBSs. That's not new.
Arresting people for the emotionally charged stupid gak they say online? That is new, and why some of us are surprised/bothered.
Same logic with piracy, really. Doesn't mean the complaints are in any form legitimate.
Relapse wrote: Although I think the kid could have used better judgement, there are innumerable cases where threats were made against people under far more dire seeming circumstances and the cops just stood back and said they couldn't legaly do anything until something was physically attempted.
Then they are terrible cops.
I agree after seeing first hand the frustration people have in dealing with the situation of recieving harrasment and death threats that the police don't move on.
daedalus wrote: But people have been saying emotionally charged stupid gak online since the days of newsgroups and BBSs. That's not new.
Arresting people for the emotionally charged stupid gak they say online? That is new, and why some of us are surprised/bothered.
Same logic with piracy, really. Doesn't mean the complaints are in any form legitimate.
Alternatively, we have the thread where the cops have investigated a dakkanaught's complains about his neighbor violation of noise ordinances and drug laws, only to then do nothing.
daedalus wrote: Alternatively, we have the thread where the cops have investigated a dakkanaught's complains about his neighbor violation of noise ordinances and drug laws, only to then do nothing.
Enforcement of the law is strange.
It can be. In regards to the smell, we'd have to check and see if odour is a sufficient element to allow a search of the residence, in that State. I know it's not here. Not even for searching a car.
Anyway, he's even lucky they showed up. In Montreal, calling a cop over a noise complaint will get you laughed at.
Even w/o the internet... it still happened. I remember in my HS a kid hung himself because he was bullied. No one kid was arrested.
This is still all sorts of wrong D.
Whenever people rage about "people getting in trouble because they said stuff on the internet" they should simply ask themselves. "Should people be able to yell this in the street next to a cop without getting in trouble?" If the answer is yes, then more power to you. But if you can't say it in real life without getting in trouble, then why should you be able to say it online?
I'm saying that there are no concrete laws that is understood by everyone who shouldn't bully.
If you notice in those links you posted, the charges were either reduced to probation, appealed or dropped.
Even w/o the internet... it still happened. I remember in my HS a kid hung himself because he was bullied. No one kid was arrested.
This is still all sorts of wrong D.
Whenever people rage about "people getting in trouble because they said stuff on the internet" they should simply ask themselves. "Should people be able to yell this in the street next to a cop without getting in trouble?" If the answer is yes, then more power to you. But if you can't say it in real life without getting in trouble, then why should you be able to say it online?
If the police can determine imminent danger, they yeah they should be stopped. But, if it was said in jest, sarcasm or whathaveyou... then, no... everyone need to get thicker skin.
What this case here is fething close to "thought policing".
It has really nothing to do with "thought policing".
Don't say stupid gak online and stupid gak won't happen to you.
If the police didn't do anything and the kid would have hurt somebody then the exact same group of people on here would be complaining about how the cops won't do their jobs, won't enforce laws already on the books, etc etc etc...
d-usa wrote: It has really nothing to do with "thought policing".
Don't say stupid gak online and stupid gak won't happen to you.
He's a kid... he's a dumb gak kid, who said something stupid.
We were all dumb gak kids...
Does he really need to go to prison for saying a bunch of words?
If the police didn't do anything and the kid would have hurt somebody then the exact same group of people on here would be complaining about how the cops won't do their jobs, won't enforce laws already on the books, etc etc etc...
Erm... no. There's really no way the police can stop something like that from a facebook post.
1) There's not enough man-power to police that
2) At worst, Facebook should've banned the kid from posting on Facebook. THAT'S the appropriate consequence. Not going to fething jail.
d-usa wrote: Everybody wants tougher laws with more severe punishment.
People just don't want them to apply in situations that they could apply to themselves or people they care about.
Sure, if people are truly guilty.
Anybody with a brain in their head could see that the threat was not a serious one.
To treat the comment seriously enough to warrant jail time just lowers themselves to the same level of stupidity as the loser who said it.
I agree we should investigate all potential threats, and not waste time on the clearly false ones. I would accuse the investigators of wasting tax money on frivolous investigations.
What they should have done after receiving the tip and seeing the facts is to make a phone call and tell the kid not to say such things. Will most certainly scare the *#$^ out of him and not waste any more of the investigator's time than the situation called for.
Heck, it might clean up LoL a little for the players to know for a fact they are being watched.
d-usa wrote: It has really nothing to do with "thought policing".
Don't say stupid gak online and stupid gak won't happen to you.
He's a kid... he's a dumb gak kid, who said something stupid.
We were all dumb gak kids...
Does he really need to go to prison for saying a bunch of words?
If a dumb kid smokes weed, does he not face legal charges because he is a dumb kid?
If a dumb kid makes a thread, should he not face legal charges because he is a dumb kid?
If a dumb kid throws a rock at a car, should he not face legal charges because he is a dumb kid?
If the police didn't do anything and the kid would have hurt somebody then the exact same group of people on here would be complaining about how the cops won't do their jobs, won't enforce laws already on the books, etc etc etc...
Erm... no. There's really no way the police can stop something like that from a facebook post.
1) There's not enough man-power to police that
Funny, the fact that cops arrested him seems to suggest otherwise. Somebody was concerned enough to contact the police, the police acted on that complaint. They didn't respond to a random facebook post, they responed to an actual person complaining about the facebook post. This wasn't the police tapping into the NSA database to look for stupid kids posting stupid kids, so it's not a manpower issue.
2) At worst, Facebook should've banned the kid from posting on Facebook. THAT'S the appropriate consequence. Not going to fething jail.
Facebook is not the police. You think the police should have ignored a complaint and told a private company to ban someone?
d-usa wrote: Everybody wants tougher laws with more severe punishment.
People just don't want them to apply in situations that they could apply to themselves or people they care about.
Sure, if people are truly guilty.
Anybody with a brain in their head could see that the threat was not a serious one.
To treat the comment seriously enough to warrant jail time just lowers themselves to the same level of stupidity as the loser who said it.
I agree we should investigate all potential threats, and not waste time on the clearly false ones. I would accuse the investigators of wasting tax money on frivolous investigations.
What they should have done after receiving the tip and seeing the facts is to make a phone call and tell the kid not to say such things. Will most certainly scare the *#$^ out of him and not waste any more of the investigator's time than the situation called for.
Heck, it might clean up LoL a little for the players to know for a fact they are being watched.
True, there is a middle ground between what happened and people saying "it's stupid stuff on the internet, cops shouldn't have done anything".
I'd have had much more sympathy for the Police's reaction had the kid made a credible threat, such as "I'm going to shoot up School X", or, "I'm going to shoot up the school at the end of my street".
Saying you're going to shoot up a school and eat hearts is just a pathetic attempt at grand standing and one-up manship that should have been viewed in the wider context of two idiots trying to troll each other online.
I'm truly fortunate that not everything I, as a child, flippantly said out of anger has been recorded in a public venue. I think the same could be said for a lot of people.
Were that to be the case, I would expect we would see more ex-convict children than we do now. Sometimes, I wonder how that will haunt them as adults.
If a dumb kid smokes weed, does he not face legal charges because he is a dumb kid?
If a dumb kid makes a thread, should he not face legal charges because he is a dumb kid?
If a dumb kid throws a rock at a car, should he not face legal charges because he is a dumb kid?
None of these equate any where remotely close to what the kid jokingly said online.
If the police didn't do anything and the kid would have hurt somebody then the exact same group of people on here would be complaining about how the cops won't do their jobs, won't enforce laws already on the books, etc etc etc...
Erm... no. There's really no way the police can stop something like that from a facebook post.
1) There's not enough man-power to police that
Funny, the fact that cops arrested him seems to suggest otherwise. Somebody was concerned enough to contact the police, the police acted on that complaint. They didn't respond to a random facebook post, they responed to an actual person complaining about the facebook post. This wasn't the police tapping into the NSA database to look for stupid kids posting stupid kids, so it's not a manpower issue.
And you don't see the issue here??? o.O
2) At worst, Facebook should've banned the kid from posting on Facebook. THAT'S the appropriate consequence. Not going to fething jail.
Facebook is not the police. You think the police should have ignored a complaint and told a private company to ban someone?
You're wrong there...
Facebook is NOT a public forum. They can and DO monitor their content.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: Yeah, this particular case was a non-event. At most, deserving of a phone call from the friendly local FBI agent.
I would also have called the canadian lady back and told her to not overreact over what was very clearly a donkey-cave being a donkey-cave.
"Report all suspicious behavior to your local Gestapo office"
I can see a report. What I don't get is that, he's still in jail right? That means 1) he's been charged with something serious; 2) and either no one's bailed him out, or its a big bail. There's more here than the report.
"Report all suspicious behavior to your local Gestapo office"
I can see a report. What I don't get is that, he's still in jail right? That means 1) he's been charged with something serious; 2) and either no one's bailed him out, or its a big bail. There's more here than the report.
I'm not sure that they are too related. That person clearly wanted to cause fear. The teen in this case was just making a dark sarcastic comment.
He also didn't put lol jk at the end
It makes a world of difference.
The two cases are similar in that they involve people arrested for making violent comments on social media. The difference is that the British man went to a lot of trouble to issue threats, whereas the American teenager made a couple of ill-judged remarks.
I don't think putting "lol jk" at the end of what may appear to be a threat makes it not a threat, however the teenager is being treated much more harshly than the British man for what seems to be a lesser offence -- I don't know why.
Jihadin wrote:I'm feeling no remorse for him.....nope...none at all...
We don't generally consider fleeting, trollish comments made by teenagers with no capacity, inclination, or wherewithal to actually execute said trollish, fleeting comments to be a capital offense in this country. Especially when, of course, he hasn't been convicted of anything.
As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure that we aren't generally inclined to levy punishments that are excessive or so disproportionate to the crime they would be considered cruel - you know, I'm sure I read that somewhere.
I don't have a problem with that Canadian referring the matter to police. I don't have a problem with the police investigating - it would be a failure on their part not to. When that chain of good work breaks down, obviously, when they decided not to exercise some common sense and prosecutorial discretion.
So the kid gets out and now is probably scarred for the rest of his life and probably has a record because of "words" in the chat of an online game. Here, Penny Arcade, please tell us how you feel about people going to prison because they said dumb gak online:
(Spoilered because of three "bad" words)
Spoiler:
This is ridiculous, again, I should be in prison, most online gamers should be in prison.
Yeah I'd probably be looking at way more time if this happened to me...
Actually what he said was relatively tame to some of the stuff I've seen... many of us have seen. The only difference is that apparently somewhere along the line someone had a slight disconnection with reality.
purplefood wrote: Yeah I'd probably be looking at way more time if this happened to me...
Actually what he said was relatively tame to some of the stuff I've seen... many of us have seen. The only difference is that apparently somewhere along the line someone had a slight disconnection with reality.
I was a pirate on EVE Online, if I lived in the US I would be facing the death penalty!
purplefood wrote: Yeah I'd probably be looking at way more time if this happened to me...
Actually what he said was relatively tame to some of the stuff I've seen... many of us have seen. The only difference is that apparently somewhere along the line someone had a slight disconnection with reality.
I was a pirate on EVE Online, if I lived in the US I would be facing the death penalty!
Sounds like we have a candidate foe extraordinary rendition
Not that I know how bail brokers work, but my impression is that the individual buying the bail only has to put up a portion and the bail company covers the rest. The bail company keeps the portion as profit and hopes most people don't skip.
the bail is returned when the trial is over and bail wasn't skipped out on.
purplefood wrote: True...
That said the bail is set disgustingly high...
The real baffling part is that it was initially 250k which is still high. But they decided that the jail he was in didn't have jurisdiction, transferred him to another jail, where the a new judge promptly doubled his bail.
Maybe they have an automatic doubling of bail if they move the accused to another jurisdiction. Moving to a new place could be seen as increasing the flight risk.
purplefood wrote: True...
That said the bail is set disgustingly high...
The real baffling part is that it was initially 250k which is still high. But they decided that the jail he was in didn't have jurisdiction, transferred him to another jail, where the a new judge promptly doubled his bail.
Is that normal?
No, the real baffling part is that it has even reached this stage.
eh DJ
)
you never know how this could be read.
