[quote]ElbowStrike wrote:
There are very few crimes that warrant 8 years imprisonment. This is not one of them.
If any person here feels that 8 years in prison is in any way appropriate for the non-crime that this person “committed”, you need to shoot yourself. You need to shoot yourself and you need to do it now before you do something harmful, like reproduce. Know that you are beyond stupid and have no place in a civilized society and you never will. Shoot yourself and shoot yourself now, you stupid, stupid person.[/quote]
Encouraging suicide is illegal. I am taking your I.P and I will report you to the police.
[quote]CroatianRage wrote:
Answer me this, had he said that comment not “in light of recent situations” would they have done the same thing? [/quote]
Irrelevant. Speech does not exist in a vacuum; there is a built-in context to everything we say because of the world around us. To ignore that your words will be interpreted differently based on the world you live in and the events that have transpired in it is to ignore reality.
That being said, I don’t know how I feel about this particular case. Need to think about it some more.[/quote]
If something elicits a strong emotional response it isn’t more or less illegal. We can’t just start putting people in jail because they say things that hurt our feelings because of the timing.
[/quote]
Hurt feelings isn’t the issue. Pretending that world events don’t have an impact on the way your words are interpreted and responded to is not reality. You may wish it were the case, but wishes aren’t going to protect your ass in court. In the same way that you’d be treated much differently if you started talking about explosives and Allah in the middle of an airport post-911, you will be treated differently if you openly talk about shooting up a school full of kids now, post-Newtown. Before each event, nobody really considered the possibility of such things actually taking place; it’s not until they’ve already happened that we think to respond to the threat of them occurring. You can cry about how unfair that is all day long, but it’s human nature and it’s not changing any time soon.
So the issue in this case is: how is law enforcement expected to respond to a reported threat made over the internet? Obviously they can’t and shouldn’t investigate every little thing, and this is probably one of the things that shouldn’t have even been investigated, let alone prosecuted. The question itself is an interesting one though. When is a threat a threat?
Edit: That guy’s video is misleading, after doing some research that kid posted it on facebook not in the game. It was after a game of League of Legends. [/quote]
Well, that makes so much sense. I Was wondering how on earth his in-game mates found out about his address.
I understand precautions need to be taken regarding any kind of messages that may come out like a threat. However, they should have investigated what type of person the kid was and, how serious of a threat he actually was. Can’t believe he is still in jail.
Zimmercunt killed an unarmed kid and never spent so many nights in a cell. The FBI was alerted by the HOME COUNTRY of the older Boston bomber, and yet they failed to take him seriously.
But this young man is facing 8 years in prison and, hasn’t even killed anyone?
[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:
?In light of recent situations, statements such as the one Justin made are taken seriously,? said an Austin police detective in a statement.
I suppose he’s referring to the Newtown shooting? An eloquent way of admitting they have a mob mentality and they believe starting witchhunts is acceptable after tragedies like Newtown[/quote]
Mob mentality and witch hunt?
The guy said, in writing, that he was going to shoot up a school and there have been a few school shootings.
Screw this guy, maybe he’ll think twice next time before saying he’s insane and is going to shoot a bunch of kids.[/quote]
You failed to mention that he added "lol’ and “jk” at the end of it. Obviously you shouldn’t ever say that kind of thing, but 8 years, gtfo, give him a fine and some community service.[/quote]
I agree. 8 years is way too harsh imo but you do have to address the statement. He was a moron for joking like that.[/quote]
I do not think this kid deserves 8 years in prison and there is no way he will actually serve that but “joking” or not you can’t threaten the lives of countless kids and not expect repercussions considering the recent school shootings.
He deserves, in my opinion, a little bit of jail time while this trial plays out and a fine/probation.
A month or two would be max IMO. [/quote]
He already spent his 19th birthday in jail. That’s more than punishment enough.
[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:
?In light of recent situations, statements such as the one Justin made are taken seriously,? said an Austin police detective in a statement.
I suppose he’s referring to the Newtown shooting? An eloquent way of admitting they have a mob mentality and they believe starting witchhunts is acceptable after tragedies like Newtown[/quote]
Mob mentality and witch hunt?
The guy said, in writing, that he was going to shoot up a school and there have been a few school shootings.
Screw this guy, maybe he’ll think twice next time before saying he’s insane and is going to shoot a bunch of kids.[/quote]
You failed to mention that he added "lol’ and “jk” at the end of it. Obviously you shouldn’t ever say that kind of thing, but 8 years, gtfo, give him a fine and some community service.[/quote]
I agree. 8 years is way too harsh imo but you do have to address the statement. He was a moron for joking like that.[/quote]
Address them all then. Address the real threats.
[quote]CroatianRage wrote:
Answer me this, had he said that comment not “in light of recent situations” would they have done the same thing? [/quote]
Irrelevant. Speech does not exist in a vacuum; there is a built-in context to everything we say because of the world around us. To ignore that your words will be interpreted differently based on the world you live in and the events that have transpired in it is to ignore reality.
That being said, I don’t know how I feel about this particular case. Need to think about it some more.[/quote]
If something elicits a strong emotional response it isn’t more or less illegal. We can’t just start putting people in jail because they say things that hurt our feelings because of the timing.
[/quote]
Hurt feelings isn’t the issue. Pretending that world events don’t have an impact on the way your words are interpreted and responded to is not reality. You may wish it were the case, but wishes aren’t going to protect your ass in court. In the same way that you’d be treated much differently if you started talking about explosives and Allah in the middle of an airport post-911, you will be treated differently if you openly talk about shooting up a school full of kids now, post-Newtown. Before each event, nobody really considered the possibility of such things actually taking place; it’s not until they’ve already happened that we think to respond to the threat of them occurring. You can cry about how unfair that is all day long, but it’s human nature and it’s not changing any time soon.
So the issue in this case is: how is law enforcement expected to respond to a reported threat made over the internet? Obviously they can’t and shouldn’t investigate every little thing, and this is probably one of the things that shouldn’t have even been investigated, let alone prosecuted. The question itself is an interesting one though. When is a threat a threat?[/quote]
The issue is that people need to stop being stupid. The court’s opinion of what was said shouldn’t change at all based on recent events. The person either said what they said, or they didn’t. Law enforcement is always going to overreact to things, but the court should be the level head in all of this. He should have been arrested by some overbearing cop, then almost immediately released once someone who isn’t stupid found out what was happening.
I’d like someone to track down this guy and destroy his camera…did anyone actually watch this sht? I couldnt stop but now I’m full on raging. I hate people like that!!
[quote]Steel Nation wrote:
When is a threat a threat?[/quote]
When there is at least some evidence that the person might mean intend to go through with it.
People say things like “I’m going to kill you” all the time. And often in angry situations where you could clearly find a motive. The internet is full of sick jokes, if this kid deserves to go to jail, you could probably find cause to jail half the country!
For people saying “well he shouldn’t have said that” or “8 years is a bit excessive”; first of all 8 years is completely fucking absurd, and second of all, I’ve heard worse joking around than that all over the goddamn place. Why aren’t those people being hauled off to jail? The kid even said he was kidding for Christ’s sake. This is what happens when creepy old cat ladies find the internet.
I know we have several Canadians on here. One of you go find this woman and throw her in Ct. Rock’s dungeon. Fucking hell. I literally feel less free in this country after reading about this.
Somebody show this lady 4chan. There were pages of joke threads literally right after the school shootings and after the Boston bombing and after every enormous tragedy. Those people didn’t even say they were kidding. Just the most disgusting comments and edited pictures as far as the eye could see. Wtf is going to happen to those people? Oh that’s right, nothing, because it’s totally fucking nuts to overreact this badly.
8 years for doing nothing is absurd.
Recent news article in Sweden mentions a guy who commited rape against kids, he only got 4 years…
Berlusconi got 7…
So 8 years for simply writing something is retarded.
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
At what point do we become accountable for all our actions? Including the internet?
I have no opinion on this honestly, just a thought about accountability for things said, done or “threatened”[/quote]
I see exactly what you’re saying. When I think about this, I focus less on being held accountable for actions and more on how we are defining actions in the first place. I don’t think a sarcastic insane remark to someone calling you insane after a LoL game constitutes any kind of “action”.
If he put it on facebook then the cops should have gone to his house and scared the shit out of him, not arrested him. The cops did this to me when I was little and my brother tricked me to prank call 911, it worked. His dad should then probably smack him around a bit and take away his internet. The results from that have to be infinitely better than sending the kid to jail, even if it’s for a minute.
I still don’t get exactly what happened. Did someone actually track him down or was it on his facebook? The assumed anonymity of the internet allows people to say some pretty depraved stuff. Putting it on facebook, however, is claiming it, which is fucked up in this situation.
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
At what point do we become accountable for all our actions? Including the internet?
I have no opinion on this honestly, just a thought about accountability for things said, done or “threatened”[/quote]
I see exactly what you’re saying. When I think about this, I focus less on being held accountable for actions and more on how we are defining actions in the first place. I don’t think a sarcastic insane remark to someone calling you insane after a LoL game constitutes any kind of “action”.[/quote]
I agree, however if you are a PO or district attorney, how do you differentiate between sarcastic and true?
How do you confirm if you have a lunatic or a selfish little shit kid?
I know this case is the extreme, I am just curious how do you make that “line in the sand”?
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
At what point do we become accountable for all our actions? Including the internet?
I have no opinion on this honestly, just a thought about accountability for things said, done or “threatened”[/quote]
I see exactly what you’re saying. When I think about this, I focus less on being held accountable for actions and more on how we are defining actions in the first place. I don’t think a sarcastic insane remark to someone calling you insane after a LoL game constitutes any kind of “action”.[/quote]
I agree, however if you are a PO or district attorney, how do you differentiate between sarcastic and true?
How do you confirm if you have a lunatic or a selfish little shit kid?
I know this case is the extreme, I am just curious how do you make that “line in the sand”?[/quote]
Investigate further? I mean - why would you not look into this kid’s background? Does he have a gun? Did he have a basement full of bombs and ammo? An investigation should confirm it as BS talk, or did he actually have concrete plans - and the means (weapons) to carry them out?
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
At what point do we become accountable for all our actions? Including the internet?
I have no opinion on this honestly, just a thought about accountability for things said, done or “threatened”[/quote]
I see exactly what you’re saying. When I think about this, I focus less on being held accountable for actions and more on how we are defining actions in the first place. I don’t think a sarcastic insane remark to someone calling you insane after a LoL game constitutes any kind of “action”.[/quote]
I agree, however if you are a PO or district attorney, how do you differentiate between sarcastic and true?
How do you confirm if you have a lunatic or a selfish little shit kid?
I know this case is the extreme, I am just curious how do you make that “line in the sand”?[/quote]
Investigate further? I mean - why would you not look into this kid’s background? Does he have a gun? Did he have a basement full of bombs and ammo? An investigation should confirm it as BS talk, or did he actually have concrete plans - and the means (weapons) to carry them out?
Seems pretty simple. [/quote]
I agree, again I know shit about this case.
Is most of this discussion about the length of possible conviction or the fact he got arrested in the first place?
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
Is most of this discussion about the length of possible conviction or the fact he got arrested in the first place?[/quote]
He should never have been arrested in the first place. IMO he’s entitled to sue the shit out of somebody for this. But who knows. The more I read about this story the more I feel like I must be taking crazy pills. I didn’t realize this was possible.
I don’t think people understand what exactly goes on in the internet lol. I’ve played my share of online games. If this kid deserved to be arrested, then come get me too and like 100 other people I can think of just off the top of my fucking head.