Here are a couple cases where teens made idle threats while videogaming (Justin Carter and Josh Pillault). No evidence of guns, etc were found–but they both been sitting in jail for months.
Thoughts?
Give that you opened the thread for discussion, what are your thoughts?
I think, given the number of situations where people have made and carried out threats recently, it is prudent for law enforcement to investigate these kinds of things (whereas in the past they might not have).
However, investigation should include much more than just determining the accused actually articulated a threat. This might include determining whether s/he had the capability of carrying out said threat and took overt action in some form to carry it out (such as the purchase of a weapon, making travel plans, communicating the intent to follow through to others, etc.). In the absence of such additional undertaking, I think jailing and charging someone for these kinds of things is very much overkill. If we start jailing every single person who makes idle threats, we’re going to have to build more jails.
This is a horrendous overreach of law enforcement and waste of resources.
The first link is (to me) so clearly hyperbole, and of the form that I’m sure many of us have joked about in person.
“You’re so crazy”
“Oh, yeah. I’m so crazy I’m gonna do <crazy thing>. Ha ha”
Yeah, talking about doing crazy horrible things is in bad taste, but it’s hardly criminal.
The problem with treating things like this as real threats is that the actual incidence of people who shoot up schools is very very low, so almost all such “threats” (or misinterpreted poor-taste jokes) are going to be false alarms. It is truly horrible and tragic that innocent people are gunned down. I realize you’re not advocating the overreaction that took place in these cases. But I’m not convinced that even moderate police attention to things like this will make us any safer.
Notice that in the second case, the kid was apparently goaded into saying something. When you have a disproportionate response to this sort of behavior, that response can be used as a weapon by people in the know. It will be interesting to see how increases in personal recording and the increased use of electronic communications for casual conversations changes this sort of thing. Stuff that used to be passed off as bad jokes when told in person are now considered actionable threats when recorded.
I don’t disagree with that at all, but many of the instances that have occurred did so subsequent to something coming to the attention of law enforcement and them not even doing a cursory investigation of the threat or complaint. Given the current environment, any LEA that fails to investigate and then something happens, they’re going to be castigated politically and in the media. Plus, one never truly knows if it is an idle threat until someone starts digging to see if it is or not.
I think this is ridiculous. I can see locking him up for a few hours or maybe days but to lock him up for over 4 months is crazier than whatever he said.
While this is true, if the options are: A) holding law enforcement, and the courts, to a tough standard or B) giving up our basic right to free speech, then the choice is clear to me. The constant complaints from officials that they have to do SOMETHING else face criticism are just excuses, which should be criticized.
The trouble with threats such as these is that you don’t know they weren’t idle until after they are carried out. Still I think the fools uttering them shouldn’t have been locked up very long. A night or two to think things over should be more than enough.
An anonymous donor posted $500,000 bail for one of the suspects, Justin Carter:
http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/07/09/texas-19-year-old-in-prison-for-sarcastic-facebook-post/
This is what blows my mind. I can see the police and investigators dropping the ball and arresting this kid. But man, once they get everything sorted out, why in the fuck would the DA still want to prosecute this case?
Do they seriously think a jury will convict?
If you threaten in a public forum to kill people or commit terrorist acts, even if you were just joking, I think I’m OK with a night in jail and some police investigation. Tone doesn’t come across easily in text chat, and law enforcement shouldn’t necessarily give someone the benefit of the doubt if they’ve fulfilled the elements of a crime. But it should be pretty quick and easy to verify whether a threat was just a dumb joke, and it doesn’t sound like these guys are actually a potential problem. IMHO, the DA’s office is the right place for some judgment to come in that this isn’t worth pursuing.
Tone comes across even more easily in text chat, when you explicitly state what the tone is supposed to be.
For example:
"Yeah, stamping on people’s First Amendment rights is such a great fucking idea.
/sarcasm"
If you cannot recognise that this is sarcasm even when I say “By the way, this is sarcasm”, you are too stupid to be in law enforcement.
Zero years, zero months, zero days, not one single minute in prison is appropriate. If you think that the threats are serious, then some psychiatric care is appropriate.
I ask you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury-- How could hearts be still and beating? It does not! Make! Sense!
Except for when they are.
I think these punishments are pretty extreme, but if it causes other kids out there to think “Hey, maybe I shouldn’t be quite so loose with the threats while I’m running around on Call of Duty?” that can only be a good thing.
So if I text to someone “I’m going to put a gun to your head and pull the trigger and paint the wall with your brains” it’s ok as long as I put lol after it? The elements of terroristic threats or felony harassment do not include planning to carry it out. That would be conspiracy.
Yeah, I could see maybe a serious conversation with the kid but arresting? Prison? Get the fuck out of here with that.
One kid. One adult.
Before I completely form an opinion I’d have to look at a couple of unbiased sources. That is a Ronulan website. Government bad, Ron Paul saint.
There are two issues - well there are a LOT of issues, but two I want to mention. I am almost too flabbergasted to discuss either of them.
In the first linked case a woman in Canada alerted police in Texas about the “threat.”
Did she have a connection with the young man, or the school? Or was she just keenly eager to See Something and Say Something?
In the second case linked the investigation was (it seems to me) maliciously instigated. Can purposeful misdirection of expensive resources be prosecuted?
Loach, would it be too much trouble for you to write full sentences? I got what you meant but it took me a little bit. Also, Ronulan is an awkward adjective to denote libertarian in the style of Ron Paul. I assume it’s meant to mimic Romulan from Star Trek for some reason but I think Ron Paulian or something would be clearer.