For the record, the Court did not charge the student with terrorism. He was charged and convicted of “making terroristic threats” which is an entirely different beast.
You’re overenthusiastic in your desire to hijack threads for purposes other than that of discussing the OP. Please go away. :wally
I doubt it. The young man was convicted of making terroristic threats, true, and I suppose an enthusiastic recounter could twist that into “terrorist.” But since the law under which he was convicted was a Pennsylvania state law, not the Patriot Act, I think any attempt to claim relevance to the Patriot Act would be sorely misplaced.
After reading the article, some things still don’t add up. The article claims that the Molson shirt was actually cited as anti American terroristic evidence? That does not sound right. It goes further to claim he himself reported the wall scrawled threats (along with other people) and was ignored, but when the “bounty” was posted, someone turned him in? Again, something does not sound right. If things are as the cited article claims, he may have a very good shot at an appeal.
An appeal must be based on errors at trial.
You may not appeal simply because you think the evidence should have been weighed differently.
As I read the article, the Molson shirt was not evidence adduced at trial:
That’s why I think he was more bragging/attention whoring than anything else. The message got no attention, so he pointed it out.
I don’t know enough (obviously) to take either side. So, I’ll just sit on the sidelines and see what develops (if anything).