Texas Teen Jailed "LoL" by Canadan mother that went to FAR!

[Poocannon]

Really sad what Murica has become if you can't even say/write what you want anymore, so paranoid that's not even funny anymore. 

Well so much about Murica and their so called Freedom lol.

[cDNA]

Going to jail for sarcasme.... what about going after real threats?

[LAwLz]

Holy shit. This is completely disgusting. He said something in an online in game chat and is now in jail (possibly for 8 damned years)? This makes me doubt the American justice system more than I've ever done before, sure I wouldn't say that, but it was clearly intended as a way for this kid to defend himself from a rude remark (he was called a psycho). People are so devastated by some shootings that had to take out there frustration on a random barely 'adult' (You don't have full adult rights until you're 21) in some video game? What has this country come to?

 

Edit: Youtube video responding to everyone in this thread's comments.

I skipped forward to see your reply to my comment (and skipped the other part of the video entirely) so if you're already explained yourself previously/later in the video, please link me to the timestamp.

 

 

So this is him arguing that it is not a joke

Straight to strawman? Really? My point was that you can't just threaten someone to go murder people in a school and then go "lol jk" and everything is totally fine. Just imagine if someone was out on the streets (another public forum just like a game) and shouted "I am insane and I will go to that school and kill everyone in it", then laughed, and then went "just kidding". That person would be arrested, just like this person was.

I never even implied that he made a serious comment, but you can't make a joke like that, especially not in a public forum right after the exact same thing has happened a months earlier.

 

 

I think he could have said worse things and still have been joking, so I don't think he deserves community service.

So do I understand you correctly... You don't think people should be punished if they make threats, as long as it is possible to make an even more horrible threat? Because that's exactly what you are saying, and I think that sounds completely illogical.

 

 

There should be no punishment for you talking about something like this, or you joking about this.

So there should be no punishment for saying that you are insane and that you will go massacre in a school, just shortly after a massacre in a school have occurred? I wouldn't even argue that he was making a joke, because a joke is suppose to cause amusement, and I really doubt that anyone found it amusing that he threatens to kill innocent children because he is insane.

 

His dad's defense is really bad as well:

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.

He is 19 years old for crying out loud, not a little kid who doesn't know what he is doing.

[everything count to life]

:(

[w_km]

Am I missing something?  How is this "Tech News and Reviews"???  Mods please delete or put in the proper place.

 

Second, OP please get the 'to vs. too' correct, and it's Canadian, no?...just annoying.

 

As for the Texas teenager who was jailed...Sometimes I think these things should be taken seriously.  Did the mother overreact?  Probably, but on the other hand we don't want people joking about doing terrible things that actually happen, let alone saying they might do something.  I would never type or say anything that stupid and we shouldn't let all such comments go unnoticed.  Many of the murderers who go on rampages or have a violent, crisis moment often express they're intentions beforehand.  The good news is that this teenager didn't shoot anyone up and, better yet, didn't have the intention to.

[codytappen]

LAwLz, on 29 Jun 2013 - 4:06 PM, said:

I skipped forward to see your reply to my comment (and skipped the other part of the video entirely) so if you're already explained yourself previously/later in the video, please link me to the timestamp.

Straight to strawman? Really? My point was that you can't just threaten someone to go murder people in a school and then go "lol jk" and everything is totally fine. Just imagine if someone was out on the streets (another public forum just like a game) and shouted "I am insane and I will go to that school and kill everyone in it", then laughed, and then went "just kidding". That person would be arrested, just like this person was.

I never even implied that he made a serious comment, but you can't make a joke like that, especially not in a public forum right after the exact same thing has happened a months earlier.

So do I understand you correctly... You don't think people should be punished if they make threats, as long as it is possible to make an even more horrible threat? Because that's exactly what you are saying, and I think that sounds completely illogical.

So there should be no punishment for saying that you are insane and that you will go massacre in a school, just shortly after a massacre in a school have occurred? I wouldn't even argue that he was making a joke, because a joke is suppose to cause amusement, and I really doubt that anyone found it amusing that he threatens to kill innocent children because he is insane.

His dad's defense is really bad as well:

He is 19 years old for crying out loud, not a little kid who doesn't know what he is doing.

Will put the time stamps on in a few, I'll show the most important points I made outside of your comment there. In response to the italicized text, I believe I was trying to say that people have joked about things that are more (or equally) terrible with no serious consequences. I have to agree with your last point though, his dad's defense is absolutely horrid, it implies that he didn't know about the shootings (of course he did).

Edit:I'm not putting time stamps I'll respond directly in another post.

[vanwazltoff]

I question my government sometimes.

I question it multiple times a day

[Jack.EXE]

Government: (Noun) A group of people who can not process Sarcasm, locks up children in prison, spys on it's followers, and takes away your last line of defence, in order to "protect" you.

(ex.)

"The American Government Is An EA created Idea, of which to rule a population who are not able to speak out."

 

Something is messed up with these guys.

[Ngrungebb91]

I am going to bomb the shit out of a local school, i said it, come and get me.

 

reported.

[codytappen]

 

Straight to strawman? Really? My point was that you can't just threaten someone to go murder people in a school and then go "lol jk" and everything is totally fine. Just imagine if someone was out on the streets (another public forum just like a game) and shouted "I am insane and I will go to that school and kill everyone in it", then laughed, and then went "just kidding". That person would be arrested, just like this person was.

I never even implied that he made a serious comment, but you can't make a joke like that, especially not in a public forum right after the exact same thing has happened a months earlier.

 

You imply that this game is a public place, when it actually isn't as it's owned and maintained by a company and you are able to play it (be there) by licensing it in some way; whereas in the public, everyone can be their and it's owned by the people (or gov.). The rules of the public do not all apply to private 'places', for instance making a sadistic joke (a 'threat' in someone's eyes) is okay if you're in a private residence. The company that owns the service (or the person that owns the residence) can prevent you from saying what you will, but the government isn't allowed to. Besides it not being the public, the internet as a whole has completely different social norms than the middle of the street. Also, you acknoledge here that this is a joke, once you do that all bets are off in my book, because people should be able to joke about whatever they want in an intelligent and respectable place.

 

So there should be no punishment for saying that you are insane and that you will go massacre in a school, just shortly after a massacre in a school have occurred? I wouldn't even argue that he was making a joke, because a joke is suppose to cause amusement, and I really doubt that anyone found it amusing that he threatens to kill innocent children because he is insane.

If you've decided that this isn't a joke, look at it as it is, a self defense mechanism. The boy is being called a psycho and the initial quote is his response, he runs with it and tries (some believe he failed) to make a joke to deal with it; it appears as though he realizes that he went over the top because he adds LOL JK later to try to cover his perceived error. I don't believe his intentions were not to threaten a school (I don't think you believe that either); so he shouldn't be in this kind of trouble. It was unintentional and harmless, and he's currently in jail for it, why?

[codytappen]

I am going to bomb the shit out of a local school, i said it, come and get me.

Just because some of us think that what this boy did isn't wrong, doesn't mean it belongs on our forums, reported.

P.S. CURSE YOU DINKLEBERG!!! hahaha

[laxer]

I think people are a little more edgy than they used to be...

 

An example: The Clackamas Town Center Shooting that took place in Oregon last year was posted all over 4chan prior to it happening, had anyone taken him seriously at least 2 more people would be alive today(excluding the shooter).

 

Honestly in a situation like this here is what I think should happen:

 

If you think it is  genuine threat, sure detain the kid. Run a background check and have it go through a threat assessment. If he passes everything then let him go.

 

Some people have such a detachment between what happens on the internet and what happens AFK. It is only a matter of time before people are forced to realize that you shouldn't say anything online you wouldn't in person and this is a fine example of that.

 

I hope the kid has learned to filter a little better in public settings and that his life is not impacted too much by this unfortunate event.

 

Your computer is not a suite of armor and there is no such thing as true anonymity, sorry guys.

[LAwLz]

You imply that this game is a public place, when it actually isn't as it's owned and maintained by a company and you are able to play it (be there) by licensing it in some way; whereas in the public, everyone can be their and it's owned by the people (or gov.).

That's not the correct definition of a public forum.

 

Public space:

A public space is a social space that is generally open and accessible to people.

It can be a public area even if it's owned by a private company. There is also laws which says that you are not allowed to make threats. Again, what he said can barely be classified as a joke, since it didn't cause amusement, and probably wasn't intended to either (and no sane person would find it funny).

 

The rules of the public do not all apply to private 'places', for instance making a sadistic joke (a 'threat' in someone's eyes) is okay if you're in a private residence.

 Some laws applies everywhere, no matter if you are on privately owned ground or not. Killing people, stealing, making threats, hate crime, assault, certain drugs, harassment, fraud etc... All of these things are illegal no matter where you are. Also, saying "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" is a threat in anyone's eyes, not just some peoples'.

 

Besides it not being the public, the internet as a whole has completely different social norms than the middle of the street.

Why? They aren't really any different. Both are public forums. That's just a bad excuse to make it seem like you can act however you want, without having to face any consequences whatsoever.

 

Also, you acknoledge here that this is a joke, once you do that all bets are off in my book, because people should be able to joke about whatever they want in an intelligent and respectable place.

1) I don't acknowledge that it was a joke. I acknowledged that he was stupid but was not serious when he said it, but calling it a joke is a big stretch.

2) Even if it was a joke, it was still, by definition, a threat, and that is illegal. Just saying "lol jk" after doing something illegal does not make it OK.

3) You seriously think that comment was "intelligent and respectful"? Really? You have very, very low standards if that's the case.

 

 

I don't believe his intentions were not to threaten a school (I don't think you believe that either); so he shouldn't be in this kind of trouble. It was unintentional and harmless, and he's currently in jail for it, why?

He is in jail because he threatened to massacre a school full of children. Yes it was unintentional but that does not mean it is OK. I agree that jail is too harsh, but the whole "he added lol jk at the end so it's perfectly acceptable and threatening to kill children should have no consequence whatsoever" idea is wrong as well, in my opinion. A light punishment like maybe 16 hours of community service (pick garbage 8 hours a day over a weekend or something like that) sounds like a mild punishment, which also helps society.

[zap117]

Also, saying "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" is a threat in anyone's eyes, not just some peoples'.

 

If you look at that sentence without context then it is a threat, but it holds a completely different meaning if you look at the situation surrounding it. The most important part here is that a threat requires intent.

 

I don't acknowledge that it was a joke. I acknowledged that he was stupid but was not serious when he said it, but calling it a joke is a big stretch.

 

And yes calling it a joke isn’t the right word for it. I would call it sarcasm, which again is pretty obvious within context. But unfortunately the dictionary that the courts use doesn't have that word in it.

 

 

Why? They aren't really any different. Both are public forums. That's just a bad excuse to make it seem like you can act however you want, without having to face any consequences whatsoever.

 

Yes technically there is no difference between them, but most people do perceive a difference in how they should act. Out on the streets the people you are talking to are physically right next to you, which has an immediate danger associated with it. Yes there are obviously ways to track you online as well, even if you are posting ‘anonymously’, but there is still a level of safety people think they have typing behind their keyboard.

[diiPex]

Anybody arguing that this kid deserves jail time is basically arguing that we should be imprisoning people for stupidity as it is painfully obvious that there was no actual intent by this "threat". 

We should not imprison someone because you feel the statement they made was rude, as this is subjective.

 

To consider this statement a threat is a stretch to say the least.  

In fact, this would not even be considered a threat by the constitution because context is considered when determining what is and is not protected speech.  The prosecution of this threat is going no where fast because it is obvious that there was no intent not only because it was a satirical response to an insult, but also because he said JK (just kidding) afterwords.  

Please read this article if you want to learn more about true threats http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~eroberts/cs181/projects/nuremberg-files/legal.html

 

Some people just like to argue for the sake of arguing, I try not to reply to them as it is a loosing battle.   

[Vitalius]

Honestly, I see how the system is overreacting here, but afterall it's the posters fault, if you are that retarded and post stuff like this you deserve to be locked up for a while.

4.5 months is how long he's been in jail.

I would expect a week tops. 24 hours being what I would expect the "norm" to be.

[EricX2]

He's been in jail for nearly 5 months for doing something that is not illegal. As bad as it is to say, it is not illegal to threaten people.

 

Could it warrant someone to investigate? Maybe. If the police get a warrant based on a online comment (which they probably could these days) they should need to find tangible evidence that the threat was real. If they did find evidence then they should be in trial already and if not he should be released. They should have a limited amount of time to find evidence, not as long as it takes.

 

AlphaOmegaSin has a video about it... lots of cussing if you haven't seen his videos.

[LAwLz]

If you look at that sentence without context then it is a threat, but it holds a completely different meaning if you look at the situation surrounding it. The most important part here is that a threat requires intent.

OK let's look at the context... He was called a psycho and then he went "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", then later he went "lol jk". A lot of people won't even understand "lol jk", he might as well have said it in Mandarin (which a lot more people would understand actually). He barely made an effort to indicate that he was not being serious in my opinion. Also, it is illegal to make a threat, even if you do not intend to carry it out. I am going to link to the law a bit later when I reply to another person in this thread.

 

 

And yes calling it a joke isn’t the right word for it. I would call it sarcasm, which again is pretty obvious within context. But unfortunately the dictionary that the courts use doesn't have that word in it.

I don't think it is obvious at all. If it was obvious, then there wouldn't be any confusion over it at all, so no it was not obvious.

 

 

Yes technically there is no difference between them, but most people do perceive a difference in how they should act. Out on the streets the people you are talking to are physically right next to you, which has an immediate danger associated with it. Yes there are obviously ways to track you online as well, even if you are posting ‘anonymously’, but there is still a level of safety people think they have typing behind their keyboard.

There would be a sense of safety to you personally, but in this situation (especially this shortly after another person said he would go out on a killing spree on an Internet forum, and then did it) you don't fear for your own life, but rather fear for other peoples lives. Your whole argument here is basically "well a lot of people think they can say whatever they want on the Internet without any consequence, so therefore you should be able to do that". That is called argumentum ad populum.

 

 

 

He's been in jail for nearly 5 months for doing something that is not illegal. As bad as it is to say, it is not illegal to threaten people.

Yes, it is illegal. There are a ton of different laws regarding it, such as this one: California Penal Code Section 422. Whoever told you that it is legal to threaten to go and kill people, is wrong.

Wikipedia also has this to say, to summarize the general way of judging in the US:

In most U.S. jurisdictions, the crime remains a misdemeanor unless a deadly weapon is involved or actual violence is committed, in which case it is usually considered a felony.

I couldn't stand watching the video by the way. That guy is trying waaay to hard to be edgy, and he is very biased. The tone he used when he reads the threat was made to sound less threatening, and he completely ignores the fact that a huge amount of people do not understand "lol jk". Again, that's like a foreign language to the majority of English speaking people.

 

And yes, the person who made the thread is rightfully called insane. The thing he did can fit some descriptions of insane namily this one:

In a state of mind that prevents normal perception, behavior, or social interaction; seriously mentally ill.

I don't think anyone here will say that threatening to kill a lot of innocent children at a school is "normal social behavior". He realized that what he had said was insane and then made a pathetic attempt to brush it off though.

[LAwLz]

Anybody arguing that this kid deserves jail time is basically arguing that we should be imprisoning people for stupidity as it is painfully obvious that there was no actual intent by this "threat". 

[...]

To consider this statement a threat is a stretch to say the least. 

Well you could say that the person who said he was going to massacre people on 4chan before was stupid, and he was, but that does not mean he shouldn't be in jail. No, it's not obvious that it wasn't a threat, that's why people reacted the way they did (the mom, the judge, the jury or anyone else who was involved with getting this person sentenced). You might as well say that the person on 4chan who said he was going to kill people was "painfully obviously joking", because people say stupid crap on there every day, and he was just a drop on the ocean. I completely understand that threats like these are being taken seriously. If he had made a greater attempt to explain that he was being sarcastic (very hard to read over the Internet a lot of times I might add) then this might never have happened. But he didn't, instead he laughed at the idea of killing children and then went "jk".

 

 

 

We should not imprison someone because you feel the statement they made was rude, as this is subjective.

That's completely illogical. By that logic, hate speech, all kinds of threats (for example the one when North Korea threatened with nuclear warfare), a huge number of domestic violence crimes and a number of other crimes would be completely legal. I am all for freedom of speech, as long as it does not harm other people, and in this case it did cause fear. 8 years is way to much and might very well do more harm than good, but a small punishment would be completely justified if you ask me.

 

 

In fact, this would not even be considered a threat by the constitution because context is considered when determining what is and is not protected speech.  The prosecution of this threat is going no where fast because it is obvious that there was no intent not only because it was a satirical response to an insult, but also because he said JK (just kidding) afterwords.  

Please read this article if you want to learn more about true threats http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~eroberts/cs181/projects/nuremberg-files/legal.html

Again, a lot of people don't understand "lol jk", and even if they did, I don't think adding that afterwards justifies anything. By that logic, you could go around yelling hate speech, and it would be completely OK as long as you ended with "lol jk".

By the way, your source does not agree with your conclusion:

However, there are exceptions where the speech is still considered unprotected in situations where the context is weak or it conflicts. In US vs. Machado, the defendant maintained that the threat he made was merely joke, yet despite the absence of any relationship to the threatened individuals, the jury pronounced his speech as unlawful due to the racially motivated context of the threat.

[...]

The predominant definition states that if a threat as interpreted by a “reasonable person,” causes fear for the safety and/or the life of an individual or their family, it is unprotected by the First Amendment

Your source does not really give a definition of a "true threat" at all really. My guess is that you subconsciously ignored all the points in the text which disagrees with your view, and then went "yes I am totally correct" at the points where it does agree. All that article says is that there are a lot of ways to determine what a true threat is and that the definition changes over time. There is however, nothing in there which could be used as an argument to prove that he is innocent.

[EricX2]

OK let's look at the context... He was called a psycho and then he went "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", then later he went "lol jk". A lot of people won't even understand "lol jk", he might as well have said it in Mandarin (which a lot more people would understand actually). He barely made an effort to indicate that he was not being serious in my opinion. Also, it is illegal to make a threat, even if you do not intend to carry it out. I am going to link to the law a bit later when I reply to another person in this thread.

 

 

I don't think it is obvious at all. If it was obvious, then there wouldn't be any confusion over it at all, so no it was not obvious.

 

 

There would be a sense of safety to you personally, but in this situation (especially this shortly after another person said he would go out on a killing spree on an Internet forum, and then did it) you don't fear for your own life, but rather fear for other peoples lives. Your whole argument here is basically "well a lot of people think they can say whatever they want on the Internet without any consequence, so therefore you should be able to do that". That is called argumentum ad populum.

 

 

 

Yes, it is illegal. There are a ton of different laws regarding it, such as this one: California Penal Code Section 422. Whoever told you that it is legal to threaten to go and kill people, is wrong.

Wikipedia also has this to say, to summarize the general way of judging in the US:

I couldn't stand watching the video by the way. That guy is trying waaay to hard to be edgy, and he is very biased. The tone he used when he reads the threat was made to sound less threatening, and he completely ignores the fact that a huge amount of people do not understand "lol jk". Again, that's like a foreign language to the majority of English speaking people.

 

And yes, the person who made the thread is rightfully called insane. The thing he did can fit some descriptions of insane namily this one:

I don't think anyone here will say that threatening to kill a lot of innocent children at a school is "normal social behavior". He realized that what he had said was insane and then made a pathetic attempt to brush it off though.

 

So we are at the stage where 'precrimes' are illegal now? The act that you say you might do something is as bad as actually doing it? As soon as they have ways of reading your thoughts everybody will be in jail. Minority report, just like other movies showing the future, was not a guideline of how stuff should be but a warning of what not to do. And laws are not always right.

 

This is most likely the law they are using since it's in Texas:

http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/22.07.00.html

 

The main issue is the law is enforced so rarely. Are you saying that every instance of this happening has lead to a person being jailed? If not, why? Once a law is only being followed in x% of the times it is done why does the law even exist and why do the other people get to do it without facing consequences?

[LAwLz]

So we are at the stage where 'precrimes' are illegal now? The act that you say you might do something is as bad as actually doing it? As soon as they have ways of reading your thoughts everybody will be in jail. Minority report, just like other movies showing the future, was not a guideline of how stuff should be but a warning of what not to do. And laws are not always right.

Stop with the strawman arguments please. This isn't a "precrime", this is flat out a crime. There is no way around it. It is illegal to threaten to kill someone, and that is exactly what he did.

 

 

The main issue is the law is enforced so rarely. Are you saying that every instance of this happening has lead to a person being jailed? If not, why? Once a law is only being followed in x% of the times it is done why does the law even exist and why do the other people get to do it without facing consequences?

Again, strawman argument... Anyway, just because the law isn't enforced that often does not mean it is OK to break it. That's a completely illogical way of thinking.

[_ASSASSIN_]

Glad I'm not in Texas

oh wait

fuck

[zap117]

OK let's look at the context... He was called a psycho and then he went "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", then later he went "lol jk". A lot of people won't even understand "lol jk", he might as well have said it in Mandarin (which a lot more people would understand actually). He barely made an effort to indicate that he was not being serious in my opinion. Also, it is illegal to make a threat, even if you do not intend to carry it out. I am going to link to the law a bit later when I reply to another person in this thread.

I suppose another thing to consider is that he did not mention any specific school, just "a school", and "eat their still, beating hearts" sounds more like figurative language to me. Taking everything to be literal speech would be the start of the downfall of a society in my opinion. And if the person making the judicial decision does not understand what the information they are given means, such as "lol" or "jk", or really anything at all, they are not in the right position to make the best decision possible because they don't have all the knowledge they need to understand the situation properly. Although if they searched his home and found weapons of any kind then that might strengthen the notion that it was a threat. Otherwise I don't see how his statement has much relevance. Also, just to throw this out there, how many times has someone announced that they are going to do harm to something or someone to the public and then proceeded to do it? If they actually intended to do something, they would keep quiet about it. Either way I think most of us can agree that the punishment is completely unacceptable. Have him do some community service and let everyone get on with their lives.

 

There would be a sense of safety to you personally, but in this situation (especially this shortly after another person said he would go out on a killing spree on an Internet forum, and then did it) you don't fear for your own life, but rather fear for other peoples lives. Your whole argument here is basically "well a lot of people think they can say whatever they want on the Internet without any consequence, so therefore you should be able to do that". That is called argumentum ad populum.

I guess I wasn't clear in this section, but I wasn't actually making an argument at all, but rather an observation of why people think the way they do in certain situations. It’s simply human nature to act differently (whether for better or worse) when you are in the immediate vicinity of another person rather than (potentially) thousands of miles away communicating to someone through text.

[sezir]

now the fact that he said it in the first place makes it a threat. since it was on large scale its a terrorist threat and since its a school its a terrorist threat against children... yeah he deserves his punishment, if an adult were to do this he might have gotten 20 years

[Woodypc]

Yet another thing to make outsiders look at "Merica!" and confirm our opinion/fact that you country is a total joke and 99% of it population must be stupid or something seriously wrong with them to see this happening and let it(I have no answer to this problem but still). If you have ever threatened anyone, do yourself a favor and hop in jail.