MOBAFire's second Mini Guide Contest of Season 14 is here! Create or update guides for the 30 featured champions and compete for up to $200 in prizes! 🏆
I live in Texas and threats like this could easily become reality with the massive number of firearms this state has. Getting a firearm in Texas is as easy as walking down to academy and purchasing one, so when you guys discredit the seriousness of the situation its really sad to me. Does the kid deserve to go to jail for a sarcastic comment? No, but here in Texas shootings and murders aren't exactly rare. (Honestly we have one every week, even on military bases.)
So before you go on your crusade to defend this ***hat ask yourself if its actually worth a school of children being shot up. Did he need to make that comment? Do threats fall under the right to free speech, even if hes just a sarcastic kid? All I ask is that you realize this kid is a ******* and should be taught a lesson.
That being said, the situation is ridiculous and how it was handled was clearly an overreaction.
So before you go on your crusade to defend this ***hat ask yourself if its actually worth a school of children being shot up. Did he need to make that comment? Do threats fall under the right to free speech, even if hes just a sarcastic kid? All I ask is that you realize this kid is a ******* and should be taught a lesson.
That being said, the situation is ridiculous and how it was handled was clearly an overreaction.
+Rep me if i'm useful!
The_Nameless_Bard wrote:
It does not in terms of threatening language, the fact that he meant it sarcastically does not condone it...if a guy "sarcastically" says he's gonna go out, "get him a gun", and "shoot up one of them **** bars" that statement is not protected by the first amendment due to its innately threatening nature. He can be detained while it is being investigated and even put on trial for saying such if there is sufficient reason to believe he may cause harm to anyone.
and sorry...but, no, I don't think jokingly or sarcastically threatening to "shoot up a kindergarten" is a reasonable statement. Do I think the punishment is reasonable? not entirely, but he also chose to make a statement that could fairly easily be construed as threatening within the confines of the internet. The fact that people are willing to condone such a statement really shows how desensitized we all are to violence.
You don't seem to fully grasp the situation nor fully understand how sarcasm and satire work.
If you don't understand a subject you should probably refrain from trying to discuss it.
"Moral justification is a powerful disengagement mechanism. Destructive conduct is made personally and socially acceptable by portraying it in the service of moral ends." - Albert Bandura
"Ultimately, if people lose their willingness to recognize that there are times in our history when legality becomes distinct from morality, we aren't just ceding control of our rights to government, but our futures." - Edward Snowden
"Ultimately, if people lose their willingness to recognize that there are times in our history when legality becomes distinct from morality, we aren't just ceding control of our rights to government, but our futures." - Edward Snowden
You don't understand what's going on yourself, based on what you've said.
the article that was posted is somewhat biased and also omits important information, so I guess I'm not surprised.
The fact that the threat was intended to be sarcastic or satirical does not, in fact, pardon him in any way. He's currently being detained while they investigate it, and, assuming they don't find sufficient reason to believe he will harm someone, he will likely receive a lesser sentence if he is even convicted in the first place. He has yet to be convicted and 8 years is the MAXIMUM sentence.
the article that was posted is somewhat biased and also omits important information, so I guess I'm not surprised.
The fact that the threat was intended to be sarcastic or satirical does not, in fact, pardon him in any way. He's currently being detained while they investigate it, and, assuming they don't find sufficient reason to believe he will harm someone, he will likely receive a lesser sentence if he is even convicted in the first place. He has yet to be convicted and 8 years is the MAXIMUM sentence.
SkidmarkD wrote:
Actually, it's not. There's a distinction. You should look it up.
You didn't bother to point them out, so they mustn't be any factual errors, maybe some spelling errors?
EDIT: Since you people fail to use this nice tool you use for posting on this board to find the relevant information, maybe one should help you along the way.
Threat: Not punishable by law. Protected by the Constitution.
True threat: Not protected by the Constitution.
Distinction between the two? Context.
A joke can therefor never be considered a true threat and therefor is still protected by the Constitution.
You're wrong in the sense that you don't have a ****ing clue what you're talking about. I'm just going to assume you didn't actually read the Texas statute that you copy+pasted (either that or you don't get it)
Quoted:
§ 22.07. TERRORISTIC THREAT. (a) A person commits an
offense if he threatens to commit any offense involving violence to
any person or property with intent to:
(2) place any person in fear of imminent serious
bodily injury;
(4) cause impairment or interruption of public
communications, public transportation, public water, gas, or power
supply or other public service;
does this not ****ing make sense to you? He violated both these amendments. He threatened the public well-being by claiming he would shoot up a school. Secondly, because the school is a federal building he's now also interpreted a public service. Two violations, really wasn't that hard to find.
The definition of a Criminal Threat:
Quoted:
"The crime of intentionally or knowingly instilling fear in another person or persons with the threat of bodily harm. Threat of harm involves injury, either physical or mental damage as the result of an act committed by one or more persons in an attempt to instil injury upon another person or persons. A terroristic threat is a crime involving a threat to commit violence in the intent to terrorize others."
Pretty ****ing clear language right there. You can take that to the bank because it's the legal definition of multiple threats.
And finally, I'll leave you with the "Fighting Words Doctrine" which in a nutshell limits free speech and says that words that incite violence or a reaction which breaches the peace are subject to speech prevention and punishment'
I firmly believe Justin Carter does not deserve to be in jail currently nor does he deserve to spend 8 years in jail, however, to say "there is no justification for Carter to be in jail" is ignorant and quite frankly just incorrect.
BusDriver210 wrote:
No, but here in Texas shootings and murders aren't exactly rare.
Keep the discussion about Justin Carter not whatever your beliefs on Gun laws are. Just for the record, your state has a higher gun related crimes than the national average, but not that much higher, it's actually pretty average especially for such a large state. But then again, you have to factor in that Texas has a lot more guns than most states and that the gun relate crimes are actually decreasing, so I don't really buy this argument at all.
Thanks for the Signature MissMaw!
Its not an argument, its fact. My statement has as much to do with Justin Carter than any of the ridiculous claims in this thread. He used poor judgement when he stated his "sarcastic" comment on the net. The reality of the situation is that here in Texas those claims can and have been followed through in the past, so ignoring the territory in which this event happened is ignorant.
The truth around the matter is that people don't enjoy these types of comments and would rather keep him locked up until the matter is resolved. I don't think he deserves jail time for what he said, but I'm happy to see we took his threat seriously instead of just leaving the possibility open.
The truth around the matter is that people don't enjoy these types of comments and would rather keep him locked up until the matter is resolved. I don't think he deserves jail time for what he said, but I'm happy to see we took his threat seriously instead of just leaving the possibility open.
+Rep me if i'm useful!
Just thought I'd drop by and mention something that seems to have been ignored.
Doesn't a threat, usually, in order to be terribly effective, have to, like... Be said to whoever you're trying to threaten? I mean, it's kinda' hard to "place any person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury" without them actually, like, readin' the threat, for instance. Usually when I say things to my friends, I don't really expect there to be, like, "impairment or interruption of public communications, public transportation, public water, gas, or power supply or other public service" or any sorta' stuff like that. 'Cuz my friends are all nerds and stuff and no one listens to the stuff we say. I mean. Yeah.
Also, The_Nameless_Bard, do you have a source for that particular quote of the "threat" in question? Moon's original link has slightly different wording.
Doesn't a threat, usually, in order to be terribly effective, have to, like... Be said to whoever you're trying to threaten? I mean, it's kinda' hard to "place any person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury" without them actually, like, readin' the threat, for instance. Usually when I say things to my friends, I don't really expect there to be, like, "impairment or interruption of public communications, public transportation, public water, gas, or power supply or other public service" or any sorta' stuff like that. 'Cuz my friends are all nerds and stuff and no one listens to the stuff we say. I mean. Yeah.
Also, The_Nameless_Bard, do you have a source for that particular quote of the "threat" in question? Moon's original link has slightly different wording.
OTGBionicArm wrote: Armored wimminz = badass.
My posts may be long. If this bothers you, don't read them.
My posts may be long. If this bothers you, don't read them.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23188875
and yes, most of the articles I've found that actually quoted him stated something VERY similar, if not identical
and yes, most of the articles I've found that actually quoted him stated something VERY similar, if not identical
SkidmarkD wrote:
Moony, all your arguments are based on: "Intent to".
I'd say that's lacking in a joke.
I did read it, but discarded everything you pointed out.....just because it needs intent. Which clearly wasn't present. Cause it's a joke.
Maybe you need to look up the definition of a joke while your at it. It can point out what you're missing in life.
These aren't my arguments, these are legal definitions. Obviously the prosecution has to provide proof that Justin Carter intended to carry out his actions (which I think will be hard to do). But none-the-less he can still be held for making a terrorist threat, especially if he fits all the criteria you and I listed.
If you ever wonder why I think you're an idiot, it's not because I disagree with you but its because of statements like
Quoted:
did read it, but discarded everything you pointed out.....just because it needs intent.
You do realize that the prosecution has to find him guilty of these crimes (as in he had intent to carry out his plans) to convict him, that doesn't mean he's being wrongfully held captive. This is why no one takes you serious. There are a lot of people on this website who disagree with me, and strongly disagree with me, but I would guess that those people also respect my beliefs because I have reasons and/or facts to support them. You just absorb and discard whatever information you want based on what you "think" or "feel". The bottom line is the facts I presented and even you presented justify the fact that he's being held and prosecuted. Whether he's convicted or not is another thing, but quite frankly, if you're going to try to have an intelligent discussion (which I think you're trying really hard to do) then at least acknowledge the facts. I don't understand how someone can sit here and just ignore facts because he doesn't want to and then act as if he knows what he's talking about.
Anyway, thats all I got, learn how to form an argument based on something other than the way you "feel" or "think"
Thanks for the Signature MissMaw!
You need to log in before commenting.
Because as much as I feel that this situation definitely got out of hand, I can certainly understand the State wishing to investigate potential threats.