Protecting America from Justin Carter

[WildCat]

I read the title as "Justin Bieber" at first.

And yet Justin Bieber goes free, where's the justice?

 

[theprestige]

I am not seeing the threat part. The lol and J/K communicate that the comments are no threat.

He also said "I think I’ma shoot up a kindergarten and watch the blood of the innocent rain down and eat the beating heart of one of them."

That communicates a clear threat.

If we're going to go the "stupid teenager" route, why not "stupid teenager who tacks lol and J/K onto serious threats"? Or should we assume he's some kind of literary mastermind, who chooses each word of his messages with care, to convey one connotation and no other?

Does "lol" and "J/K" mean he told a joke well, or made a serious threat poorly? If you're asking me to accept that he's a stupid kid, then I have to consider the latter option as a real possibility.

 

[Sideroxylon]

He also said "I think I’ma shoot up a kindergarten and watch the blood of the innocent rain down and eat the beating heart of one of them."

That communicates a clear threat.

If we're going to go the "stupid teenager" route, why not "stupid teenager who tacks lol and J/K onto serious threats"? Or should we assume he's some kind of literary mastermind, who chooses each word of his messages with care, to convey one connotation and no other?

Does "lol" and "J/K" mean he told a joke well, or made a serious threat poorly? If you're asking me to accept that he's a stupid kid, then I have to consider the latter option as a real possibility.

You appear to have said it yourself! No, but wait the quotation marks and context tells me that this was not a threat. Likewise the young man at the centre of this gave us the necessary context (the lol and J/K) to understand that he lacked intention to carry out the act that he described.

 

[GT/CS]

To take the lol to another level; if someone threatens to blow away the president but then adds lol and/or jk at the end of the message the Secret Service shouldn't take is serioiusly?

That's cool, now all anyone needs to do to get around the law is to add lol and/or jk.

 

[geni]

I am not seeing the threat part. The lol and J/K communicate that the comments are no threat.

Except due to the nature of sarcasm in the english language they don't.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I'm trying to imagine how they will present the case. If I were arguing it, I might focus on:

(1) cause a reaction of any type to his threat by an
official or volunteer agency organized to deal with emergencies;

and

(5) place the public or a substantial group of the
public in fear of serious bodily injury;

The cop will get up on the stand, and he will say, "when we get a complaint about something like this, we have to take it seriously. We can't read the defendant's mind to know whether he really meant it or not, and we spent countless hours investigating it, paid for by the taxpayers. Given the real problems we have to address with our limited resources, that is not acceptable."

The DA will close by saying, "the threat made by the defendant was credible because we all know that people really do this kind of thing. Free speech does not mean the right to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater, and it does not mean the right to make criminal threats in a public forum."

The defense will focus on the difference between a credible threat versus satire and irreverence, which is protected speech no matter how offensive, and which was obviously the intended nature of the defendant's comment.

The jury may think, if the cops found this threat credible and acted on it, then it was credible. They know best. Plus they are the ones we have to call if someone breaks into our house or steals our car.

Or, they may think, this is nonsense, the kid was obviously joking, and this makes the whole town look bad.

We'll see.

The trouble is that the post needs to have been made with the intent to either get local authorities to react, or scare people. Just having them react or people be scared isn't enough. That the post was made in a place that was obscure enough that the local authorities knew nothing about it until informed by a foreign third party clearly indicates that there was no such intent.

 

[PhantomWolf]

To take the lol to another level; if someone threatens to blow away the president but then adds lol and/or jk at the end of the message the Secret Service shouldn't take is serioiusly?

That's cool, now all anyone needs to do to get around the law is to add lol and/or jk.

They may indeed take it seriously, but after investigating they should also have the brains to determine if such threat was viable or not, whether the person was serious or not, and take the appropriate action based on those criteria.

 

[Sideroxylon]

To take the lol to another level; if someone threatens to blow away the president but then adds lol and/or jk at the end of the message the Secret Service shouldn't take is serioiusly?

That's cool, now all anyone needs to do to get around the law is to add lol and/or jk.

To get around what law? Do you imagine plotting terrorists would talk in that manner and end each communication with lol J/k?

 

[Sam.I.Am]

They may indeed take it seriously, but after investigating they should also have the brains to determine if such threat was viable or not, whether the person was serious or not, and take the appropriate action based on those criteria.

Here's an experiment for you. The next time that you're at the airport tell this joke while you're in the security screening line:

"I packed a bomb in my suitcase because hey, what are the odds of there being two bombs on an airplane?"

and see what happens from there. I mean clearly it's a joke but I don't think that you're going to like the overall experience after that. At a minimum your flying days will be over and at the other end of the spectrum there's a good chance that you're going to spend some time in a cell and paying out some pretty hefty fines. I see no difference here considering that the kid does go to school and that there have been school shootings in the past.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

To take the lol to another level; if someone threatens to blow away the president but then adds lol and/or jk at the end of the message the Secret Service shouldn't take is serioiusly?

That's cool, now all anyone needs to do to get around the law is to add lol and/or jk.

I can see why the cops would check it out after someone complained. But once they realized this kid was not armed, not planning any kind of school massacre, and he told them he was joking, they still held him in custody and charged him with a crime that carries up to a 10-year prison sentence. That is excessive and stupid.

By contrast, Ted Nugent made a veiled threat to kill Obama at an NRA convention. The Secret Service talked to Nugent and that was it. They probably realized he had no intention of killing Obama, but they wanted him to know they take such comments seriously, so don't do it again. That is a measured and intelligent response.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

The trouble is that the post needs to have been made with the intent to either get local authorities to react, or scare people. Just having them react or people be scared isn't enough. That the post was made in a place that was obscure enough that the local authorities knew nothing about it until informed by a foreign third party clearly indicates that there was no such intent.

I agree, the case is a travesty. I'm just imagining how they might present it to a jury, as well as the distinct possibility the jury will return a conviction.

 

[fuelair]

I don't really understand what you're saying in the context of this case. Can you clarify? What you've described doesn't really seem to match this situation. He wasn't trying to spread rumors or be significant. He was just bantering back and forth with someone he was playing a video game with.

Then he did it very stupidly. Note: my post may have made it sound like I care more than I actually do - but, at the same time, if you cannot be careful then what you put out can get you in trouble so you might outta not put it out at all. It really is not like this has not occured and gotten more attention than the sender thought it would previously - with accompanying flack. It is not the time to be stupid with this kind of stuff especially if you are on a place like facebook where so many other people can read your comments..


Note: the specific fit in the "pulling silly crap like this" category - that's why I put it first in the list of offenses.

 

[WildCat]

The trouble is that the post needs to have been made with the intent to either get local authorities to react, or scare people. Just having them react or people be scared isn't enough. That the post was made in a place that was obscure enough that the local authorities knew nothing about it until informed by a foreign third party clearly indicates that there was no such intent.

They may indeed take it seriously, but after investigating they should also have the brains to determine if such threat was viable or not, whether the person was serious or not, and take the appropriate action based on those criteria.

I agree with all of this.

It seems that whether something is or isn't an illegal threat depends not upon the nature of the speech, but on other people's reaction to it. If they get the joke it's free speech, if they don't or are just looking to grab headlines it's suddenly a terrorist threat worthy of 20 years in prison.

 

[fuelair]

Here's an experiment for you. The next time that you're at the airport tell this joke while you're in the security screening line:



and see what happens from there. I mean clearly it's a joke but I don't think that you're going to like the overall experience after that. At a minimum your flying days will be over and at the other end of the spectrum there's a good chance that you're going to spend some time in a cell and paying out some pretty hefty fines. I see no difference here considering that the kid does go to school and that there have been school shootings in the past.

and, this^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[ravdin]

Here's an experiment for you. The next time that you're at the airport tell this joke while you're in the security screening line:



and see what happens from there. I mean clearly it's a joke but I don't think that you're going to like the overall experience after that. At a minimum your flying days will be over and at the other end of the spectrum there's a good chance that you're going to spend some time in a cell and paying out some pretty hefty fines. I see no difference here considering that the kid does go to school and that there have been school shootings in the past.

This hypothetical would be much more serious than what this kid did. Planes would have to be delayed and the airline would most likely have no choice but to unload all of the baggage and check it. It would be a huge cost for which I would hope that the perpetrator would be held responsible. But even so 10 years would be really excessive- and in this kid's case we're talking about a Facebook post. For what he's done he's certainly paid his debt to society and then some.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Here's an experiment for you. The next time that you're at the airport tell this joke while you're in the security screening line:



and see what happens from there. I mean clearly it's a joke but I don't think that you're going to like the overall experience after that. At a minimum your flying days will be over and at the other end of the spectrum there's a good chance that you're going to spend some time in a cell and paying out some pretty hefty fines. I see no difference here considering that the kid does go to school and that there have been school shootings in the past.

The kid was not at an airport standing under the stern watch of officers with guns. He believed he had an audience of a few friends and his behaviour reflected that.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Here's an experiment for you. The next time that you're at the airport tell this joke while you're in the security screening line:

and see what happens from there. I mean clearly it's a joke but I don't think that you're going to like the overall experience after that. At a minimum your flying days will be over and at the other end of the spectrum there's a good chance that you're going to spend some time in a cell and paying out some pretty hefty fines. I see no difference here considering that the kid does go to school and that there have been school shootings in the past.

Last time I was in a security screening line at a major Airport (Sydney International about 2 weeks ago) they had very large signs specifically stating that you were not to do this. When they have similar signs all over the likes of Facebook you might have a point.

BTW, the previous time I passed through Sydney Airport I was stopped for a random explosives test, I told the guy that I didn't think I was randomly explosive. He laughed, I still am allowed to fly.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Here's an experiment for you. The next time that you're at the airport tell this joke while you're in the security screening line:



and see what happens from there. I mean clearly it's a joke but I don't think that you're going to like the overall experience after that. At a minimum your flying days will be over and at the other end of the spectrum there's a good chance that you're going to spend some time in a cell and paying out some pretty hefty fines. I see no difference here considering that the kid does go to school and that there have been school shootings in the past.

I should have put this in the previous post, but oh well.

It's also not comparable. Making a joke at an airport means that you are actually on the site of the possible threat, so it is very serious. If you were at a dinner for the president and suggest you might shoot him, the SS will take more notice of you than if you are stuck in rural Colorado and don't own a gun.

Had the guy made the comment on a school website chat forum, you might have a point, but this would be like someone putting into their blog that when they get drunk they think it would be funny to take a package with the word bomb glued to it with metal letters in their hand luggage next time they fly, and being arrested for threatening to blow up a plane.

 

[Apology]

This is not a stupid kid, this is a stupid young adult. If we were talking about age of consent laws, there'd be no lack of people pointing out that an 18-year-old woman is not a kid and is competent to know what she's doing. I fail to see why an 18-year-old man is suddenly an innocent young kid again when the issue involves video games, but a 16-year-old girl is considered by many to be a consenting adult when the issue involves sex.

A number of people from around the globe have been prosecuted for making this kind of "joke" for the last decade, so it's not like this is the first time it happened. I'm having a really hard time mustering up any sympathy for this guy.

Now if you want to argue that Homeland Security laws are invasive, oppressive, and stupid, or discuss how alarming it is that other countries have jumped right on the bandwagon for adopting similar oppressive laws, then I'd say more power to you.

 

[Sideroxylon]

This is not a stupid kid, this is a stupid young adult. If we were talking about age of consent laws, there'd be no lack of people pointing out that an 18-year-old woman is not a kid and is competent to know what she's doing. I fail to see why an 18-year-old man is suddenly an innocent young kid again when the issue involves video games, but a 16-year-old girl is considered by many to be a consenting adult when the issue involves sex.

A number of people from around the globe have been prosecuted for making this kind of "joke" for the last decade, so it's not like this is the first time it happened. I'm having a really hard time mustering up any sympathy for this guy.

Now if you want to argue that Homeland Security laws are invasive, oppressive, and stupid, or discuss how alarming it is that other countries have jumped right on the bandwagon for adopting similar oppressive laws, then I'd say more power to you.

Being a kid explains his lack of sense in this situation rather than excuses it. Explaining the authorities' lack of sense in handling this situation is more challenging.