Kid jailed over Facebook comment

[JakeStarkey]

I don't care that that my opinions bothers you, M.

Half a mil is a lot so let's see what other evidence is out there.

If you are not a libertarian, then OK, but I do perceive your language similar to what I am hear on this Board from so-called libertarians.

What the kid wrote was not "vague" and "ill-defined." To the contrary, it was clear and apparently threatening.

 

[Montrovant]

I don't care that that my opinions bothers you, M.

Half a mil is a lot so let's see what other evidence is out there.

If you are not a libertarian, then OK, but I do perceive your language similar to what I am hear on this Board from so-called libertarians.

What the kid wrote was not "vague" and "ill-defined." To the contrary, it was clear and apparently threatening.

I did not say the statement was vague and ill-defined. I said that the ideas behind this imprisonment, the reasoning that says putting this young man in prison is necessary for public safety, are vague and ill-defined. Barring new information coming out that shows the threat was a real one, how is arresting and imprisoning this person a necessary safety measure?

If it is not necessary for public safety, shouldn't it be protected by our right to free speech?

I don't belong to any political party. I agree and disagree with all of them on different issues. If I have a libertarian leaning on this issue, that's fine.

My opinions at this point are based on the evidence available. I happily admit they can change if new evidence comes to light.

 

[Sunshine]

Airports and schools. Nothing to joke about regarding either of those places.

 

[Jarlaxle]

You are the one defending the arrest and apparently fairly long imprisonment of this person for what was clearly a joke, what he in fact said was a joke at the time. If that is not protected, why should anything I say here, even as a hypothetical, be exempt?

Do you know what the rules are to differentiate what is a 'terroristic threat' and what is protected speech? I hope you do, because otherwise your defense of this incident is more ridiculous than it already sounds.

If this kid broke the law, it is because the law is incredibly stupid. Perhaps more importantly, why is he still imprisoned? Has he been given a chance to make bail, has he been arraigned, what are the formal charges, is there a trial date set, etc.? How long should he remain imprisoned, even if his words broke the law?

It's not the technicalities of law that interest me here, it is your seemingly blind acceptance of them, Jake. Do you honestly believe that jokes of this nature should be illegal? That, say, a standup comedian should be jailed if he/she says something similar in a routine? Does the offense have something to do with the medium in which it was used? I cannot understand why you think the words used should be a crime, absent any evidence it is a real threat, other than slavish adherence to the state.

My "blind acceptance" of reaction to violent and threatening language bothers you?

I could care less what you think of that. My opinion in no way can be clearly established as "slavish adherence" to the law.

You are simply mad that you don't get to say whatever you want whenever you want wherever you want.

We are not a libertarian state and never have been, and I am not sure a libertarian government would permit such behavior that threatens others.

Your blind acceptance of imprisonment for a joke bothers me. Your inability to separate a joke from an actual threat bothers me. Your determination to curtail free speech rights bothers me. Your attempt to equate this to yelling 'fire' in a theater bothers me. Your seeming inability to look at context bothers me.

It bothers me that bail was, so far as I have read, set at half a million dollars for this young man. That seems incredibly excessive unless there is a lot of evidence (which I haven't seen) that this threat was serious.

It also bothers me, inasmuch as it may indicate a lack of clarity on my part, that you apparently assume I am a libertarian and that I think I should be able to say anything at any time to anyone. However, I'm leaning toward that being an issue of your own projected biases rather than my inability to get my points across.

It bothers me that your (apparent) belief that our constitutional freedoms should be so easily suborned to vague and ill-defined ideas of safety seems to prevalent in the US these days. It bothers me that the threat of terrorism has been used to start chipping away at individual rights so easily, and it bothers me that I don't see that ending any time soon.

Too many words, dude. It's actually quite simple: Jake is a 100% pure authoritarian. He dreams of emulating Stalin. It really is that simple...Jake is flat out evil.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jarlaxle mischaracterizes my political standing, and uses the communist equivalent of Godwin's Law in his first post, a sure sign of a loser. If evil is the protecting of life and limb from relentless stupidity as expressed by the boy, then, yeah, I can handle the charge of evil and laugh at the individual making the charge.

 

[Jarlaxle]

No, flea brain, I characterize your political standing perfectly...but you are not willing to admit to being an authoritarian, especially to yourself. But you are...so man up and own it!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jarlaxle mischaracterizes me perfectly instead of staying with the OP, a classic example of one who has fail.

 

[Montrovant]

Jarlaxle mischaracterizes my political standing, and uses the communist equivalent of Godwin's Law in his first post, a sure sign of a loser. If evil is the protecting of life and limb from relentless stupidity as expressed by the boy, then, yeah, I can handle the charge of evil and laugh at the individual making the charge.

I'm not going to involve myself in the byplay between the two of you.

I do have a question about your statements, though. How are you 'protecting of life and limb from relentless stupidity as expressed by the boy'? Who's life and limb are threatened by his statement? Keep in mind that I can accept investigating whether the comments were serious or not, despite the fairly obviously joking nature. Where is the threat to life and limb? When did the expression of stupidity become physically dangerous to someone? Who has been physically hurt by the statements made?

This is the crux of my argument with you. You seem to believe that the statements made caused, or were likely to cause, physical harm to someone. You have provided no evidence of this, nor even attempted to that I recall. Yet you promote the infringement of rights based on the idea. Until some evidence is presented that this post on a social networking site was an imminent danger to someone, or even a serious threat, how can abridging someone's rights be supported?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Montrovant, do not assume things that are not in your ken to assume. The statements 'may have' indicated an intent to do harm to others. No, you do not make the law and have no right to insist that "evidence is presented that this post . . . was an imminent danger". The legislature made the law, LEO carries it out, and now it is in the courts. If you don't like that, I don't care.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Jarlaxle mischaracterizes me perfectly instead of staying with the OP, a classic example of one who has fail.

Yer lying again, junior! Are you CAPABLE of distinguishing the truth from a lie anymore? I am honestly starting to wonder.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jarlaxle mischaracterizes me perfectly instead of staying with the OP, a classic example of one who has fail.

Yer lying again, junior! Are you CAPABLE of distinguishing the truth from a lie anymore? I am honestly starting to wonder.

What have you offered on the OP? The kid posted unacceptable language. No one has the right to threaten anyone without possibility of LEO involvement.

 

[Jarlaxle]

And JakeTheFake fails again...as always.

 

[tubig]

Texas teen makes a joking comment on Facebook about going and shooting up a school full of kids and eating their hearts followed by LOL and JK, but still lands in jail, facing up to 8 years in prison.

The community has started a petition, hoping that it will help free Justin.

Do you think this is over-reach, or should a teenager know better than to make those types of jokes?

After reading his comment, I'm inclined to believe he was joking, but shouldn't teens know better than to make those types of jokes after all we've been through in this country?

NEW BRAUNFELS, Texas – An Austin man wants to warn other parents and teenagers that statements made on social media websites can land them in jail.
Justin Carter was 18 back in February when an online video game "League of Legends" took an ugly turn on Facebook.
Jack Carter says his son Justin and a friend got into an argument with someone on Facebook about the game and the teenager wrote a comment he now regrets.
“Someone had said something to the effect of 'Oh you're insane, you're crazy, you're messed up in the head,’ to which he replied '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,’ and the next two lines were lol and jk.," said Carter.
“LOL” stands for “laughing out loud," and “jk” means “just kidding," but police didn’t think it was funny. Neither did a woman from Canada who saw the posting.
Justin’s dad says the woman did a Google search and found his son’s old address was near an elementary school and she called police.
Justin Carter was arrested the next month and has been jailed since March 27. He’s charged with making a terroristic threat and is facing eight years in prison, according to his dad.

Friends and family have started an online petition they’re hoping will garnish more attention for Justin’s plight. You can find it by clicking here.

Texas teen charged with making terroristic threat after online joke | khou.com Houston

Does Texas have free enterprise prisons? Militaristic states do not have good records for liberty and freedom. Such ideas are considered "liberal" and "progressive" by contemporary conservatives, and the standard conservative response to accusations of wrong doing is prison. The above story is a typical and all-too-common example of the South in the 21st Century. Western Europe, Australia, the British Isles, Canada, New Zealand all have better records for civil rights. A person with children would be nuts to refuse an offer to move the family from the US to one of these places.

 

[Montrovant]

Montrovant, do not assume things that are not in your ken to assume. The statements 'may have' indicated an intent to do harm to others. No, you do not make the law and have no right to insist that "evidence is presented that this post . . . was an imminent danger". The legislature made the law, LEO carries it out, and now it is in the courts. If you don't like that, I don't care.

When did I state, or even imply, that I make the law? I am giving my opinion on the law, or the misapplication of law, depending on what the case is in this instance.

That something is law does not make it right or moral. It does not even make it constitutional.

More, here is a link to what this site claims is the Texas statute regarding terroristic threats. Do you think the statements made by the imprisoned young man qualify?
Terroristic Threat Law & Legal Definition

It seems to me that, unless there is evidence to show otherwise, there was no intent as described in the statute. Do you disagree?

Last, yes, this will obviously go through the courts. The point that I and others are trying to make, I think, is that it should never have gotten to the point where the courts needed to be involved. What is the reason this incident falls under the terroristic threat statute? What part of this joking comment was deemed a real threat, or having been made to cause a reaction in an emergency organization, or any of the other qualities described?

You seem perfectly happy to assume that law enforcement is in the right, that there is no chance of a mistake or abuse of power or even a poorly written law. You've every right to feel that way, but I'm trying to understand how you can come to such a mindset. If it's not an authoritarian bent, what is it?

Oh, and I didn't insist anything. Perhaps if you actually read and comprehended what is written, you would have seen that I was asking a question. Rather than answer, you turned my question into an insistence of something. Perhaps you are having the same issues with the statements that lead to this incident....are you reading them as serious threats because you cannot see the joking nature? Or perhaps you don't understand what LOL and j/k indicate?

 

[JakeStarkey]

How you come up with this conclusion is beyond me: "You seem perfectly happy to assume that law enforcement is in the right, that there is no chance of a mistake or abuse of power or even a poorly written law."

I read and comprehend competently. You are asking questions that will be handled by the courts. You simply "feel" the arrest was wrong. OK, I get you feel that. I don't care.

 

[JOSweetHeart]

If that kid really has been beaten while in that jail that he was thrown into, his parents should sue the place for every penny that they can get their hands on because if them brain dead authority people just had to throw him in there in the first place, they should have stuck him in an area where nothing could be done to him...after all he hasn't laid a hand on anyone else before, has he? No.

God bless you and him and his family always!!!

Holly

 

[Montrovant]

How you come up with this conclusion is beyond me: "You seem perfectly happy to assume that law enforcement is in the right, that there is no chance of a mistake or abuse of power or even a poorly written law."

I read and comprehend competently. You are asking questions that will be handled by the courts. You simply "feel" the arrest was wrong. OK, I get you feel that. I don't care.

I come to that conclusion based on your reaction to every dissenting opinion in this thread. Have you once said anything that would indicate you consider this to be anything but proper procedure and a legitimate law? With every response you post you seem perfectly content with how the situation has progressed.

If you read and comprehend competently, why did you say this question, "Until some evidence is presented that this post on a social networking site was an imminent danger to someone, or even a serious threat, how can abridging someone's rights be supported?" was me insisting something to be true?

I await your complete lack of an answer with baited breath.

 

[R.C. Christian]

If the phrase is used as an hypothetical in a case study of a problem, of course not. Oh, and your red herring of "are you going to report me" is relentlessly stupid.

No matter how many words you type, M, you cannot get away that the kid may very well have broken the law and that the police were completely right to get involved.

And no matter how many words you type, you'll still be a statist pile of shit.

 

[JoeB131]

IF the story is how it is being presented, this seems to be an overreation.

Which is not surprising.

Every time you have a larger than average school shooting (as opposed to the little ones that only kill one or two) you have a bunch of hypervigilance by officials who don't want to be the one who 'Saw the warning sign and ignored it".

But I'm glad all these guns make us feel sooooo much safer, don't you?