Photo of gun charged as terrorist threat

[emilynghiem]

Lawmakers defend Michigan student charged over gun photo

LANSING, Mich. (AP) — State lawmakers and a gun rights group on Tuesday called for changes to Michigan's terrorism law after a Lake Superior State University student was charged for posting a photo of his rifle on social media and saying it would make “snowflakes melt.” Lucas Gerhard, 20, faces...

apnews.com

The student was not using his gun to make any threat against a person. He was posting a photo to taunt "Snowflakes."

If I announce on Twitter "Hey all you Prolife people, I am going to the Clinic on Fannin to have an abortion. So if you think this is murder, try stopping me!"

Is that a murder threat?

Abortion is legal and so is the student bringing his gun with him to school. But 3 students complained they felt threatened by this post. And that was enough for authorities to pursue an indictment, which they refused to drop. So this man has to go through courts, at taxpayer expense, to prove himself innocent instead of prosecution having to prove he was making or posing a terror threat.

If 3 prolife people I didn't name or send message to, decide they feel harassed or threatened by my post, even though abortion is legal, is that enough to prosecute me for posting a taunt online?

Oh, so I need to make it a gun reference
for it to match the Michigan case:

If I said Sept 1 means I have Constitutional carry rights to pack my pistol with me, when I go to the clinic, does that make this a terror threat?

A photo of a gun. Which is legal to take to that school.
With a caption addressing "Snowflakes".

Really?

 

[Likkmee]

Indeed

 

[Confederate Soldier]

Look, I am as pro gun as they get, but if you are that fucking dumb to "taunt" snowflakes at your school with a gun photo, you need to have your head examined. What did he think was going to happen!? In this day and age the FIRST thing that comes to mind is school shooting when you see that photo with caption, with the context that he is a student taunting other students.

 

[emilynghiem]

Look, I am as pro gun as they get, but if you are that fucking dumb to "taunt" snowflakes at your school with a gun photo, you need to have your head examined. What did he think was going to happen!? In this day and age the FIRST thing that comes to mind is school shooting when you see that photo with caption, with the context that he is a student taunting other students.

If he taunted fellow students, then those students can seek campus help with counseling to make sure he is not a criminal threat first. Then go resolve this as a conflict between them, since the intent was civil not criminal.

Sure, if he were abusive and has criminal issues, that could be referred to higher authorities, though I would have contacted parents and church authorities for counseling first.

This did not need to escalate to criminal or federal levels.

This can be resolved locally.

 

[JGalt]

I don't know who's dumb, dumber, or dumbest - The kid who made the joke and then checked a weapon in for safekeeping, the idiots who freaked out about the joke, or the authorities who arrested him.

 

[Gabe Lackmann]

That was a dumb move. You know the queers are gonna start wetting their panties and go tattle.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The student was not using his gun to make any threat against a person. He was posting a photo to taunt "Snowflakes."

Which is why this is a First Amendment issue, not Second Amendment.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

‘The night before returning to the school for his junior year, Gerhard sent a photo of his newly purchased AR-15 rifle to a group of friends on Snapchat. The text said: “Takin this bad boy up, this outta make the snowflakes melt, aye? And I mean snowflakes as in snow.”’ ibid

Conservatives are truly idiotic.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Look, I am as pro gun as they get, but if you are that fucking dumb to "taunt" snowflakes at your school with a gun photo, you need to have your head examined. What did he think was going to happen!? In this day and age the FIRST thing that comes to mind is school shooting when you see that photo with caption, with the context that he is a student taunting other students.

If he taunted fellow students, then those students can seek campus help with counseling to make sure he is not a criminal threat first. Then go resolve this as a conflict between them, since the intent was civil not criminal.

Sure, if he were abusive and has criminal issues, that could be referred to higher authorities, though I would have contacted parents and church authorities for counseling first.

This did not need to escalate to criminal or federal levels.

This can be resolved locally.

Like the Second Amendment, the First Amendment right is neither ‘unlimited’ nor ‘absolute’ – it is not a right to say anything whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose; speech is subject to limits and restrictions, such as advocating for imminent lawlessness or violence.

In this case terrorist threats are not entitled to First Amendment protections.

Whether Michigan’s terrorist threat law is Constitutional or not may eventually be determined by the courts, or the law may be amended as indicated in the linked article.

 

[JGalt]

‘The night before returning to the school for his junior year, Gerhard sent a photo of his newly purchased AR-15 rifle to a group of friends on Snapchat. The text said: “Takin this bad boy up, this outta make the snowflakes melt, aye? And I mean snowflakes as in snow.”’ ibid

Conservatives are truly idiotic.

Who doesn't have a tactical snow shovel? I use this baby in my garden every year...

 

[emilynghiem]

I don't know who's dumb, dumber, or dumbest - The kid who made the joke and then checked a weapon in for safekeeping, the idiots who freaked out about the joke, or the authorities who arrested him.

I think you got it about right, in that order.

It was a thoughtless reckless thing to do.

Then the students complaining could have contacted the parents, or the school could have reached out to resolve this directly and reasonably but didn't.

And then to keep pushing this legally instead of resolving it, is even more wasteful and compounding the initial problem that was fixable.

I wonder if this was set up to fail.
To either push the pro gun or anti gun agenda by making one side or the other look as bad as possible.

Sometimes it almost looks like they want to make bad policies fail, by pushing them to the point of ridiculous. So the publicity causes public outrage.

 

[emilynghiem]

Look, I am as pro gun as they get, but if you are that fucking dumb to "taunt" snowflakes at your school with a gun photo, you need to have your head examined. What did he think was going to happen!? In this day and age the FIRST thing that comes to mind is school shooting when you see that photo with caption, with the context that he is a student taunting other students.

If he taunted fellow students, then those students can seek campus help with counseling to make sure he is not a criminal threat first. Then go resolve this as a conflict between them, since the intent was civil not criminal.

Sure, if he were abusive and has criminal issues, that could be referred to higher authorities, though I would have contacted parents and church authorities for counseling first.

This did not need to escalate to criminal or federal levels.

This can be resolved locally.

Like the Second Amendment, the First Amendment right is neither ‘unlimited’ nor ‘absolute’ – it is not a right to say anything whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose; speech is subject to limits and restrictions, such as advocating for imminent lawlessness or violence.

In this case terrorist threats are not entitled to First Amendment protections.

Whether Michigan’s terrorist threat law is Constitutional or not may eventually be determined by the courts, or the law may be amended as indicated in the linked article.

1. Yes death threats and terrorist threats are not lawful exercise of First Amendment free speech. In Natural Law terms, violent abuse and threats that disrupt the right of people peaceably to assemble in security are breaking the same laws as the First Amendment is in context with. You cannot abuse part of the laws out of context to violate other laws.
The same argument I make about not misinterpreting the Second Amendment either, to violate rights or protections, deprive liberty property or security without due process, etc. Which are part of the same set of laws the 2A is part of.

2. C_Clayton_Jones
This case isn't about contesting terrorist threats such as talking about using a gun to target, threaten or shoot someone physically.

It is arguing if a photo of a gun and using the photo to taunt "Snowflakes" is a federal terrorist threat, or could be harassment if it directed at a person.

Who is the target?
If they are suing, let them sue.

This looks like political harassment of one member of a group taunting another group.

Reminds me of the other 19 year old getting charged with a hate crime for smirking at a sheriff and stomping on a blue line sign.

What is political protest?

And should people be forced to prove they are not a real physical criminal threat before they can exercise and defend their free speech to protest in public?

 

[woodwork201]

I don't know who's dumb, dumber, or dumbest - The kid who made the joke and then checked a weapon in for safekeeping, the idiots who freaked out about the joke, or the authorities who arrested him.

The kid who made the joke, had he refrained from making the joke out of fear of repercussion, would have been even, well, if not dumber then sadder.

Anytime a person succumbs to intimidation and gives up even the tiniest bit of any right, all rights for everyone get eroded a little more. If it's not death by a thousand cuts it is certainly death by many thousand cuts.