- Joined
- Oct 18, 2007
- Messages
- 31,346
- Reaction score
- 19,889
- Location
- East Coast - USA
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
(CNN) -- It was a sarcastic Facebook comment during an argument about a video game. And, according to the father of 19-year-old Justin Carter, it was enough to land his son behind bars for months, facing the possibility of years in prison.
According to court documents, Justin wrote "I'm f---ed in the head alright. I think I'ma (sic) shoot up a kindergarten and watch the blood of the innocent rain down and eat the beating heart of one of them."
Jack Carter said his son followed the claim with "LOL" and "J/K" -- indicating that the comment wasn't serious.
But someone else -- Carter says a woman in Canada -- noticed the comment and reported it to authorities. Coming two months after the deadly shootings at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, the report wasn't taken lightly. According to court documents, Carter lived less than a half-mile from an elementary school in New Braunfels, Texas.
There is another thread on the forum addressing this.
My thoughts-
This isn't an 8 year old eating a pop tart, this is an ADULT. 19 is adult. I was in a military hospital recovering from wounds at his age.
I truly doubt he never typed any crazy crap before. It would be a break from reality to claim he was such a good boy and this was just a poor joke taken out of context.
EVERY right has limits, you can't yell fire in a theater, you can't slander or libel someone and in this day and age terrorist threats are serious.
While it appears the young man didn't have the tools needed to attack a school, that isn't the issue or what he was arrested for.
The Judge is being harsh on the poor wide body, but his lawyer has taken 4 months to get around to asking for a reduced bail?
These laws have been in place since way before Newtown, that there are a few ignorant putzes out there who claim no knowledge of Columbine makes no difference. As many are wont to say when it suits... words have meaning.
You don't need an AR to be guilty of making a terrorist threat, just a fat mouth bigger than your pea brain.
This is why it amazes me some of the 'patriot' crap a few love to post... Big Brother doesn't have to be watching, any one can report your over the top butt.
Bet his Happy Meal butt learned online ain't Vegas...eace
Unless there is more to this story this was obviously a joke. Seriously, is it because the joke was about kids. How many of us have said things like "I am going to kill you" when a friend or sibling got under your skin.
This is tantamount to outlawing hyperbole.
I've never agreed with the idea "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" has any applicability beyond medical usage. Our society has used this little dictum to create a whole slew of laws restricting individual liberty simply because a possibility exists someone might commit a crime, when in fact they haven't done anything harmful at all. At least not until such actions are criminalized in a premeptive attempt against actual criminal acts. Now, although your actions have caused no harm, these actions are themselves a crime. So we as a society, having become so fearful of the possibility of harm, have created "thought laws" making us so fearful of arrest we can't even express jokes about such things. Worse, our children can't even play "bang bang" games with their fingers or toy army figures without being expelled from schools or playgrounds. This is why "patriots" post...the fear of losing more and more liberty in the name of public security.
Bit much don't you think? No thought laws, laws against threatening people. There is a difference. There is a difference between an 8 year old eating a pop tart and a 19 year old MAN running his Happy Meal Mouth.
...Seems the ACLU is the patriot here. These laws can be changed- but most 'patriots' seem far more interested in playing the angry/victim card than putting on their shoes and attending to the situation.
I'd also opine many 'patriots' are happy with Achmeed getting jacked on 'threat' talk but not sweet widebody Bubba.
I'm also pretty sure if a guy threatened many a 'patriot's' family with mayhem, murder or some such, they would RUN to the cops wanting 'SOMETHING' done. But hey, do more than post, change the law...
Thoughts on this?
Is the kid a potential threat, or just the victim of current idiotic policy?
And exactly what actual harm has this "19 year old MAN running his Happy Meal Mouth" done? So some Canadian biddy was offended and perhaps "frightened." Has any school kid been harmed? Wrong argument to use with me, since I actively support the ACLU. Again, wrong argument to use with me, since as a lawyer I know the difference between the crime of "assault" which is what a terrorist does when he makes a viable threat, and Free Speech, such as when a "19 year old MAN running his Happy Meal Mouth" on his Facebook page responds in regards to a comment on his "video gaming skills." Again, clear threats vs joking comments...major and easily discernable differences there. Try again. A kid creating a web-page and then posting a series of "articles" praising and advocating specific acts of murder and mayhem may be an indicator and give reason for suspicion if found. But to insure it is not simply literary license or a means of venting frustrations some investigation is warranted. But automatic arrest and charges? No way. In a case like this where it is clearly a mere joke? Not even a "warning" is necessary. Just shrug and move on.
Communicating a threat doesn't require action to be illegal- don't like that concept, change the law.
When it comes to 'patriots' and Achmeed you are changing the story. I didn't say the police would act, i said the 'patriots' would be happy. I didn't say 'clear or viable' threat, but the same deal- no weapons, bombs or materials... the terrorist threat rule was all fine and good until slackers started getting in trouble.
You moved the goalpost on the terrorist threat, you compared apples to oranges.
Jonathan Swift was a terrorist then, fo sho.
I never said a threat needs to require action to be assault. Acting on the threat would make it battery, murder, or whatever other criminal harm ensues. However, in order for something to qualify as assault, the person claiming to be assaulted must have a rational good faith belief that the person making the threat intends to carry it out. That does not appear to be the case here. It seems to be a knee-jerk attempt to punish this guy for speech people simply disapprove of in light of the recent school attacks. I guess this may be a matter of semantics, since I consider myself a firm believer in the Bill of Rights and the principles evoked in the Declaration of Independence, which would label me a "patriot" to many who also adhere to that ideology. I think the term you really should be using is "reactionary," but that's just my opinion. As for the rest of your argument, while I agree with some parts (your feelings about the Patriot Act for example), I consider the rest illogical slippery-slope fallacies which serve to undermine First Amendment protections of free expression. In my personal view (knowing the Courts have since modified this in attempts to uphold all these new "thought police laws") free speech should not be abridged unless there is a clear and present danger of harm.
I don't see this as knee jerk. The Police investigated and a WEEK later the judge issued the arrest warrant. What time frame is knee jerk to you?
Something triggered the response by both the police and a judge- the father and Right wing bloggers are playing a bit loose with the truth. I'd say let the legal system- part of the Constitution I swore an oath to support and defend- work it's magic.
And no there is no need for an individual to fear in this case but the police to believe and a judge to agree. That is the nature of mass murder- no one person to feel THEY are threatened. This isn't 'thought' police, but a rather specific threat by an adult. I'd imagine many 'patriots' would be castigating the authorities, as those who use 'thought police' and other terms are a bit critical of authorities, if they just said, 'oh it's free speech' and the goober went and killed a bunch of little kids.
I also believe the Bill of Rights is not limitless and the line in which at least an investigation should be conducted is just what the 'poor' adult did.
Knee-jerk is a reflexive reaction, the term being based on what happens when a doctor hits a pivot point on the Knee. Timing has very little to do with it when refering to public actions taken in response to public stimuli. Here we have some grounds for agreement. We do not know all the facts, and it is possible that some other evidence was uncovered which points to "real" danger. Still, if what the facebook page showed was what the father claims...it seems a bit of a stretch this guy was making any viable threat. I guess we'll find out if the issue ever comes to trial. My hope, if that be the case, the government has a lot more than simply this, or other inane comments he may have made taken out of context. And here again we disagree because the police and judge should not be involved in the first place unless a credible threat has been made. What was the "credible threat" if the statement was made in the context it occurred as claimed by the father in this case? We can disagree here, although as you can see by my icon, I am a supporter of the "Patrick Henry" view of liberty. He was a rather fiery and seditious orator, who could likely have faced imprisonment for some of his statements were they made today (at least under your idea of free speech). Again, unless speech demonstrates a clear and present danger, it should not be abridged.
And I see the knee jerk reaction as being this outrage over at BEST half the facts and what the OP presents is readily proven otherwise- the 'daddy summations' vs the recorded postings of our adult, not kid. Due process has been served... the amount of bond is a bit high but the lawyer has taken months to get around to that part of this so don't blame the judge.
Go read other sites and see the rather big difference between what the police and records say the young ADULT posted vs what Daddy claims was said.
Ahhh Patrick Henry- a man I have NO I say again ZERO love for. All talk and no walk.... well he did walk out of the Constitutional Convention when he didn't get his way.... But he never risked a hair on his head in the cause of freedom, never got the whiff of grape, all talk.
He is the forefather of all 'patriots'...
Sedition is done in spades these days, he'd have to Beck or Limbaugh his way through the pack to get even 5 minutes of fame.
tsk tsk, no respect for one of our countries "patriots" lol. Anyway, gimme some links and I'll be happy to see what new developments have arisen. Always happy to keep informed.
Teen in jail for months over 'sarcastic' Facebook threat - CNN.com
Thoughts on this?
Is the kid a potential threat, or just the victim of current idiotic policy?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?