Texas Teen Jailed For FB Comment, On Suicide Watch

[notquiteright]

This isn't unusual at all. It's pretty typical. I dont' understand the point you are trying to make. Perhaps that after a week of sifting through his computer records they found enough similarly inane comments the prosecution could put together to convince a judge there was cause? This I agree with completely. If they have a private lawyer they should fire him. If it's a Public Defender, I'd speak to his boss about getting him replaced (although PD's are typically overworked and under staffed).

I guess you have not read the other two threads on this. There was no kick in the door, drag the poor 'teen' into the 'thought' police van never to be seen again. Due process was observed. The Dad's version of the online posts a far cry from what court documents allege.

I suppose you think the mass murder young men's web postings are inane as well? We don't know all the facts, the young man could have visited a number of less than savory sites.

If it was just inane comments any lawyer should have gotten bail reduced. If I was the parent and back when I couldn't raise 50,000, I'd be on the phone to every right wing 'freedom of speech' bunch I can find on the internet. Course retaining a good defense lawyer isn't THAT expensive. It's the great ones that cost.

It is also twisting the facts, another poster did this, to claim the 'plea deal' is 8 years in prison.

 

[Captain Adverse]

I guess you have not read the other two threads on this. There was no kick in the door, drag the poor 'teen' into the 'thought' police van never to be seen again. Due process was observed. The Dad's version of the online posts a far cry from what court documents allege.

Nope, don't even know two other threads exist. I'm involved in several other types of threads and sometimes I join a new one and follow it when a post (like here) responds to one of mine. However, please indicate where I said "due process was not observed." Or even intimated anything else in your first sentence. I would appreciate a re-direct to any cite containing a link to the court documents. Thanks.

I suppose you think the mass murder young men's web postings are inane as well? We don't know all the facts, the young man could have visited a number of less than savory sites.

Are you saying the court documents I have not seen allege he has visited mass murder sites? Or are you commenting on the existence of such sites created by other young men, and asking me if we should think of them as "inane?"

In either case, I would not consider them "inane," they warrant investigation. However, if evidence found also shows them to be either "outlets" for pent up rage with no other indicators of actual intent to act in a harmful manner, or merely "literary license," like people who write "how-to" books on bomb making...then I would consider them protected under the First Amendment.

If it was just inane comments any lawyer should have gotten bail reduced. If I was the parent and back when I couldn't raise 50,000, I'd be on the phone to every right wing 'freedom of speech' bunch I can find on the internet. Course retaining a good defense lawyer isn't THAT expensive. It's the great ones that cost..

Granted in both cases, with the caveat that not all lawyers are equally competent, and even a competent lawyer would still need to deal with the each judge's "attitudes" when handling bail issues.

It is also twisting the facts, another poster did this, to claim the 'plea deal' is 8 years in prison.

Conceded, if you will agree that I am allowed to "emote" a little in this forum for "effect" when I read such posts.

 

[notquiteright]

Nope, don't even know two other threads exist. I'm involved in several other types of threads and sometimes I join a new one and follow it when a post (like here) responds to one of mine. However, please indicate where I said "due process was not observed." Or even intimated anything else in your first sentence. I would appreciate a re-direct to any cite containing a link to the court documents. Thanks. Are you saying the court documents I have not seen allege he has visited mass murder sites? Or are you commenting on the existence of such sites created by other young men, and asking me if we should think of them as "inane?" In either case, I would not consider them "inane," they warrant investigation. However, if evidence found also shows them to be either "outlets" for pent up rage with no other indicators of actual intent to act in a harmful manner, or merely "literary license," like people who write "how-to" books on bomb making...then I would consider them protected under the First Amendment. Granted in both cases, with the caveat that not all lawyers are equally competent, and even a competent lawyer would still need to deal with the each judge's "attitudes" when handling bail issues. Conceded, if you will agree that I am allowed to "emote" a little in this forum for "effect" when I read such posts.

Not that I am by nature a doubting man but both 'poor teen' threads were 'on the surface' for as long as this one was before you found it, odd you never noticed.

Now you show me where I named you as one who thought due process wasn't observed....

CNN.com cnntech july 3- reporter's name is Doug Gross- has the most and concise information- most the other sites cherry pick his column.

What I asked was do you think those young men who did commit mass murder- were their online posts, rants, and outrageous comments inane as well??? If the police had been made aware of their threats should they have just shrugged and said 'first amendment' (even though uttering a terrorist threat is a crime and they have sworn an oath to uphold the law)

The bottom line is we don't know what was found on his computer but BY LAW the police investigated, served a search warrant obtained evidence which was presented to a judge who issued a warrant for arrest.

Ahhh here is where we can agree on freedom of speech-

If you get to emote, I get to comment on that... eace

 

[Captain Adverse]

Not that I am by nature a doubting man but both 'poor teen' threads were 'on the surface' for as long as this one was before you found it, odd you never noticed.

Odd or not, it's what happened. Go figure.

CNN.com cnntech july 3- reporter's name is Doug Gross- has the most and concise information- most the other sites cherry pick his column.

Thanks, much appreciated.

What I asked was do you think those young men who did commit mass murder- were their online posts, rants, and outrageous comments inane as well??? If the police had been made aware of their threats should they have just shrugged and said 'first amendment' (even though uttering a terrorist threat is a crime and they have sworn an oath to uphold the law).

Unfortunately I am not a big supporter of Free Speech limitations absent a "clear and present danger of harm." I know, I've heard that Courts have reduced this higher standard to allow for just the sort of legal crap that punishes for the mere possibility something might happen. If a clear and directed threat is made, fine...investigate and make an arrest if evidence is found of real intent. Not hard...the Columbine Duo had the stuff hidden in their homes, and this is pretty much the same situation with almost all of the other crazy pricks who ended up taking actual action.

The bottom line is we don't know what was found on his computer but BY LAW the police investigated, served a search warrant obtained evidence which was presented to a judge who issued a warrant for arrest..

Yes, and "by law" the police investigated and the prosecutor did the same thing for those members of that "Soccer team" accused of gang-rape too. Made a BIG DEAL of it in the papers...only to find out it was B/S. The workings of "the law" are intricate and interesting are they not?

If you get to emote, I get to comment on that... eace

Indubitably. Cheers.

 

[notquiteright]

Unfortunately I am not a big supporter of Free Speech limitations absent a "clear and present danger of harm." I know, I've heard that Courts have reduced this higher standard to allow for just the sort of legal crap that punishes for the mere possibility something might happen. If a clear and directed threat is made, fine...investigate and make an arrest if evidence is found of real intent. Not hard...the Columbine Duo had the stuff hidden in their homes, and this is pretty much the same situation with almost all of the other crazy pricks who ended up taking actual action.
Yes, and "by law" the police investigated and the prosecutor did the same thing for those members of that "Soccer team" accused of gang-rape too. Made a BIG DEAL of it in the papers...only to find out it was B/S. The workings of "the law" are intricate and interesting are they not?

You must have a twin, for the clear and present danger bit is EXACTLY what a fella in the other thread said. As I told him, it is fine for you to hold a higher threshold of action, but the law is the law and as in the Columbine shootings, IF the two gunmen's web posts had been brought to the attention of the police, even before they built their bombs, killings would have been averted. Tough to draw the line, but as it sits the law is the law and the Police for sure and most likely the judge are all just obeying the law.

Now if we are looking for a perfect system then no legal system will pass your scrutiny. Mistakes are made, huge settlements are reaped by some who are falsely accused- some are just grateful to be released after 20 or so years of false imprisonment. There are many places in the Texas judicial system you can swing a dead cat and hit a long standing problem- just not sure this 19 year old's case is one of them.

 

[Captain Adverse]

You must have a twin, for the clear and present danger bit is EXACTLY what a fella in the other thread said. As I told him, it is fine for you to hold a higher threshold of action, but the law is the law and as in the Columbine shootings, IF the two gunmen's web posts had been brought to the attention of the police, even before they built their bombs, killings would have been averted. Tough to draw the line, but as it sits the law is the law and the Police for sure and most likely the judge are all just obeying the law.

I am well-aware that the "law is the law," I'm a frickin lawyer and have to uphold it, even the assinine ones like we are talking about here. I do so, but I don't have to like or agree with it. It would help clear my conscience if I ever had the chance to represent someone charged with such an offense absent evidence of a clear and present danger.

But I see it as a slippery-slope justification that could lead to more and more abridgements of a right that "shall not be abridged."

Now if we are looking for a perfect system then no legal system will pass your scrutiny. Mistakes are made, huge settlements are reaped by some who are falsely accused- some are just grateful to be released after 20 or so years of false imprisonment. There are many places in the Texas judicial system you can swing a dead cat and hit a long standing problem- just not sure this 19 year old's case is one of them.

Well, I am willing to wait and see how it all turns out.

 

[Barnabas Collins]

Okay, I would bring up something Jesus said on judging. You know, *Let he who is without sin..."

Think about all you have said in a forum debate, in a group or even written on a bathroom wall. We live in a state that you have no clue who is monitoring you. Have you said anything joking or in anger that could get you in trouble with some of the new laws of the Bush-Obama administration? Think about it...oh, and note that all you have ever said in response to a youtube video that you think is anonymous is far from anonymous.

 

[Geoist]

There's nothing to see. Some people get pissed if you take online comments like those described in the OP seriously and then the same people get pissed when they aren't taken seriously and turn out to be serious. They want to have it both ways. They are stupid. Any questions?

Who are these people you speak of? Most of the posters here (including myself) think an investigation is justified but imprisonment for several months is not. Like I said before, do you think it has to be one extreme or the other?

 

[Geoist]

Do you really not understand the difference between a MOVIE and a regular person making a violent comment online?

There is no difference as the commenter was clearly joking. Even if there was reason to be concerned, several months in prison is not justified.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

Who are these people you speak of? Most of the posters here (including myself) think an investigation is justified but imprisonment for several months is not. Like I said before, do you think it has to be one extreme or the other?

When you ask me if I think it has to be one extreme or the other, you're asking me about a hypothetical. Since I'm talking about reality - my experiences - your question is a red herring. Some people want it both ways. If you haven't' seen them, congratulations, but this doesn't change the fact that I have.

 

[Geoist]

Again the first two threads were started with right wing umbrage... Though huffpo left out what the court records say the 19 year old adult actually posted.

Laughing, I always love the 'no one said you had to post pout'... I simply point out a lot of steam gets let out of the rants when you see what the 19 year old adult posted, that the police got a search warrant, searched the home and a WEEK later the judge issued an arrest warrant.

If this thread loses steam because of some other detail then so-be-it. But you have yet to post anything that does that.

Dumbass parents AND bad lawyer... don't split hairs or complete thoughts...

How does that make a difference? There is still no reason that I have seen for this kid to still be in jail.

There is no, I say again ZERO, excuse for taking this long to getting around to asking for reduced bond. THAT is on the parents and whoever they have retained as a lawyer...

One does not stay in jail indefinitely if bail/bond isn't posted.

 

[notquiteright]

If this thread loses steam because of some other detail then so-be-it. But you have yet to post anything that does that. How does that make a difference? There is still no reason that I have seen for this kid to still be in jail. One does not stay in jail indefinitely if bail/bond isn't posted.

You are sort of correct, those who refuse to be open minded about why a 19 year old adult was investigated and then had a warrant for his arrest issued can continue to post their favorite conspiracy- no stopping that. Those who refuse to see ALL the facts brought to light can still post- "I don't understand"- can't help that.

I'd imagine there are thousands of people in jail for reasons you don't see for a variety of reasons to include bias and we are not privy to all the facts of a case. now about the comment that drew this from you... Use my complete thought- the 19 year adult is in jail because his parents AND his legal representation are foolish/incompetent in their efforts.

Actually unless the Judge acts one does stay in jail until sentence. Seen a few young men do exactly that- and then they went straight to prison if convicted without a day spent back home. Only the Judge can chance the parameters and judges don't trend toward changing bond all on their own.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Why this kid remains in jail is completely beyond me.


Justin Carter, the Texas teen jailed over a sarcastic Facebook comment, is reportedly on suicide watch.

"He's very depressed, very scared, and ... concerned that he's not going to get out," Carter's father, Jack, said in an interview with CNN Tuesday. "He's pretty much lost all hope."

Carter, 19, was arrested in February of this year following an argument he had on Facebook regarding "League of Legends," an online video game.

Justin Carter, Teen Jailed For Facebook Comment, Reportedly On Suicide Watch


...And this country continues its spiral towards a police state.

Never liked Facebook and never signed up. Like it even less now.

At least here, at DP, you only get infracted as a way to squelch protected speech.

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

WHAT!?!? $500,000 Bail? 8 year plea deal offer???? WTF is he supposed to have done besides his comment on Facebook????

Where's the ACLU?? Where's Legal Defense??? What the hell are the FACTS???

Maybe he killed two people?

"Murder suspect freed on bail, twice

...

Mitchell was originally ordered held without bond by a District Court Commissioner, but at a bail review the next morning, a District Court judge set a bail for him at $50,000, which he posted that day and walked out of jail, court records.

Such a low bail on a murder charge is incredibly rare; most charged with first-degree murder, and many charged with attempted murder and even handgun charges, are held without bond.

Six days later on Dec. 13, Mitchell was apparently re-arrested on the same charges. Why is unclear. Butn a bail was set again, this time in the amount of $250,000, which is also rare. Today, court records show, Mitchell's supporters posted property bonds in that amount and he was again released."

Man charged with murder, freed on bail - Baltimore Sun

 

[Geoist]

When you ask me if I think it has to be one extreme or the other, you're asking me about a hypothetical. Since I'm talking about reality - my experiences - your question is a red herring. Some people want it both ways. If you haven't' seen them, congratulations, but this doesn't change the fact that I have.

Well, maybe you can start discussing the issue with the posters on the thread instead of complaining about a few hypocrites you met.

 

[Geoist]

You are sort of correct, those who refuse to be open minded about why a 19 year old adult was investigated and then had a warrant for his arrest issued can continue to post their favorite conspiracy- no stopping that. Those who refuse to see ALL the facts brought to light can still post- "I don't understand"- can't help that.

I'd imagine there are thousands of people in jail for reasons you don't see for a variety of reasons to include bias and we are not privy to all the facts of a case. now about the comment that drew this from you... Use my complete thought- the 19 year adult is in jail because his parents AND his legal representation are foolish/incompetent in their efforts.

Actually unless the Judge acts one does stay in jail until sentence. Seen a few young men do exactly that- and then they went straight to prison if convicted without a day spent back home. Only the Judge can chance the parameters and judges don't trend toward changing bond all on their own.

This is clear violation of habeas corpus laws.

 

[Geoist]

Never liked Facebook and never signed up. Like it even less now.

At least here, at DP, you only get infracted as a way to squelch protected speech.

Personally, not a big fan either. It drives me crazy how much my wife shares on FB. Pretty much the only reason I still have an account is to keep up with a few political/economic groups.

 

[notquiteright]

This is clear violation of habeas corpus laws.

How is that?

 

[ThePlayDrive]

Well, maybe you can start discussing the issue with the posters on the thread instead of complaining about a few hypocrites you met.

I like that you are suggesting that I stop talking about people that are inconvenient for your criticism of my posts. I guess your philosophy is, "When I can't make a counterargument, tell people to stop talking." LOL.

 

[Geoist]

How is that?

He was jailed for a month before being questioned and, as far as I know, he still has had no trial.

 

[Geoist]

I like that you are suggesting that I stop talking about people that are inconvenient for your criticism of my posts. I guess your philosophy is, "When I can't make a counterargument, tell people to stop talking." LOL.

No, there is just no point in bringing up people who have not posted on this thread and who's opinions do not relate to mine. Why should I have a counterargument when I don't even agree with them? Lol.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

Why should I have a counterargument when I don't even agree with them?

I don't know. Why did you present a counterargument to my original post in this thread? That's not a question I can answer for you.

 

[Geoist]

I don't know. Why did you present a counterargument to my original post in this thread? That's not a question I can answer for you.

Because you and others implied that anyone who opposes whats happening are hypocrites.

 

[Fenton]

I remember back in my counter-strike days my friend and I would
sometimes see who could get banned from a server faster. Through a series of scientific trials, we discovered that calling the admin a "****ing jew" would usually produce results within 15 seconds.

Lol...

Back in my StarWars Battlefront Days the fastest way a player could get IP banned was to glitch the map.

Find the hidden passages that put you outside of the map looking in with a clear line of fire.

One shoulder launched rocket from a rocket trooper camping on top of the map burrying a Admin into a corner of the Mos Eisley Bar would result a ban in about 9 seconds.

I miss that game.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

Because you and others implied that anyone who opposes whats happening are hypocrites.

No, that's what you inferred. But regardless, it's your position that the comment described in the OP was "clearly joking" presumably because the guy ended his threat with "lol, jk" to signify that he was joking. With et me post something from an article about a school shooting in California.

Words from a friend of the shooter:

"The whole weekend I was with him, and he was joking on and off that he was going to come to school and shoot people," student Josh Stevens said.

"He had it all planned out, but at the end of the weekend he said he was just joking."

Chris Reynolds, whose son was friends with Andy Williams said the boy had stayed at his house on Saturday night and talked about his plans.

"I even mentioned Columbine to him. But he said: 'No nothing will happen, I'm just joking."

He now regrets not taking some kind of action to prevent the shooting.

BBC News | AMERICAS | School shooting: The warning signs

So, kid makes offhand comments about shooting up a school, says he's joking and that's enough for people like you and the friend who didn't report what he said to dismiss it. Kid then shoots up a school. Good luck with that attitude.