Sissyl you have to realize that in much of the US, sanity left the station a while back. Here is just a small list of some truly idiotic episodes.
Is it really surprising that there are people here saying that it is ok to put this guy in jail or even prison for responding to someone calling him a psycho with a hyperbolic fictitious scenario which he almost immediately deleted when he realized how it sounded.
Ahhhhh... So "terroristic threat" means "pointing a Hello Kitty bubble gun at someone". It is f*+$ing priceless. Seriously, you can stop fighting the War on Terror now. There is no point whatsoever. Terror already won. And everything that has been done has made it worse. Insanity is not a big enough term for the kind of bugf*~* crazy those stories bear witness of.
Just like 6-year-olds with bubble guns, apparently. KICKED OUT OF SCHOOL!!! Not joking about the insane...
Such as someone being called a psycho saying "I'ma shoot up a kindergarten, kill strangers and eat their hearts"? Please. "Terroristic threats"? Apparently, both the kid with the bubble gun and the heart eater above committed THAT particular sin. There is no excuse. A legal system that tolerates crap like that is a monster, and supporting it is sharing that guilt.
The kid with the hello kitty gun had zero contact with the legal system in this. It was school policy, which I agree is horrible, I'm not a fan of the zero tolerance concept.
Well, apparently the policy is still going strong. And btw, the legal system was involved in this, since they had to hire a lawyer to deal with the situation.
But what really shows that the American legal system is off its f+&+ing rocker is that in both cases, "terroristic threat" was the term used.
The next time you see "zero tolerance", think of it meaning "cops don't want to do dangerous stuff and prefer f@!*ing up the lives of kids and shoplifters" and you will have a clearer image of what is being said.
What makes this all crazy is the interaction between the very opposite ideas that "All effort should be expended to prevent future crime" Supported by the realization the most of these violent criminals started out with a cry for help by saying some very bad things first. Versus the alternative view that "People should be treated fairly until they actually DO commit a crime." It isn't a crime in most cases to say some very bad things and so it is the height of injustice to punish someone for talking about a crime as if they were in the commission of just such a crime. Obviously the interaction involves understanding when something is just talk or a cry for help that you are about to do something evil. Most of the people in charge of making these decisions can't make them. So we end up with both extremes: children facing legal action over a toy or a few poorly chosen words on one extreme and mass murderers who all but spelled out what they were going to do to everyone around them yet no one lifted a hand to get them the intervention they needed on the other hand. This will continue until society finds a better way to get the people best suited to make those decisions into the jobs that make those decisions.
Well, apparently the policy is still going strong. And btw, the legal system was involved in this, since they had to hire a lawyer to deal with the situation.
But what really shows that the American legal system is off its f~&+ing rocker is that in both cases, "terroristic threat" was the term used.
The next time you see "zero tolerance", think of it meaning "cops don't want to do dangerous stuff and prefer f~@#ing up the lives of kids and shoplifters" and you will have a clearer image of what is being said.
It's still not the legal system, it's the school district.
People hire lawyers to deal with other people/institutions all the time. Lawyers are people who also deal regularly in negotiation.
When I was a kid I did something dumb/bad and my family hired a lawyer. He dealt with the criminal justice system for us, but he ALSO dealt with the school, but those two things were separate and were not directly related (other than the related incident). Negotiations in one didn't affect the other.
There are laws involved with the school districts, but it's still not the criminal justice system, that's the state/county/local legislative body. The judicial system and legislative system are not the same thing.
Schools are often governed at the local level. The city, or collection of cities form a school board, which are voted on in local elections. The school board is responsible for setting policy and making decisions. If a district uses Zero Tolerance, that is usually decided on by the school board, not a judge. Enforcement of the policy is usually done by the superintendent, and unless a lawsuit is brought against the school district, is not subject to review by a judge.
These things are not the same. Stop trying to say they are, because you're wrong.
So, a year in jail before trial, because of someone interpreting something he wrote as "terroristic".
Again, there's really no interpretation necessary. He said he was going to shoot up a school.
And I assume that is what you want, then, with your fine idea of how to deter people from writing stupid things on the net?
You were the one who suggested that people mistaken about a single piece of info (that, hilariously, you yourself were mistaken about) ought to never participate in discussions of criminality and punishment.
Here, I'll quote you for yourself, in case you missed what you said.
I admit, I may have misunderstood something seriously here, but I don't actually think so. And if I haven't... please don't weigh in on discussions about criminality and punishment in the future, okay?
A year in jail, half a million dollars fine,
No. Not a half a million dollars fine. You also don't know how bail works. I'm not surprised, really.
His bond was set at $500,000. To satisfy that surety requirement, his family would need to post ten percent of that, or $50,000, in order to secure his pre-trial release from jail. That money will be refunded to them (depending on their arrangement with the bond service) when he actually shows up for trial, because the whole point of that money is to make sure that the defendant actually shows up for his trial.
Their anonymous donor straight up paid the $500,000 so that they don't have to deal with a bondsman. That donor (or the family; not sure how the donor has things set up) will receive that money back when the kid shows up for trial.
and then, if it truly wasn't more than a stupid comment, a week or so in jail? Or would he then be judged to have done his time???
It depends on the sentence. Time spent in jail pre-trial is typically counted towards a sentence of incarceration. If he is sentenced to more than five months, he will need to serve more time. If not, he will probably leave the trial free, whether guilty or not guilty.
Pardon the curiosity, but which branch?Air Force, though I narrowly avoided the mistake of joining the Army.
Definitely dodged a...wait.
Not a particularly apt phrase, but definitely the better course of action.
As mentioned, both parents went with that branch.
For example, I don't find New Yorkers rude - I find the NYC lifestyle hasty and restless, after living with an uncle in Harlem, and he was something of a hustling Jazz musician, which you would think was a bit more laid back than the typical job in the city. Nope, everyone, top down, lives hard and fast, or so my experience with the city indicated.Maybe rude is the wrong term. It's just a sort of self-absorbed cynicism and...I don't know, maybe "inconsiderate" is the right term.
Oh, I understand fully what you mean - my disagreement, weird as it sounds, is more directed at people who whinge about New Yorkers being 'rude'. The cynicism is very real, and there's a certain degree of self-absorbance required by virtue of it being New Freaking York (city, state, applies to both); but I do not see it as rude, which may come of both having lived there and found more often than not that people are being oversensitive 'special snowflakes' with featherweight constitutions and an inability to put on their Grown Up Pants and accept that they aren't going to be coddled.
The irony is not lost on me, in contrast to my view about public servants and the mandate for extra courteousness by profession.
...as my posts in the George Zimmerman verdict thread can attest.No offense, but I'm not touching that one with a ten-foot pole.
None taken. I was more than a little incensed, but got better. Mostly there was the discussion of the things that, one week before President Obama said them, I'd experienced in general society since leaving the relatively sheltered environs of base and overseas life after coming back to the US. Which I think is why it offends/perturbs me so much - growing up with Uncle Sam as my damned-near literal uncle, I didn't see anything remotely close to the race, region, and societal-based jackhole-ery that I experienced upon return Stateside - perhaps it was through idealized eyes, but people just seemed, outside of rank, more 'equal' off-duty and in general, regardless if one was from a poor part of the South or from someplace more middle class in the Midwest, or even a Legacy kid gone CO.
Which makes the recent military woes especially galling, but that's a rant for another time and thread. I've derailed this one far too much already.
Irontruth: You said LEGAL SYSTEM. I said LEGAL SYSTEM. Then you start talking about CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM and claimed I was wrong. Try again.
Scott: So, five months in jail is what you think a stupid comment on the internet should end up as? Or more than a year, if the person in question can't pay 50.000 dollars? I am still interested in how that matches to your fine, upstanding idea of "slap them in jail for a few days or weeks" to deter them from saying stupid things on the net. So far, the possible way to deal with this seems to be a year in jail even before trial.
That you don't have a concept about irony, sarcasm and other ways humans express themselves is nothing new.
Hama: As is someone pointing a bubble gun at someone else.
What makes this all crazy is the interaction between the very opposite ideas that "All effort should be expended to prevent future crime" Supported by the realization the most of these violent criminals started out with a cry for help by saying some very bad things first. Versus the alternative view that "People should be treated fairly until they actually DO commit a crime." It isn't a crime in most cases to say some very bad things and so it is the height of injustice to punish someone for talking about a crime as if they were in the commission of just such a crime. Obviously the interaction involves understanding when something is just talk or a cry for help that you are about to do something evil. Most of the people in charge of making these decisions can't make them. So we end up with both extremes: children facing legal action over a toy or a few poorly chosen words on one extreme and mass murderers who all but spelled out what they were going to do to everyone around them yet no one lifted a hand to get them the intervention they needed on the other hand. This will continue until society finds a better way to get the people best suited to make those decisions into the jobs that make those decisions.
We have a legal system that on one hand claims to hold to "innocent until proven guilty", and on the other hand wants to extend its influlence to those who could come to commit a crime, heartily supported by the politicians, who tend to think the same way. It... is a problem.
As you say, it is difficult to know the difference. This is where empathy comes in. Empathy, the human ability to set oneself in emotional tune with another human, gives us the chance to understand what people mean, and is a requirement for the decisions you discuss. There are three problems here: First, some people do not have that empathic ability, and typically, they don't consider it important, which means they try to do things that require empathy anyway. Second, you need to actually do this by being open to the other person. If you have judged this person to be a terrorist or any of a thousand different slurs, or just a criminal, or stupid, or the like, you shut down your empathy. Third, it takes an emotional toll to do.
This is why I keep trying to talk about compassion in threads where everyone (or almost everyone) else keeps harping that "they are criminals and should be punished, f+!@ yeah!!!1"
Scott: So, five months in jail is what you think a stupid comment on the internet should end up as? Or more than a year, if the person in question can't pay 50.000 dollars?
You can characterize it as a "stupid comment on the internet" all you want. The kid threatened to shoot up a school. He should know better, and he sure as hell deserves more than a slap on the wrist.
I am still interested in how that matches to your fine, upstanding idea of "slap them in jail for a few days or weeks" to deter them from saying stupid things on the net.
I know you mean that sarcastically, but incarcerating someone for a moderate period of time strikes me as a pretty solid response to a threat like this. So, yeah, that is fine.
That you don't have a concept about irony, sarcasm and other ways humans express themselves is nothing new.
Keep it up, Sissyl. You'll win us over eventually, I'm sure.
This is why I keep trying to talk about compassion in threads where everyone (or almost everyone) else keeps harping that "they are criminals and should be punished, f&!+ yeah!!!1"
Do you seriously think that we're all on board the tough-on-crime bandwagon? Most of the people in this thread doubtless find the idea of long-term incarceration for nonviolent, drug-related offenses to be appalling, I'm sure. We're not advocating excessive punishments. But what we are saying is that a threat like this does deserve some form of punishment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Irontruth: You said LEGAL SYSTEM. I said LEGAL SYSTEM. Then you start talking about CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM and claimed I was wrong. Try again.
You're the one comparing it to the criminal justice system. You made the claim that the guy in jail for the past year over his threats and the 6 y/o with the hello kitty toy are victims of the same system. They aren't the same system. They're completely separate systems. Sometimes they interact with each other, but they are not the same and are governed by completely different rules, organized differently and derive their authority from completely different sources.
In fact, I even gave a really short break down of how school districts derive their authority and generate rules. It has nothing to do with the criminal or civil legal system. School punishments are not subject to judicial review, unless someone brings a civil lawsuit against the school. Lawyers are not required, there are no juries, etc.
Lawyers can be present, but this has more to do with negotiation and handling of documents to safeguard against future legal action, but they aren't actually a requirement.
I can hire a lawyer to sue my doctor. It doesn't make my doctor part of the legal system as a standard rule though.
This is why I keep trying to talk about compassion in threads where everyone (or almost everyone) else keeps harping that "they are criminals and should be punished, f&!+ yeah!!!1"Do you seriously think that we're all on board the tough-on-crime bandwagon? Most of the people in this thread doubtless find the idea of long-term incarceration for nonviolent, drug-related offenses to be appalling, I'm sure. We're not advocating excessive punishments. But what we are saying is that a threat like this does deserve some form of punishment.
According to you, a year in jail is reasonable?
Hama: As is someone pointing a bubble gun at someone else.Well, now that is simply Americans taking things way too seriously and going to ridiculous extremes. As usual.
Which is, you know, just about what I am trying to say. But it doesn't end there. This is a matter of human suffering that is completely unnecessary. And I suspect the reasons are deeply connected to a legal system that hungers for as much of a role as possible for lawyers, and a huge group of people for whom the spectatem of inflicting suffering on others is irresistible. The kind of people who force a mentally retarded person to retake IQ tests until he gets above 70, so he can be executed. Or kick a kid of 6 out of school for pointing a bubble gun at someone else.
Another problem is that this goes both ways. It is not just a deterrent. It also teaches people that horrible punishments are yhe only redress for someone doing wrong. Which feeds the cycle and makes people act worse once there is some kind of conflict.
Well, apparently the policy is still going strong. And btw, the legal system was involved in this, since they had to hire a lawyer to deal with the situation.
But what really shows that the American legal system is off its f&@$ing rocker is that in both cases, "terroristic threat" was the term used.
The next time you see "zero tolerance", think of it meaning "cops don't want to do dangerous stuff and prefer f@%!ing up the lives of kids and shoplifters" and you will have a clearer image of what is being said.
Terroristic threat is a specific legal term that simply means a threat that encompasses a specific large number of people (depending on the statute but in general more than 5). It is different from the general popular definition of terrorism. It is a term that long predates the war on terrorism.
His bond was set at $500,000. To satisfy that surety requirement, his family would need to post ten percent of that, or $50,000, in order to secure his pre-trial release from jail. That money will be refunded to them (depending on their arrangement with the bond service) when he actually shows up for trial, because the whole point of that money is to make sure that the defendant actually shows up for his trial.Their anonymous donor straight up paid the $500,000 so that they don't have to deal with a bondsman. That donor (or the family; not sure how the donor has things set up) will receive that money back when the kid shows up for trial.
That's not how that works. You pay the bondsman the 50,000 and they assume responsibility that you will return for trial. If you don't show the bondsman must produce you or pay the court 500,000. The 50,000 is not refundable. That's how the bondsman makes money.
However, if you post the full amount like the donor did, that money is returned in full.
Some jurisdictions do cut out the bondsmen and allow surety bonds directly with the clerk, but that's unusual. Some jurisdictions also allow property bonds wherein appearance is guaranteed through a lien on real estate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Reading this thread has made my head hurt, a lot. Not just because of some of the things I've discovered, but some of the things said herein. I'm going to sum up my feelings on this entire matter, and then go away from this thread forever.
One. The people who threatened this poor woman, and the people who threatened the COD developers, and people like them, should receive punishment. I'd say in lieu of a few weeks of jail time minimum.
Two. The kid who made the "joke" about shooting up a kindergarten and eating a heart was dumb. The fact that he said "jk lol" after saying it doesn't excuse what he said. What I do think was an overreaction, was them trying to slap him with a LIFE SENTENCE and a 500,000 DOLLAR BAIL. He spent five months in jail while just waiting for his hearing, and from the various news reports I've seen on the subject, it wasn't scheduled for almost another year. This kid was locked up with a (realistically) impossible bail, simply because he made a stupid mistake. He didn't hurt anyone, he just ran his mouth inappropriately. if I got thrown in jail for a year with a 500,000 bail every time I ran my mouth inappropriately, we'd have paid off the national debt and I'd be serving about two thousand consecutive life sentences. I may not agree with everything Scott Betts has said, but this kid deserved some kind of punishment, I just don't think it was what the legal system had in mind. To clarify: the money will be returned to the family, and the family is planning on returning the money to the donor. And it wasn't just a year in jail the prosecution was pushing for. Prosecutors were going to try and put him in jail FOR LIFE because he "posed a serious threat to the health and welfare of the nation's children" or some other b$!+~%## political claim.
Three. The bubble gun issue is stupid. I know people in here pretty much agree, but anyone who doesn't is retarded. It's stupid. THe gun was blatantly fake, the kid in no way was trying to "threaten people's lives", and the parents who reacted to it need to be put through a severe re-education process to understand what "danger" actually is. The times when kids have gone into schools with the realistic-looking air guns, that at least to some degree I can under stand. BUT IT WAS A HELLY F*#@KING KITTY GUN. 'nuff said.
Four. This thread should probably stop now, because anyone who has said anything has made their piece known, and from here on in it will likely devolve into just b@%*$ing and flaming.
Done now. Bye guys.
I'd add that decisions regarding severe punishment in schools often have appeal processes. Furthermore the schools are bound by laws requiring certain processes. You know who deals frequently with arguing how generalized rules are applied to specific factual situations? Lawyers. That's why in these situations people often hire lawyers. They are certainly not required to do so, and most people don't.
I tried to get us off the topic of using the legal system, but people weren't interested.
I have, while gaming or just hanging out friends, said things that could be taken as threats of murder or worse. I don't recall anything quite like that, but I know back in my school days we joked about blowing the school up or burning it down to avoid tests or some such nonsense.
The only difference is that I was doing so in person, not while playing games online where a permanent record can be kept and where people not in on the joking can see it.
And that's why some punishment is warranted. People not "in on the joke" have no way of telling that there was a joke to begin with. A joking threat and a genuine terroristic threat look the same to someone unfamiliar with the context, and therefore need to be treated the same. Treating them differently produces an environment where the punishment for any terroristic threat made in a semi-public or public space can be nullified simply by claiming that it was part of a joke.
It is certainly not so easy if you can't understand what people say beyond the literal words written. And there are millions of people who work like that. To them, the only message sent is the explicit text. That misses a very significant chunk of meaning, and these people typically support every possible simplistic rule that could make the strange, invisible communication illegal, or at least legally irrelevant. To them, they see no factual difference between a joke and a real threat, because the exact words written are the same. Still, it is insanity to let them decide this, because ninety percent of humanity is able to understand this other communication. That is no reason to be nasty to them about it, however.
But if you have the context, the people involved, the situation, and the subculture, do you agree with me that you could make a pretty good judgement on what was actually said?
Not everyone can. Some people are literally incapable of processing implicit data. They DON'T LIKE implicit data, so usually they discuss what was said without paying any attention to anything but the literal meaning. They talk about truth values, they consider everything literally. Some of them are smart enough to see irony when it happens clearly. Even those typically firmly discourage it.
Around a few percent of humanity has difficulties with empathy, which is what you use for this interpretation process. It's not rare at all. A kid in every class. Everyone knows someone, often several someones, like this. And yes, it affects every discussion these people are involved in: They push firmly to ignore implicit meanings, and try to get everyone else to do so as well. Especially figures of speech are EXTREMELY difficult. "Why did you say it was raining cats and dogs? There aren't any cats or dogs raining here, and besides, that would be impossible. Where would those animals come from, a catapult? Do you SERIOUSLY think there are cats and dogs falling from the sky? Because that's obviously insane."
Or they could look at the actual context around the statement and determine whether any action is warranted. Which, in a public space like the Internet, is pretty easy.
It was a Facebook status. That doesn't provide much in the way of context. Again, it's really easy for someone caught up in an investigation for a terroristic threat to say, "It was just a joke, guys!" It's also easy for someone making such a threat to realize how damaging that statement could be if attention was brought to it, and follow it up with a, "jk lolz!"
The larger problem that I was trying to get at is that the whole Internet is a public space, many parts of which we are strongly encouraged to treat as if it was private space. That's part of the appeal of game chat areas and things like that: They make it more like actually playing with people right there, like playing a game around a table and so people react as if they were.
That's definitely a concern, but to be honest I think it's just making it more apparent that we need to be careful what we say. The fact that something is said in private company doesn't suddenly make it okay. If one of the people in that private company brings it to the attention of authorities, the fact that it was said in confidence is no longer important.
We as a society will need to adapt to that. We need to figure out how to handle that kind of space. Teaching everyone that everything on line is public and forever won't work. That's not how we're wired.
I'm not sure what the alternative would be. Anonymity is still an option in most places, but where your name is attached to something, you need to be mindful of how you comport yourself. I think that's a good thing, personally.
A Facebook comment, yes. But still part of a discussion. He didn't just randomly put "Status: Planning to shoot up kindergarten." on his Facebook page.
This is my own ignorance showing. I had been under the impression that this simply a status update rather than a response to a discussion. I went and looked up the discussion itself, and, in context, it is obviously intended sarcastically. Based on that, I'm inclined to believe that this is an arrest that should never have been made.
I'd like to apologize to Sissyl, as well. I don't agree that terroristic threats should go unpunished, but you were right: they aren't terroristic, here. Someone made a really bad decision, but it wasn't Justin Carter.
Well, thank you.
I think we can all agree that you shouldn't be spending half-a-year in jail without a trial.
We have a right to a speedy trial in this country regardless of your crime.
I think we can all agree that you shouldn't be spending half-a-year in jail without a trial.
We have a right to a speedy trial in this country regardless of your crime.
Due process and a speedy trial are at odds with each other, unfortunately. While we value both, we tend to err on the side of the former at the expense of the latter. Which is the best alternative, but not having to decide would be the most ideal option.
If the Justice system fails at offering a speedy trial, then you release the accused at $0 bail.
It is entirely on our system to be staffed and ready to process charges. Keeping someone in jail indefinitely before every starting their trial is in direct conflict with our central legal document.
We might as well just shoot people during the arrest, if we had no intention of allowing them any chance at a trial or freedom.
If the Justice system fails at offering a speedy trial, then you release the accused at $0 bail.
It is entirely on our system to be staffed and ready to process charges. Keeping someone in jail indefinitely before every starting their trial is in direct conflict with our central legal document.
We might as well just shoot people during the arrest, if we had no intention of allowing them any chance at a trial or freedom.
But... But... That would require more government spending and/or legislation which would reduce a lot of the workload of the courts (e.g. possession of marijuana).
I'm sure some people would like to put you in court just for suggesting such a thing.
No, not any more. You guys won the War on Drugs. That's why you just can't find'em anymore.