19 year old given $500,000 bail for Facebook status

[Razgovory]

Uttering Threats are are dime a dozen right here on Languish. 

This is why prosecutors ought to use their discretion. In this case, there was no specific target named and the circumstances tended to indicate the "threat" wasn't meant seriously. The details were fantastical - I mean, really, he's "threatening" to commit cannibalism. Of the still-beating heart of a child.

I've "threatened" to bake babies into matzoh more than once, in response to a "Jew Lawyer" jibe.  Is that a "clear-cut offence of uttering threats"?

+1

Nobody wants to be the guy who ignored the warning of the next school shootings.

The take-away message is that hysterical over-reaction to tragedy does more to erode basic freedoms than the deliberate government plotting feared by so many.

I'm not sure that posting inane threats on facebook is a basic freedom.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Nonsense. "I'm going to kill you, Mr. X" is a threat, depending on the context - if it was, all factors taken into consideration, intended to be taken seriously as an intimidation. "I'm going to eat the beating heart of a child" isn't - it's more accurately termed 'stupid internet trash talk'. There is tons of that right here on good old Languish.

It would appear a QC learned in the matter of Canadian criminal law disagrees with your disagreement of me. I might agree with you that this case probably wouldn't result in a conviction in Canada, at least if your cites are accurate representation of Canadian criminal law. I would not be surprised if they wouldn't result in a conviction here, either. This guy hasn't been convicted, he's just been held in pretrial confinement.

FWIW he wasn't arrested by police under their powers to determine they have probable cause and make an impromptu arrest, they investigated the postings for a week and then went to a judge who gave them an arrest warrant. That would suggest that a judge at least believes his utterances were evidence sufficient to arrest him, which 'ain't nothin' as they say.

[Malthus]

Malthus, you keep focusing on "eating the beating heart of a child", when the most chilling words were "I think Ima shoot up a kindergarten".

The "specific intent" required is that you meant to threaten people, not that you are going to carry out on your threat.

You wish to classify this as "internet trash talk", but there is no such legal category.  It's true that the internet has typically not been policed, well, at all, so it has developed something of a culture of allowing behaviour that would not be tolerated in any other context.  But that's culture, not the law, and we are seeing more and more enforcement of the law on the internet, both in child porn of course, but in cyber bullying and intimidation as well.

No, but there is in fact a "legal category" of 'having to prove beyond reasonable doubt the elements of the offence', which in this case the Supreme Court of Canada (you remember them - the highest court in our land?  ) have pronounced as including the "mental element" of "being meant to intimidate or be taken seriously".

http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?text=R.+v.+Clemente+&language=en&searchTitle=Canada+%28Federal%29&path=/en/ca/scc/doc/1994/1994canlii49/1994canlii49.html&searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAPUi4gdi4gQ2xlbWVudGUgAAAAAAAAAQ

To state, in the words of Mr. Justice Cory:

Under the present section the actus reus of the offence is the uttering of threats of death or serious bodily harm.  The mens rea is that the words be spoken or written as a threat to cause death or serious bodily harm; that is, they were meant to intimidate or to be taken seriously.

To determine if a reasonable person would consider that the words were uttered as a threat the court must regard them objectively, and review them in light of the circumstances in which they were uttered, the manner in which they were spoken, and the person to whom they were addressed.

Obviously words spoken in jest or in such a manner that they could not be taken seriously could not lead a reasonable person to conclude that the words conveyed a threat.

Emphasis mine.

So no, there is no "legal category" of "Internet trash talk". That's just my shorthand for saying "regarded objectively, words such as this, in the circumstances in which they were uttered (i.e., an Internet posting on facebook in response to events in a game forum) in the manner in which they were spoken (i.e., in an obviously joking slang "I think Ima shoot up ..."), and to the person to whom they were addressed (i.e., his facebook pals, presumably a bunch of gaming nerds), do not meet the mental element, established by the Supreme Court of Canada in the leading case directly on point, of being intended to be taken seriously or be actually intended to intimidate - the standard objective "reasonable person" could not reasonably have thought they were an actual "threat" within this legal meaning of the term".

In short, and stripped of this lawyeristic verbiage, they were "Internet trash talk".

Note this has nothing whatsoever to do, specifically, with the "Internet" having some alternative standard imposed - it is simply an straightforward application of the already-existing common law, which in all cases requires, in Canada at least, a threat to be an actual threat.

[Malthus]

It would appear a QC learned in the matter of Canadian criminal law disagrees with your disagreement of me. I might agree with you that this case probably wouldn't result in a conviction in Canada, at least if your cites are accurate representation of Canadian criminal law. I would not be surprised if they wouldn't result in a conviction here, either. This guy hasn't been convicted, he's just been held in pretrial confinement.

Heh, BB's not a QC.  That's a reward you get after decades of lawyering (in some provinces). He's not elderly enough for that.

And anyway, he's wrong in law.

Point of fact is that reasonable law enforcement officials should be using their discretion not to charge people for silly crimes that have no hope of success - they should ignore "tragedy hysteria".

FWIW he wasn't arrested by police under their powers to determine they have probable cause and make an impromptu arrest, they investigated the postings for a week and then went to a judge who gave them an arrest warrant. That would suggest that a judge at least believes his utterances were evidence sufficient to arrest him, which 'ain't nothin' as they say.

Ah, the old 'if the system produced this result it must be correct' trick.

Well, it could very well be that the cops and the judge have facts we don't have. Would not be the first time an outrageous news article proves economical with the facts that would reduce the outrage.

However, on the facts as reported, their decisions are inexplicable and outrageous.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Malthus, is there any venue you're aware of where given a certain scenario in which a crime is committed they can sort of determine if the specifics of that scenario meet the "reasonable doubt" burden?

[Neil]

You wish to classify this as "internet trash talk", but there is no such legal category.  It's true that the internet has typically not been policed, well, at all, so it has developed something of a culture of allowing behaviour that would not be tolerated in any other context.  But that's culture, not the law, and we are seeing more and more enforcement of the law on the internet, both in child porn of course, but in cyber bullying and intimidation as well.

So if we were playing a table top game together and I made this a joke about eating your babies in the midst of trash talk I would be arrested at once?

Probably not.  Mike Tyson threatened to eat a guy's kids on national TV, and nobody arrested him (for that).

I think that this is just another case of lawyers doing their utmost to destroy civilization.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Ah, the old 'if the system produced this result it must be correct' trick.

Well, it could very well be that the cops and the judge have facts we don't have. Would not be the first time an outrageous news article proves economical with the facts that would reduce the outrage.

However, on the facts as reported, their decisions are inexplicable and outrageous.

And not quite what I was saying kemosabe. I'm just pointing out that generally in the United States at least if the police arrest someone "impromtu" there is an early stage preliminary/probable cause hearing in which a judge determines if the State really has justification to even take this dog and pony show to the trial stage. In this case, since a judge issued an arrest warrant it meant the police / prosecutor had enough evidence to submit in their petition to get said warrant that a judge thought it met the evidentiary burden for an arrest. He may consider it the job of a trial to determine based on evidence and testimony the seriousness of the utterances and how they should be interpreted.

If making threats is a crime, I don't see how it is intrinsically a deprivation of liberty to investigate speech that may constitute a threat, and if you can make enough of an argument that it was--to let a jury decide if it was a threat.

[Eddie Teach]

I'm not sure that posting inane threats on facebook is a basic freedom.

Speech is a basic freedom, inane or not. There are limitations to this freedom, but it's the government who has to show why the speech should be curtailed and not the speaker who has to show why it should be allowed.

[Malthus]

Ah, the old 'if the system produced this result it must be correct' trick.

Well, it could very well be that the cops and the judge have facts we don't have. Would not be the first time an outrageous news article proves economical with the facts that would reduce the outrage.

However, on the facts as reported, their decisions are inexplicable and outrageous.

And not quite what I was saying kemosabe. I'm just pointing out that generally in the United States at least if the police arrest someone "impromtu" there is an early stage preliminary/probable cause hearing in which a judge determines if the State really has justification to even take this dog and pony show to the trial stage. In this case, since a judge issued an arrest warrant it meant the police / prosecutor had enough evidence to submit in their petition to get said warrant that a judge thought it met the evidentiary burden for an arrest. He may consider it the job of a trial to determine based on evidence and testimony the seriousness of the utterances and how they should be interpreted.

If making threats is a crime, I don't see how it is intrinsically a deprivation of liberty to investigate speech that may constitute a threat, and if you can make enough of an argument that it was--to let a jury decide if it was a threat.

I'm saying it is an obviously stupid lack of the exercise of even the most elementary form of discretion on the part of these officials to process this particular "crime" through the system.

Assuming that this particular form of official stupidity is actually policy in Texas, for example, and was applied consistently, forums such as this very one in which we are now conversing would be either drastically curtailed or impossible. We probably have a "threat" worthy of "investigation" under these criteria every week here.

[Barrister]

Malthus - I don't know if "I think Ima gonna shoot up a kindergarten" would ultimately be found guilty of being a Threat or not.  It, of course, all depends on context (which is somewhat alcking ehre).  But you're dead wrong to just automatically waive your hand and say "nothing to see here, move along".

[Malthus]

Malthus - I don't know if "I think Ima gonna shoot up a kindergarten" would ultimately be found guilty of being a Threat or not.  It, of course, all depends on context (which is somewhat alcking ehre).  But you're dead wrong to just automatically waive your hand and say "nothing to see here, move along".

We know the context from the same place we know what was said - it was in a facebook posting, by a guy angry over shit that went down in a gaming forum.

Of course those details may be untrue. I've said all along, it's the story as reported that is outrageous.

From the cops quoted, it's a pretty clear case of hysteria. Cops saw "schoolchildren" and freaked out, because of the school shootings. They say as much.

"The whole situation is kind of unfortunate," said New Braunfels Police Lt. John Wells. "We definitely understand the situation that Mr. Carter is in, however he made the comments, and it is an offense. We have to ... protect the general public and specifically, in this case, with it involving schoolchildren, we have to act. We take those very seriously."

What's the difference between this guy and me, when I reply to someone twiting me about being a bloodsucking Jew lawyer by saying I'ma gonna bake my matzoh with gentile baby blood? "we must protect the general public and and specifically, in this case, with it involving gentile babies, we have to act. We take those very seriously"

[Eddie Teach]

What's the difference between this guy and me, when I reply to someone twiting me about being a bloodsucking Jew lawyer by saying I'ma gonna bake my matzoh with gentile baby blood? "we must protect the general public and and specifically, in this case, with it involving gentile babies, we have to act. We take those very seriously"

You can afford a better lawyer.

[crazy canuck]

Malthus, is there any venue you're aware of where given a certain scenario in which a crime is committed they can sort of determine if the specifics of that scenario meet the "reasonable doubt" burden?

If the police arrested everyone that made similiar "threats" and they were all held in pre-trial custody then the square footage of the worlds jails would have to be increased significantly.

If crown prosecutors prosecuted all such cases then the Criminal Justice system would have to be expanded signficantly.

I think our learned "QC" is angling for job securing more than anything.

[crazy canuck]

What's the difference between this guy and me, when I reply to someone twiting me about being a bloodsucking Jew lawyer by saying I'ma gonna bake my matzoh with gentile baby blood? "we must protect the general public and and specifically, in this case, with it involving gentile babies, we have to act. We take those very seriously"

You can afford a better lawyer.

He also doesnt live in Texas.

[Barrister]

I don't want to be a QC.

I'm waiting till I can become a KC.