To put it in context, the kid posted this status on February 14, 2013, exactly two months after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings.
Teen jailed for 'sarcastic' Facebook status update (http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2013/07/03/198129617/teen-jailed-for-facebook-comment-reportedly-beat-up-behind-bars)
QuoteThe family of Justin Carter, the 19-year-old Texas gamer who made offensive Facebook comments that landed him in jail, is working with new urgency to get his $500,000 bail reduced because they say he's getting beat up behind bars.
"Without getting into the really nasty details, he's had concussions, black eyes, moved four times from base for his own protection," says Carter's father, Jack. "He's been put in solitary confinement, nude, for days on end because he's depressed. All of this is extremely traumatic to this kid. This is a horrible experience."
Carter has been in jail since his arrest in February. After he finished playing the online game League of Legends, where the community trash-talking can get quite toxic, court documents show he posted the following messages on a Facebook page:
"I think Ima shoot up a kindergarten / And watch the blood of the innocent rain down/ And eat the beating heart of one of them."
Carter's father says his son was responding to an insult by being sarcastic and followed the message with "JK" for just kidding, but that's disputed by police.
In April, a grand jury in Comal County, Texas, indicted Carter on a charge of making a terroristic threat, and a judge set bail at $500,000. The high bail has kept Carter imprisoned while his case moves through the court process.
"I have been practicing law for 10 years, I've represented murderers, terrorists, rapists. Anything you can think of. I have never seen a bond at $500,000," says Carter's attorney, Don Flanary.
The charge is a third-degree felony, which in Texas carries up to 10 years in prison. The Comal County District Attorney's office hasn't responded to our calls, but police in New Braunfels, Texas, who have investigated the case, say in a time of heightened sensitivity to school shootings, their interest is in preventing violence when they can.
"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."
Carter's father says his son's past five months of "suffering quite a bit of abuse" behind bars doesn't fit the crime. "He says he's really sorry. He just got caught up in the moment of the game and didn't think about the implications," Jack Carter says.
An Change.org online petition for Justin Carter's release has gotten nearly 40,000 signatures, and attorney Flanary got a new hearing set for July 16 to bring up issues of his abuse and to try to get bond lowered so Carter can go home to await trial.
If convicted, Carter could face up to 10 years in prison.
They need to knock a couple zeros off the bail, but otherwise meh.
He doesn't seem to be getting along very well with fellow hardcore Comal County inmates.
Good. Have some respect and common decency.
Quote from: garbon on July 03, 2013, 11:29:16 PM
Good. Have some respect and common decency.
That's pretty rich coming from you.
Quote from: Neil on July 03, 2013, 11:36:52 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 03, 2013, 11:29:16 PM
Good. Have some respect and common decency.
That's pretty rich coming from you.
When do I JK about murder?
You bitch about law enforcement all the time.
Still, it's a shame that there are no social controls to smack down idiots like this guy. This isn't what criminal courts are for. But, I suppose that's the society we wanted, isn't it?
Quote from: garbon on July 03, 2013, 11:29:16 PM
Good. Have some respect and common decency.
:lol:
My daughter said pretty much the same thing on Facebook. A guy I know - the American version of Martinus except a hair stylist instead of a lawyer - replied this way:
QuoteI just listened to some truly insipid teenagers going on about how they actually thought that this was a good thing. "That'll learn em'' and "Sadly it probably, actually won't". Seriously you self absorbed heinous little fuckers? As if you, as a teenager have never said anything truly stupid. This kid does not deserve to be in jail with bond higher than a rapist or murder, being beaten and abused for saying one really dumb thing. Your parents need to teach you some empathy.
He'd said more or less the same on her link, peppered with more "fucks", then finally deleted his comments and blocked her. Mind you, the guy's 35 years old arguing with a 14-year-old girl. :lmfao:
Quote from: Neil on July 03, 2013, 11:44:09 PM
You bitch about law enforcement all the time.
Which clearly means I think no laws should be enforced?
Well, all things considered it's probably for the best.
MAH BUTTOCKS
Absolutely ridiculous miscarriage of justice.
It's more than 4 months later. How long can the investigations last in such a (IMHO silly) case?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 04, 2013, 12:28:33 AM
Absolutely ridiculous miscarriage of justice.
It's Texas, what do you expect.
Quote from: 11B4V on July 04, 2013, 12:30:09 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 04, 2013, 12:28:33 AM
Absolutely ridiculous miscarriage of justice.
It's Texas, what do you expect.
Aren't you a cop from Texas?
QuoteJustin Carter was 18 back in February when an online video game took an ugly turn on Facebook. Jack Carter says his son Justin and a friend got into an argument with someone on Facebook about the game and the teenager wrote a comment he now regrets. 'Someone had said something to the effect of "Oh you're insane, you're crazy, you're messed up in the head," to which he replied "Oh yeah, I'm real messed up in the head, I'm going to go shoot up a school full of kids and eat their still, beating hearts," and the next two lines were lol and jk,' said Carter."
That was pretty fucking dumb.
Quote from: 11B4V on July 04, 2013, 12:32:27 AM
Quote"I think Ima shoot up a kindergarten / And watch the blood of the innocent rain down/ And eat the beating heart of one of them."
That was pretty fucking dumb.
I've seen song lyrics worse than that.
Some punk kid types some stupid shit on the internet and you throw him in jail for months on end? That's some deeply stupid, dysfunctional shit.
Quote from: Syt on July 04, 2013, 12:33:24 AM
I've seen song lyrics worse than that.
Not doubting it.
Anyways, unless there was any indication that this was more than just a stupid comment by the teen and that he planned any killing spree, this is a retarded waste of government resources.
If we locked up anyone who posts offensive crap on the interwebs, Languish would be a wasteland in no time.
Quote from: Syt on July 04, 2013, 12:39:04 AM
Anyways, unless there was any indication that this was more than just a stupid comment by the teen and that he planned any killing spree, this is a retarded waste of government resources.
If we locked up anyone who posts offensive crap on the interwebs, Languish would be a wasteland in no time.
Couldnt agree more.
How did the cops find out?
Quote from: The Brain on July 04, 2013, 03:00:44 AM
How did the cops find out?
A female Canuckistani, I believe.
Quote from: 11B4V on July 04, 2013, 12:33:15 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 04, 2013, 12:31:13 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on July 04, 2013, 12:30:09 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 04, 2013, 12:28:33 AM
Absolutely ridiculous miscarriage of justice.
It's Texas, what do you expect.
Aren't you a cop from Texas?
:lol: You're kidding, right?
11B4V, Texas Ranger :P
Quote from: Jacob on July 04, 2013, 12:34:24 AM
Some punk kid types some stupid shit on the internet and you throw him in jail for months on end? That's some deeply stupid, dysfunctional shit.
Agreed, but not nearly so dysfunctional as those say "Yeah, he deserved it" and no doubt there are probably 'commentators' now joking about the rape of a teenager in prison.
Quoteto which he replied "Oh yeah, I'm real messed up in the head, I'm going to go shoot up a school full of kids and eat their still, beating hearts,"
That was pretty fucking dumb.
[/quote]
No kidding. Kids and their fucking comma splices these days.
Quote from: Jacob on July 04, 2013, 12:34:24 AM
Some punk kid types some stupid shit on the internet and you throw him in jail for months on end? That's some deeply stupid, dysfunctional shit.
No kidding. Eurofascism comes to America. Christ.
Seems to be an Anglo-saxon failing to me, this sort of nonsense is rife in the UK too.
This is a supremely stupid law enforcement decision.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on July 04, 2013, 10:38:15 AM
Seems to be an Anglo-saxon failing to me, this sort of nonsense is rife in the UK too.
I like the Daily Mail stories about ASBOs. :)
Quote from: Malthus on July 04, 2013, 10:53:14 AM
This is a supremely stupid law enforcement decision.
What choice do they have though? Sure, the chance that kid goes nuts and shoots up some little kids is remote, but if that happens then everyone gets fired and nailed by jackpot justice. Our society trains people to be risk averse, so there's only one safe decision to make.
Quote from: garbon on July 03, 2013, 11:47:49 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 03, 2013, 11:44:09 PM
You bitch about law enforcement all the time.
Which clearly means I think no laws should be enforced?
I wouldn't put it past you.
At any rate, as a gay, this is your fault.
Quote from: HVC on July 04, 2013, 06:26:15 AM
11B4V, Texas Ranger :P
More like Det. Holder I think. Especially the use of street slang.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 04, 2013, 10:35:06 AMNo kidding. Eurofascism comes to America. Christ.
:huh:
Quote from: Jacob on July 04, 2013, 12:47:23 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 04, 2013, 10:35:06 AMNo kidding. Eurofascism comes to America. Christ.
:huh:
What's not to get? Criminal penalties for speech and thought-crimes is a European staple, although the severity of the punishment is certainly Made in the USA. Either way, it's a symptom of society that isn't actually a society anymore.
Quote from: Neil on July 04, 2013, 12:51:29 PMWhat's not to get? Criminal penalties for speech and thought-crimes is a European staple
How you come to have that impression?
Quotealthough the severity of the punishment is certainly Made in the USA.
Quote from: mongers on July 04, 2013, 07:14:20 AM
Quote from: Jacob on July 04, 2013, 12:34:24 AM
Some punk kid types some stupid shit on the internet and you throw him in jail for months on end? That's some deeply stupid, dysfunctional shit.
Agreed, but not nearly so dysfunctional as those say "Yeah, he deserved it" and no doubt there are probably 'commentators' now joking about the rape of a teenager in prison.
To be fair, mostly what I've heard people saying is, "What an idiot." No one, to my knowledge, thinks he deserves four months in prison, to be raped and beaten, and to be kept in isolation naked "for his own protection" over this. At the same time, he posted something insanely stupid
two months after someone went postal at an elementary school.
He doesn't deserve what he go, but he was supremely stupid.
He was stupid, but kids say stupid things all the time.
There may be more to this story to explain why the criminal justice system became engaged in this instance.
One hopes that the facts reported in the story are not the only reason this kid is behind bars.
Quote from: merithyn on July 04, 2013, 01:00:10 PM
At the same time, he posted something insanely stupid two months after someone went postal at an elementary school.
At the same time, she wore something provocative two months after he'd been dumped.
Quote from: merithyn on July 04, 2013, 01:00:10 PM
Quote from: mongers on July 04, 2013, 07:14:20 AM
Quote from: Jacob on July 04, 2013, 12:34:24 AM
Some punk kid types some stupid shit on the internet and you throw him in jail for months on end? That's some deeply stupid, dysfunctional shit.
Agreed, but not nearly so dysfunctional as those say "Yeah, he deserved it" and no doubt there are probably 'commentators' now joking about the rape of a teenager in prison.
To be fair, mostly what I've heard people saying is, "What an idiot." No one, to my knowledge, thinks he deserves four months in prison, to be raped and beaten, and to be kept in isolation naked "for his own protection" over this. At the same time, he posted something insanely stupid two months after someone went postal at an elementary school.
He doesn't deserve what he go, but he was supremely stupid.
That doesn't excuse or even make explicable the justice system from reacting absurdly - taking such a charge at all seriously is silly, even without the rapes, beatings, solitary, $500K bail, etc., and the fact he said his dumb thing after a national tragedy doesn't make it any less silly.
Lots of us Languishistas have said stuff that, taken out of context, someone could (idiotically) interpret as "terrorist threats". Hell, how many times has Neil wished death on gays? We know it is part of his schtick, but some dumbass Texan prosecutor may not - if Neil was so unfortunate as to live in Texas. Or CdM, telling someone they should be beaten to death with a bag of wet fetuses. ;)
He is 19. He can defend himself.
When I was 19, I could fight all day, fuck all night, and never get tired.
Quote from: Malthus on July 04, 2013, 01:18:47 PM
Or CdM, telling someone they should be beaten to death with a bag of wet fetuses. ;)
:o
:lol:
Quote from: Siege on July 04, 2013, 01:23:17 PM
He is 19. He can defend himself.
When I was 19, I could fight all day, fuck all night, and never get tired.
Yes indeed........but did you put on women's clothing and hang around in bars?
:lol:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on July 04, 2013, 01:27:05 PM
Quote from: Siege on July 04, 2013, 01:23:17 PM
He is 19. He can defend himself.
When I was 19, I could fight all day, fuck all night, and never get tired.
Yes indeed........but did you put on women's clothing and hang around in bars?
:lol:
Quote from: merithyn on July 04, 2013, 01:00:10 PM
Quote from: mongers on July 04, 2013, 07:14:20 AM
Quote from: Jacob on July 04, 2013, 12:34:24 AM
Some punk kid types some stupid shit on the internet and you throw him in jail for months on end? That's some deeply stupid, dysfunctional shit.
Agreed, but not nearly so dysfunctional as those say "Yeah, he deserved it" and no doubt there are probably 'commentators' now joking about the rape of a teenager in prison.
To be fair, mostly what I've heard people saying is, "What an idiot." No one, to my knowledge, thinks he deserves four months in prison, to be raped and beaten, and to be kept in isolation naked "for his own protection" over this. At the same time, he posted something insanely stupid two months after someone went postal at an elementary school.
He doesn't deserve what he go, but he was supremely stupid.
Yeah and he has not even been convicted of a crime yet. He may yet be found innocent. Is this justice to you? What does he being stupid have to do with it?
Quote"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."
Yeah I feel so much safer knowing I can be locked up and beaten and abused for months on end without trial. Clearly you take this situation very seriously.
Quote from: garbon on July 03, 2013, 11:47:49 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 03, 2013, 11:44:09 PM
You bitch about law enforcement all the time.
Which clearly means I think no laws should be enforced?
No laws are being enforced, this kid has not even been judged guilty of a crime yet.
Quote from: Valmy on July 04, 2013, 02:22:07 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 03, 2013, 11:47:49 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 03, 2013, 11:44:09 PM
You bitch about law enforcement all the time.
Which clearly means I think no laws should be enforced?
No laws are being enforced, this kid has not even been judged guilty of a crime yet.
Seems like an odd thing to saw. Generally when people say law enforcement, they think about the police and generally the people they handle haven't been judged guilty of the crimes they are being convicted for.
I'm gonna nuke Texas.
JK
Quote from: garbon on July 04, 2013, 02:23:27 PM
Seems like an odd thing to saw. Generally when people say law enforcement, they think about the police and generally the people they handle haven't been judged guilty of the crimes they are being convicted for.
One obvious problem in this case is the absurdly high bail, which ensures that the kid sits in prision until his trial.
This is an injustice having nothing to do with his guilt or innocence. Unless there are facts we don't know, there seems no possible reason to suspect this guy is an immediate risk to anyone or is likely to flee the jurisdiction.
Quote from: garbon on July 04, 2013, 02:23:27 PM
Seems like an odd thing to saw. Generally when people say law enforcement, they think about the police and generally the people they handle haven't been judged guilty of the crimes they are being convicted for.
Not really. Law enforcement is the entire process from arrest to trial and judgement. Enforcement of the laws is not subjecting people to extensive abuse for months on end who have not even been judged guilty. Heck doing it for convicts is pretty unjust. But to you that is 'enforcing the laws'?
Correct me if I am wrong but I thought the Constitution was the supreme law of the land. How exactly is this consistent with the eighth or the sixth?
Quote from: Jacob on July 04, 2013, 12:56:55 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 04, 2013, 12:51:29 PMWhat's not to get? Criminal penalties for speech and thought-crimes is a European staple
How you come to have that impression?
Quotealthough the severity of the punishment is certainly Made in the USA.
Anti-nazi prohibitions. The tendency for people who are vocal anti-immigration activists to get prosecuted.
I could see this guy spending some time in an institution for a thorough psych evaluation, but jail?
Quote from: Iormlund on July 04, 2013, 02:34:29 PM
I could see this guy spending some time in an institution for a thorough psych evaluation, but jail?
Well that may indeed be the result reached by the court in the trial. But his case has not even been heard yet except the indictment. He may be judged innocent.
Well, maybe he can hit it rich in the civil suit.
Quote from: merithyn on July 04, 2013, 01:00:10 PM
Quote from: mongers on July 04, 2013, 07:14:20 AM
Quote from: Jacob on July 04, 2013, 12:34:24 AM
Some punk kid types some stupid shit on the internet and you throw him in jail for months on end? That's some deeply stupid, dysfunctional shit.
Agreed, but not nearly so dysfunctional as those say "Yeah, he deserved it" and no doubt there are probably 'commentators' now joking about the rape of a teenager in prison.
To be fair, mostly what I've heard people saying is, "What an idiot." No one, to my knowledge, thinks he deserves four months in prison, to be raped and beaten, and to be kept in isolation naked "for his own protection" over this. At the same time, he posted something insanely stupid two months after someone went postal at an elementary school.
He doesn't deserve what he go, but he was supremely stupid.
Agreed. Several months in jail isn't called for here, but some sort of action was warranted...
Quote from: Barrister on July 04, 2013, 02:54:38 PM
Quote from: merithyn on July 04, 2013, 01:00:10 PM
Quote from: mongers on July 04, 2013, 07:14:20 AM
Quote from: Jacob on July 04, 2013, 12:34:24 AM
Some punk kid types some stupid shit on the internet and you throw him in jail for months on end? That's some deeply stupid, dysfunctional shit.
Agreed, but not nearly so dysfunctional as those say "Yeah, he deserved it" and no doubt there are probably 'commentators' now joking about the rape of a teenager in prison.
To be fair, mostly what I've heard people saying is, "What an idiot." No one, to my knowledge, thinks he deserves four months in prison, to be raped and beaten, and to be kept in isolation naked "for his own protection" over this. At the same time, he posted something insanely stupid two months after someone went postal at an elementary school.
He doesn't deserve what he go, but he was supremely stupid.
Agreed. Several months in jail isn't called for here, but some sort of action was warranted...
Should you be trying to lock me up? :ph34r:
Quote from: Valmy on July 04, 2013, 02:29:16 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 04, 2013, 02:23:27 PM
Seems like an odd thing to saw. Generally when people say law enforcement, they think about the police and generally the people they handle haven't been judged guilty of the crimes they are being convicted for.
Not really. Law enforcement is the entire process from arrest to trial and judgement. Enforcement of the laws is not subjecting people to extensive abuse for months on end who have not even been judged guilty. Heck doing it for convicts is pretty unjust. But to you that is 'enforcing the laws'?
Correct me if I am wrong but I thought the Constitution was the supreme law of the land. How exactly is this consistent with the eighth or the sixth?
I'll freely cite wiki in this instance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement
QuoteAlthough the term may encompass entities such as courts and prisons, it is most frequently applied to those who directly engage in patrols or surveillance to dissuade and discover criminal activity, and those who investigate crimes and apprehend offenders
So you hate the police. How do you feel about judges and lawyers?
Quote from: Barrister on July 04, 2013, 02:54:38 PM
Agreed. Several months in jail isn't called for here, but some sort of action was warranted...
Right...a grand jury hearing and a trial. I thought the controversy here was the several months in jail plus high bail part.
Quote from: Barrister on July 04, 2013, 02:54:38 PM
Agreed. Several months in jail isn't called for here, but some sort of action was warranted...
A stern talking-to?
Charging this kid with an actual offence is a waste of public resources, assuming the facts are as stated.
Quote from: Malthus on July 04, 2013, 03:05:03 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 04, 2013, 02:54:38 PM
Agreed. Several months in jail isn't called for here, but some sort of action was warranted...
A stern talking-to?
Charging this kid with an actual offence is a waste of public resources, assuming the facts are as stated.
Disagree.
First, while he might be a "kid", he's 19 and legally an adult (and thus responsible for his actions).
This is a pretty clear cut offence of Uttering Threats.
This is why BB will be first against the wall.
To clarify, this is a prediction and not a threat. I will not be putting him up against any walls. :o
Quote from: Barrister on July 04, 2013, 03:11:46 PM
Disagree.
First, while he might be a "kid", he's 19 and legally an adult (and thus responsible for his actions).
This is a pretty clear cut offence of Uttering Threats.
Then you should probably be calling the authorities to make sure Brain gets arrested immediately. The guy wants to nuke Texas after all.
Is someone staying in jail (not prison) until their court date due to not being able to pay bail a new concept here?
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 04, 2013, 03:22:57 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 04, 2013, 03:11:46 PM
Disagree.
First, while he might be a "kid", he's 19 and legally an adult (and thus responsible for his actions).
This is a pretty clear cut offence of Uttering Threats.
Then you should probably be calling the authorities to make sure Brain gets arrested immediately. The guy wants to nuke Texas after all.
Thanks a lot. Canadians just can't keep their mouths shut.
Speaking of posting bail, CdM, you were a bail bondsman, yes? How does that shit work? You guys take the 10%, hand over the full amount to the city/county or whoever, then when the dude shows up you get that back plus keep the 10%?
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on July 04, 2013, 03:27:13 PM
Is someone staying in jail (not prison) until their court date due to not being able to pay bail a new concept here?
The amount of the bail in the circumstances of this case are the issue.
Also at issue is the reason the criminal justice system got involved in this at all.
Quote from: The Brain on July 04, 2013, 03:29:13 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 04, 2013, 03:22:57 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 04, 2013, 03:11:46 PM
Disagree.
First, while he might be a "kid", he's 19 and legally an adult (and thus responsible for his actions).
This is a pretty clear cut offence of Uttering Threats.
Then you should probably be calling the authorities to make sure Brain gets arrested immediately. The guy wants to nuke Texas after all.
Thanks a lot. Canadians just can't keep their mouths shut.
I am sorry that you will be the victim of an overzelous prosecutor. If it is any comfort to you I hear there is a possibility that you will be held in a jail that has a farm work detail.
Quote from: Barrister on July 04, 2013, 03:11:46 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 04, 2013, 03:05:03 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 04, 2013, 02:54:38 PM
Agreed. Several months in jail isn't called for here, but some sort of action was warranted...
A stern talking-to?
Charging this kid with an actual offence is a waste of public resources, assuming the facts are as stated.
Disagree.
First, while he might be a "kid", he's 19 and legally an adult (and thus responsible for his actions).
This is a pretty clear cut offence of Uttering Threats.
Uttering Threats are are dime a dozen right here on Languish. :D
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. :D Is that a "clear-cut offence of uttering threats"?
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 04, 2013, 03:37:24 PM
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on July 04, 2013, 03:27:13 PM
Is someone staying in jail (not prison) until their court date due to not being able to pay bail a new concept here?
The amount of the bail in the circumstances of this case are the issue.
Also at issue is the reason the criminal justice system got involved in this at all.
They got involved because some stupid Canadian was bothering the cops about it. The bail should be knocked down a notch or two, as I said, but this certainly isn't unheard of.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on July 04, 2013, 03:27:13 PM
Is someone staying in jail (not prison) until their court date due to not being able to pay bail a new concept here?
It's the excessive amount, as CC said. Why set bail so high on a nothing of a case like this?
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on July 04, 2013, 03:41:09 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 04, 2013, 03:37:24 PM
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on July 04, 2013, 03:27:13 PM
Is someone staying in jail (not prison) until their court date due to not being able to pay bail a new concept here?
The amount of the bail in the circumstances of this case are the issue.
Also at issue is the reason the criminal justice system got involved in this at all.
They got involved because some stupid Canadian was bothering the cops about it. The bail should be knocked down a notch or two, as I said, but this certainly isn't unheard of.
The cops and prosecutors have no discretion, but must do anything some stupid Canadian tells them to do?
That's good to know. :D
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on July 04, 2013, 03:41:09 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 04, 2013, 03:37:24 PM
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on July 04, 2013, 03:27:13 PM
Is someone staying in jail (not prison) until their court date due to not being able to pay bail a new concept here?
The amount of the bail in the circumstances of this case are the issue.
Also at issue is the reason the criminal justice system got involved in this at all.
They got involved because some stupid Canadian was bothering the cops about it. The bail should be knocked down a notch or two, as I said, but this certainly isn't unheard of.
Interesting. How many other tennagers are being held in Texas jails prior to trial for joking about things on the internet?
Quote from: Malthus on July 04, 2013, 03:43:05 PM
The cops and prosecutors have no discretion, but must do anything some stupid Canadian tells them to do?
That's good to know. :D
They probably wouldn't have noticed it at all without the chick bugging them about it.
Quote from: Malthus on July 04, 2013, 03:41:03 PM
I've "threatened" to bake babies into matzoh more than once, in response to a "Jew Lawyer" jibe. :D Is that a "clear-cut offence of uttering threats"?
I forgot about that. :hmm:
BB, make sure you get them to round up Malthus as well as Brain. One can never be too sure in cases like this!
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on July 04, 2013, 03:45:07 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 04, 2013, 03:43:05 PM
The cops and prosecutors have no discretion, but must do anything some stupid Canadian tells them to do?
That's good to know. :D
They probably wouldn't have noticed it at all without the chick bugging them about it.
Then the NSA has failed. :(
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 04, 2013, 03:45:39 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 04, 2013, 03:41:03 PM
I've "threatened" to bake babies into matzoh more than once, in response to a "Jew Lawyer" jibe. :D Is that a "clear-cut offence of uttering threats"?
I forgot about that. :hmm:
BB, make sure you get them to round up Malthus as well as Brain. One can never be too sure in cases like this!
Seperate cells, please. :)
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 04, 2013, 03:44:10 PM
Interesting. How many other tennagers are being held in Texas jails prior to trial for joking about things on the internet?
I don't know. I know there is (or was) an 18 year old in Boston with a $1,000,000 bail though. That idiot posted something about killing a bunch of people right after the marathon bombing and got reported by classmates, among others.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on July 04, 2013, 03:45:07 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 04, 2013, 03:43:05 PM
The cops and prosecutors have no discretion, but must do anything some stupid Canadian tells them to do?
That's good to know. :D
They probably wouldn't have noticed it at all without the chick bugging them about it.
Yes, that is the point isnt it. Shouldn't the proper response to a BB like Canadian who points to an internet post and says "OMG a threat" be to simply let the matter drop if there is nothing more to it?
Quote from: Malthus on July 04, 2013, 03:47:07 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 04, 2013, 03:45:39 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 04, 2013, 03:41:03 PM
I've "threatened" to bake babies into matzoh more than once, in response to a "Jew Lawyer" jibe. :D Is that a "clear-cut offence of uttering threats"?
I forgot about that. :hmm:
BB, make sure you get them to round up Malthus as well as Brain. One can never be too sure in cases like this!
Seperate cells, please. :)
:D
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 04, 2013, 03:48:14 PM
Yes, that is the point isnt it. Shouldn't the proper response to a BB like Canadian who points to an internet post and says "OMG a threat" be to simply let the matter drop if there is nothing more to it?
Was there nothing more to it? As noted, people post stupid shit all the time and don't get arrested, even in Texas.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on July 04, 2013, 03:45:07 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 04, 2013, 03:43:05 PM
The cops and prosecutors have no discretion, but must do anything some stupid Canadian tells them to do?
That's good to know. :D
They probably wouldn't have noticed it at all without the chick bugging them about it.
True, but its ass-backwards to blame *her* for it. The authorities could (and should) have looked into it, seen it was a nothing of a nothing, and given this young man a stern talking to - again, assuming facts are as reported, etc.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on July 04, 2013, 03:49:39 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 04, 2013, 03:48:14 PM
Yes, that is the point isnt it. Shouldn't the proper response to a BB like Canadian who points to an internet post and says "OMG a threat" be to simply let the matter drop if there is nothing more to it?
Was there nothing more to it?
That is the question I have. As I posted earlier, one would hope that there is more to this story than what we are told in the article. If all of this is simply because of one joking post on the internet then this is a terrible over-reaction.
Which is why I am making fun of BB who takes the position that the post was "Uttering a Threat" and so by itself justifies some action by the criminal justice system.
Quote from: Malthus on July 04, 2013, 03:50:10 PM
assuming facts are as reported, etc.
See, while it's certainly possible the guy got a pissy judge on a bad day or who wanted to make an example or whatever, I also don't think we should be assuming anything with regards to the reporting. As I said in the very first response, I think the bail should be knocked down. That still doesn't mean the kid can get out though if his parents don't have the cash. He could have been sitting in jail this whole time with a $5,000 bail, if his parents couldn't pony up the 10%. Comal County though....eh...a lot of people are doing quite well up there.
Btw, isn't what he described legal in Texas after sunset? Non-case indeed.
Quote from: The Brain on July 04, 2013, 03:57:31 PM
Btw, isn't what he described legal in Texas after sunset? Non-case indeed.
Only if the kids tried to rip him off by not giving him the sex that he had paid for. :hmm:
In any case, I'll keep my mouth shot from now on.
Quote from: The Brain on July 04, 2013, 03:57:31 PM
Btw, isn't what he described legal in Texas after sunset? Non-case indeed.
Killing kindergartners and eating their still, beating (why the comma?) hearts is illegal at all times of the day except on certain holidays.
Quote from: Siege on July 04, 2013, 03:59:40 PM
In any case, I'll keep my mouth shot from now on.
:lol:
Quote from: Siege on July 04, 2013, 03:59:40 PM
In any case, I'll keep my mouth shot from now on.
Sounds painful!
Quote from: Malthus on July 04, 2013, 03:47:07 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 04, 2013, 03:45:39 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 04, 2013, 03:41:03 PM
I've "threatened" to bake babies into matzoh more than once, in response to a "Jew Lawyer" jibe. :D Is that a "clear-cut offence of uttering threats"?
I forgot about that. :hmm:
BB, make sure you get them to round up Malthus as well as Brain. One can never be too sure in cases like this!
Seperate cells, please. :)
Dont worry, you aren't his type.
Quote from: Malthus on July 04, 2013, 03:41:03 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 04, 2013, 03:11:46 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 04, 2013, 03:05:03 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 04, 2013, 02:54:38 PM
Agreed. Several months in jail isn't called for here, but some sort of action was warranted...
A stern talking-to?
Charging this kid with an actual offence is a waste of public resources, assuming the facts are as stated.
Disagree.
First, while he might be a "kid", he's 19 and legally an adult (and thus responsible for his actions).
This is a pretty clear cut offence of Uttering Threats.
Uttering Threats are are dime a dozen right here on Languish. :D
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. :D Is that a "clear-cut offence of uttering threats"?
I am reminded of a long-ago Languish thread where I simply re-posted various "hate crime" laws, and compared it to what some people said around here on a regular basis, and wondered why people would do that. Then the entire board jumped down my throat claiming I was trying to prosecute them.
There is a "joke" defence to Uttering Threats, or whatever else, but it's nebulous and hard to define.
Quote from: katmai on July 04, 2013, 04:05:31 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 04, 2013, 03:47:07 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 04, 2013, 03:45:39 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 04, 2013, 03:41:03 PM
I've "threatened" to bake babies into matzoh more than once, in response to a "Jew Lawyer" jibe. :D Is that a "clear-cut offence of uttering threats"?
I forgot about that. :hmm:
BB, make sure you get them to round up Malthus as well as Brain. One can never be too sure in cases like this!
Seperate cells, please. :)
Dont worry, you aren't his type.
I am his species.
Another way of saying the same thing. ;)
You know who else was always trying to prosecute people? Machiavelli.
At any rate, 'I was just following the law' isn't a real defence.
Quote from: Barrister on July 04, 2013, 04:09:30 PM
I am reminded of a long-ago Languish thread where I simply re-posted various "hate crime" laws, and compared it to what some people said around here on a regular basis, and wondered why people would do that. Then the entire board jumped down my throat claiming I was trying to prosecute them.
There is a "joke" defence to Uttering Threats, or whatever else, but it's nebulous and hard to define.
Everyone* agrees that there are sensible limits to free speech - such as "uttering threats" and the like. Where we disagree, is that in my opinion, such limits must be, well,
limited - only to apply in the most clear-cut and pressing of cases; otherwise, the "sensible limits" will overwhelm the "freedom".
Unfortunately, such an approach requires common sense. :hmm:
* Well, almost everyone. ;)
Quote from: Neil on July 04, 2013, 03:00:05 PM
So you hate the police. How do you feel about judges and lawyers?
Well judges appear to me very useful for causes I support. :D
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on July 04, 2013, 03:31:28 PM
Speaking of posting bail, CdM, you were a bail bondsman, yes? How does that shit work? You guys take the 10%, hand over the full amount to the city/county or whoever, then when the dude shows up you get that back plus keep the 10%?
Yeah, take 10%, that's kept. In this kid's case, the fee would be $50K and we'd give the court a power of attorney surety coupon for $500K. When the case is closed, we petition the court to get the surety power of attorney back.
But, not everybody has $50K, so I'd take a downpayment to get him out. Local 19 year old? With parents involved, I'd do it for $8K to $10K, owe me the rest in installments. Of course, they'd never pay, or want to pay, $40K in a balance on a sliding scale over time, so would probably collect up to $25K and call it even-stevens. Anything less than that, I'd have to sue, even after the case is over.
If the parents had any equity in the home, it could be a property/surety mix, post that part to the courts to knock down that $500K, and work the rest out. I like those, knocks down the total bail and locks up the house. And I get to use the "I'll take your fucking home and use it as a fucking shelter for cats with reading disorders because it'll be all fucking mine and that's my fucking thing" threat if he didn't go to court.
Quote from: Malthus on July 04, 2013, 03:41:03 PM
Uttering Threats are are dime a dozen right here on Languish. :D
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. :D Is that a "clear-cut offence of uttering threats"?
+1
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 04, 2013, 05:30:41 PM
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on July 04, 2013, 03:31:28 PM
Speaking of posting bail, CdM, you were a bail bondsman, yes? How does that shit work? You guys take the 10%, hand over the full amount to the city/county or whoever, then when the dude shows up you get that back plus keep the 10%?
I like those, knocks down the total bail and locks up the house. And I get to use the "I'll take your fucking home and use it as a fucking shelter for cats with reading disorders because it'll be all fucking mine and that's my fucking thing" threat if he didn't go to court.
I think we found the village bail bondsman.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 05, 2013, 02:46:46 AM
Quote from: Malthus on July 04, 2013, 03:41:03 PM
Uttering Threats are are dime a dozen right here on Languish. :D
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. :D 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.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 05, 2013, 03:06:44 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 05, 2013, 02:46:46 AM
Quote from: Malthus on July 04, 2013, 03:41:03 PM
Uttering Threats are are dime a dozen right here on Languish. :D
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. :D 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.
Pretty much.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 05, 2013, 03:06:44 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 05, 2013, 02:46:46 AM
Quote from: Malthus on July 04, 2013, 03:41:03 PM
Uttering Threats are are dime a dozen right here on Languish. :D
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. :D 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 think the reaction of law enforcement isn't actually an erosion of freedom. It seems like it was something they should investigate, someone was making illegal threats--a crime in much of the English-speaking world to my knowledge.
I think the problem instead relates to the combined issues of bail and our overburdened court system which in combination I believe are routinely denying people of core constitutional protections. I'm too lazy to search for it now, but I may later, but there is actually an organization of local and maybe even Federal judges that has formed specifically to advocate for a change to the American bail system.
Their argument basically is that for various reasons bail decisions are being made poorly by many judges in contravention to the reasons for bail. Bail started in America as a way to insure someone who might flee stays for their trial when you have otherwise have no good reason to jail them. Examples are people of moderate or better means with no ties to the community who might be easy to just pick up and leave town. Persons who were dangerous/deranged you just denied them bail entirely. People who were neither dangerous or likely to flee, you let them go on their own recognizance. Some bail statutes now give judges less leeway, but some judges are just doing a bad job, the group I mentioned argues that the standard thought process now is all criminal defendants should require bail before you can release them--something that explicitly goes against the history of bail in the United States.
So bail is fucked up for one, and our bail system. But in addition to that, our court systems have ground almost to a halt due to lack of funding and staffing. In age past, a case like this would have gone through several hearings long ago, and the prosecution would have had to make far stronger arguments as to why the case should be allowed to continue etc. In this kid's case I don't think he's even had a single day in court. There's another set of advocates who argue that we've basically thrown away or lost our right to a speedy trial, because appellate courts, so sensitive to the overburdened criminal court system are unwilling to mandate the release of thousands of defendants even though in truth they have probably be denied their right to a speedy trial.
This kid is just an example of this situation. In his case he was arrested for goofy reasons so that makes it more newsworthy. But there are lots of people who have no business being in jail for months or even longer on pre-trial confinement in his same situation. Many of them are almost certainly guilty, but they're guilty of minor crimes, and should be released while they are being tried.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 05, 2013, 09:59:07 AM
I think the reaction of law enforcement isn't actually an erosion of freedom. It seems like it was something they should investigate, someone was making illegal threats--a crime in much of the English-speaking world to my knowledge.
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.
Case law here in Ontario, part of the "rest of the English Speaking world", requires for a conviction for uttering threats that the Crown prove specific intent. An example case:
Quote10. There is authority to support the defence submission that uttering threats is a specific intent offence. See: R. v. Bone [1993] M.J. No.222 (C.A.), applied in numerous trial decisons including recently in R. v. Standing [2007] S.J. No.469 (Prov.Ct.).
11. The Supreme Court of Canada set out the mental element of the offence of uttering threats in R. v. Clemente [1994] S.C.J. No.50 (S.C.C.). The words must be meant to intimidate or to be taken seriously. The accused's consumption of alcohol is a factor to be assessed in considering whether the Crown has proved that the threat was meant to intimidate or be taken seriously. R. v. Loury [2002] O.J. No.3954 (C.A.)
12. Considering:
- the context in which the words were spoken,
- the fact that the comments were directed towards police officers,
- the content of the comments which threaten to cause death in a specific manner – by shooting,
- evidence that the accused is registered to possess firearms and does possess firearms,
- the manner in which the words were spoken which caused the officers to fear for their safety
- the evidence of the accused's consumption of alcohol which shows that while his actions were out of character, he nevertheless had the capacity to form the intent to intimidate and did form the intent to intimidate the officers by making those statements R. v. Daley [2007] S.C.J. 53 at paras.40-42.
I find that the Crown has proved that the threats to kill the three officers were meant to intimidate.
http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?text=uttering+threats&language=en&searchTitle=Ontario&path=/en/on/oncj/doc/2008/2008oncj54/2008oncj54.html&searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAQdXR0ZXJpbmcgdGhyZWF0cwAAAAAAAAE
Words that are not meant to intimidate or to be taken seriously are not "threats" even if they are about inflicting death. From the headnotes of our leading Supreme Court decision:
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
QuoteThe actus reus of the offence is the uttering of threats of death or serious bodily harm. The mens rea is that the words were meant to intimidate or to be taken seriously. 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.
The point is that the words, in context, must be capable of being taken seriously or be meant to intimidate. Anyone seriously believe this 19 year old's' game forum posting about eating hearts qualifies here? This case would be laughed out of court here in Ontario; can't say how it would be received in Texas, of course. :lol:
QuoteI think the problem instead relates to the combined issues of bail and our overburdened court system which in combination I believe are routinely denying people of core constitutional protections. I'm too lazy to search for it now, but I may later, but there is actually an organization of local and maybe even Federal judges that has formed specifically to advocate for a change to the American bail system.
Their argument basically is that for various reasons bail decisions are being made poorly by many judges in contravention to the reasons for bail. Bail started in America as a way to insure someone who might flee stays for their trial when you have otherwise have no good reason to jail them. Examples are people of moderate or better means with no ties to the community who might be easy to just pick up and leave town. Persons who were dangerous/deranged you just denied them bail entirely. People who were neither dangerous or likely to flee, you let them go on their own recognizance. Some bail statutes now give judges less leeway, but some judges are just doing a bad job, the group I mentioned argues that the standard thought process now is all criminal defendants should require bail before you can release them--something that explicitly goes against the history of bail in the United States.
So bail is fucked up for one, and our bail system. But in addition to that, our court systems have ground almost to a halt due to lack of funding and staffing. In age past, a case like this would have gone through several hearings long ago, and the prosecution would have had to make far stronger arguments as to why the case should be allowed to continue etc. In this kid's case I don't think he's even had a single day in court. There's another set of advocates who argue that we've basically thrown away or lost our right to a speedy trial, because appellate courts, so sensitive to the overburdened criminal court system are unwilling to mandate the release of thousands of defendants even though in truth they have probably be denied their right to a speedy trial.
This kid is just an example of this situation. In his case he was arrested for goofy reasons so that makes it more newsworthy. But there are lots of people who have no business being in jail for months or even longer on pre-trial confinement in his same situation. Many of them are almost certainly guilty, but they're guilty of minor crimes, and should be released while they are being tried.
In contrast, these are all good points; what you are overlooking is the claim in the article (again, can't assess it) that the $500 K bail is
extremely unusual.
Quote from: Malthus on July 05, 2013, 10:22:09 AM
The point is that the words, in context, must be capable of being taken seriously or be meant to intimidate. Anyone seriously believe this 19 year old's' game forum posting about eating hearts qualifies here? This case would be laughed out of court here in Ontario; can't say how it would be received in Texas, of course. :lol:
Well, a Texan might actually mean it. :hmm:
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.
Quote from: Barrister on July 05, 2013, 10:41:22 AM
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.
Things that would not be socially tolerated, but legally would be. Though perhaps our freedom of speech isn't a guarantee anymore. <_<
500K bail is still pretty punitive, particularly since he's been locked up so long; usually, the court will drop the bail some the longer he's been locked up.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 05, 2013, 10:47:44 AM
500K bail is still pretty punitive, particularly since he's been locked up so long; usually, the court will drop the bail some the longer he's been locked up.
Yeah, that number seems insane.
Bail isn't supposed to be prohibitively high. If you think the guy is a real menace to society if released you should deny his bail. Otherwise bail should be an amount that can realistically be raised.
Right, the point of bail is to ensure an appearance. Either he has the means to skip, or he doesn't. Don't want him on the street? Don't offer bail. And a 19 year old isn't what I'd call someone with the means to be a flight risk.
Quote from: Barrister on July 05, 2013, 10:41:22 AM
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? :(
Quote from: Valmy on July 05, 2013, 11:19:32 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 05, 2013, 10:41:22 AM
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? :(
I'm not a cop - I can't arrest anyone. :( You'd have to wait for me to call them before you get arrested. :(
I'll arrest Valmy for you.
Army style.
I don't think it was an advocacy group so much as the U.S. Conference of Chief Justices (the 50 Chief Justices from the 50 State highest courts that were railing about bail.
The CJ of New York lays out some good points here (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/06/us-newyork-bail-idUSBRE9150JU20130206%5B/url). The situation in New York is pretty typical, judges are often times left either imposing bail which defendants cannot pay, or just releasing them with no other options. Many judges would like the option to say, "we'll offer you release, but with home confinement" or "release, but with the stipulation you need to check in every so often, or be drug tested every so often." In some States judges can do that as a routine part of pretrial conditional release, but in some States they basically can release you on bail, hold you without bail, or release you on your own recognizance with little granularity between those options.
Andrew Cohen (a weenie lefty constitutional lawyer that writes for the Atlantic), decently describes some of the speedy trial problems in this (http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/04/do-louisianans-have-the-right-to-a-speedy-trial/275385/) article. In one case it appears a Louisiana defendant on trial for murder has been in pretrial confinement for seven years and has yet to face a full trial.
Quote from: Malthus on July 05, 2013, 09:36:48 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 05, 2013, 03:06:44 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 05, 2013, 02:46:46 AM
Quote from: Malthus on July 04, 2013, 03:41:03 PM
Uttering Threats are are dime a dozen right here on Languish. :D
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. :D 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.
Quote from: Malthus on July 05, 2013, 10:22:09 AM
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.
Quote from: Barrister on July 05, 2013, 10:41:22 AM
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:
QuoteUnder 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.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 05, 2013, 12:10:15 PM
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. :lol: 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".
QuoteFWIW 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.
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?
Quote from: Valmy on July 05, 2013, 11:19:32 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 05, 2013, 10:41:22 AM
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.
QuoteAh, 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.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 05, 2013, 12:06:22 PM
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.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 05, 2013, 12:38:01 PM
QuoteAh, 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.
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".
Quote from: Barrister on July 05, 2013, 12:47:17 PM
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.
Quote"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"
Quote from: Malthus on July 05, 2013, 12:57:25 PM
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.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 05, 2013, 12:34:55 PM
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.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 05, 2013, 12:59:39 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 05, 2013, 12:57:25 PM
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.
I don't want to be a QC.
I'm waiting till I can become a KC. ;)
Quote from: Barrister on July 05, 2013, 12:47:17 PM
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".
But don't you see? That's what makes it so much worse. Somebody actually took the time to investigate this, and then decided it was a good use of time and public resources to torture this kid.
Quote from: Barrister on July 05, 2013, 01:02:20 PM
I'm waiting till I can become a KC. ;)
This sounds dangerously close to being a pun. :P
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 05, 2013, 01:00:32 PMIf 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.
I'd agree, but the same can be said for many things. If we put in jail every person who drives drunk (which is probably a number 100 times larger than those arrested for it) we'd have a similar problem. That doesn't meant he crime of driving while intoxicated isn't a crime or shouldn't be punished. The reasonable approach then is to arrest and prosecute for crimes when your police force discovers them.
I agree with Malthus that under this logic, many things said on message boards would constitute a crime. If you really got on my nerves and I said, "I'm going to drive to your house, rape your family and kill you." Then I think that
would be a crime even if I had a long history of being a ridiculous poster who you can't take seriously, I think that would constitute prima facie a criminal threat. Now, I think if we could demonstrate I was joking or this forum is known for such jokes, sure, at some point the case should be dismissed. But I think it's much like BB said, culturally people have come to accept things are legal on the internet that probably
aren't simply because no one ever prosecutes those crimes.
Quote from: Barrister on July 05, 2013, 01:02:20 PM
I don't want to be a QC.
I'm waiting till I can become a KC. ;)
:lol:
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 05, 2013, 01:12:57 PM
But I think it's much like BB said, culturally people have come to accept things are legal on the internet that probably aren't simply because no one ever prosecutes those crimes.
I dont take issue with that point. My issue is that the facts in the article give no plausable grounds for any further action. That is why I keep wondering whether is something more to this that has not been reported.
I am suprised that our learned crown prosecutor thinks that the facts set out in the article, standing alone, justify any intervention by the criminal justice system. Which is why I made my quip to you.
Mathus was quite right in his brief of the Canadian law on point. I dont know, but I would assume that Texas also requires some degree of intent before the utterance becomes a criminal act. In the context of what has been reported* there does not to appear to be any such intent at all but rather a gross over reaction by the criminal justice system.
* I am willing to give law enforcement officials the benefit of the doubt and assume there is more to this than has been reported.
He goes to trial July 16. I'm guessing more information will come out then.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 05, 2013, 01:25:49 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 05, 2013, 01:12:57 PM
But I think it's much like BB said, culturally people have come to accept things are legal on the internet that probably aren't simply because no one ever prosecutes those crimes.
I dont take issue with that point. My issue is that the facts in the article give no plausable grounds for any further action. That is why I keep wondering whether is something more to this that has not been reported.
Often turns out to be the case in these kind of stories. Not always, but often.
Quote from: dps on July 05, 2013, 02:49:34 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 05, 2013, 01:25:49 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 05, 2013, 01:12:57 PM
But I think it's much like BB said, culturally people have come to accept things are legal on the internet that probably aren't simply because no one ever prosecutes those crimes.
I dont take issue with that point. My issue is that the facts in the article give no plausable grounds for any further action. That is why I keep wondering whether is something more to this that has not been reported.
Often turns out to be the case in these kind of stories. Not always, but often.
Yup. The whole debate is framed on the story's facts being as reported. Naturally, there is a good chance that the actual facts are not outrageous, that the story was 'massaged' to generate outrage.
Quote from: Barrister on July 05, 2013, 11:00:10 AM
Yeah, that number seems insane.
Bail isn't supposed to be prohibitively high. If you think the guy is a real menace to society if released you should deny his bail. Otherwise bail should be an amount that can realistically be raised.
Yup. In fact, it's specifically prohibited by the 8th Amendment. Have fun with the civil suit, TX. :cheers:
Quote from: DontSayBanana on July 05, 2013, 09:28:35 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 05, 2013, 11:00:10 AM
Yeah, that number seems insane.
Bail isn't supposed to be prohibitively high. If you think the guy is a real menace to society if released you should deny his bail. Otherwise bail should be an amount that can realistically be raised.
Yup. In fact, it's specifically prohibited by the 8th Amendment. Have fun with the civil suit, TX. :cheers:
Have fun with the incredibly high bars set for 8th Amendment claims and the summary judgment for the defendants, poor schmuck.
Still, though, when I first read the thread title, I assumed the Facebook status would be "Going to France like Roman Polanski before me" or something that suggest a flight risk.