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

[Neil]

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.

[Eddie Teach]

I'm waiting till I can become a KC.

This sounds dangerously close to being a pun. 

[OttoVonBismarck]

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.

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.

[Neil]

I don't want to be a QC.

I'm waiting till I can become a KC.

[crazy canuck]

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.

[merithyn]

He goes to trial July 16. I'm guessing more information will come out then.

[dps]

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.

[Malthus]

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.

[DontSayBanana]

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.

[Capetan Mihali]

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.

Have fun with the incredibly high bars set for 8th Amendment claims and the summary judgment for the defendants, poor schmuck.

[Ideologue]

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.