Soldato
Yeah but would it have been quashed without the somewhat large media campaign? (I mean new media, not old)
Justin Carter put in jail for being sarcastic.
- Thread starter Phixsator
- Start date
Yeah but would it have been quashed without the somewhat large media campaign? (I mean new media, not old)
Soldato
Anything targeted is massively different to a random comment, if you don't understand that then well
See also: satire
Associate
Threatening so shoot up a nursary is specific enough to raise eyebrows without the need to point out which.
Tweeting an airport you're going to blow them up if they don't fix the weather before you flight is akin to telling your mate dave you'll end him if he eats your last rolo.
You honestly find the latter more offensive or less of a joke? I struggle with the fact people like you actually exist.
Tweeting an airport you're going to blow them up if they don't fix the weather before you flight is akin to telling your mate dave you'll end him if he eats your last rolo.
You honestly find the latter more offensive or less of a joke? I struggle with the fact people like you actually exist.
Associate
Glad to hear that.
Threatening so shoot up a nursary is specific enough to raise eyebrows without the need to point out which.
.
No it is not specific at all. There's no content, no direct threat noting.
Tweeting an actual airport that you are disgruntled with, has a direct link and is massively different.
As is posting on an actual Facebook group about the subject.
Face booking it n her own feed is one thing, face booking on the specific group is very different.
Hhow can you not see te difference that targeting has. It's also what are law is based partly based around.
And LoL again, just making up crap. Where have I said what I think? It is a very different circumstance, but am glad it was quashed. But it is not the same at all.
Associate
I see the difference I'm just not anal retentive enough to think it actually matters. Either it's a joke or it isn't. This is like me arguing that a galaxy bar and a dairly milk are both chocolate and you retorting with oh but I can't believe you can't see how they're different.
You see that question mark? Yeah, that's me asking you what you think.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 17 Dec 2008
- Posts
- 667
Coincidences do happen. 
Of course a target action matters. It has to be looked into, a non targeted action shouldn't even need to be looked into.
Again it's generally how the law is subscribed. A target threat etc can be a crime, a non targeted one is freedom of speech.
What are you 5?
And yes if I thought you were sincere, that would be a crime, regardless of what you actually meant.
Target is part of it, it's not the entire law.
So yes it is very important and makes a huge difference. How can you not understand that something targeted is extremely different to something that isn't.
Last edited:
Associate
What are you 5?
And yes if I thought you were sincere, that would be a crime, regardless of what you actually meant.
I guarantee you at least one person will laugh at that. Alas I'm not going to continue a 1on1 conversation with you, so toodles, but just in case you're confused it was obviously a joke and thus proving it's the context that matters not (only) the target.
I do get the sense that law enforcement in the US is very much more by the book/less discretion involved and rather political. i.e. someone has reported an alleged 'threat' made which covers both 'terrorism' and 'school shooting' two sensitive subjects in the US and so presumably someone felt the need to be seen to be taking it seriously.... not much room for discretion on the part of the officers when it likely becomes abundantly obvious after simply talking to the kid that he was being sarcastic.... then again, if they are strict about these things then charging him isn't in itself entirely unreasonable. I would hope a decent lawyer will sort it out for him in court anyway. The thing I do feel is massively unreasonable is the 500k bail and keeping him on remand when the family obviously can't afford to post bail... hes 18 yrs old and made a comment on facebook - he's hardly going to skip the country...
I would skip the country, especially as this isn't the first time.
The last kid has pledged guilt after council to get a reduced sentence.
Obviusly he's been advised he will be found guilty.
http://o.dailycaller.com/thedailyca...rcastic-video-game,51d2f4f8da27f5d9d0f082dc/2
lets hope the petition, gets them to change their laws, or act more sensibly.
The last kid has pledged guilt after council to get a reduced sentence.
Obviusly he's been advised he will be found guilty.
http://o.dailycaller.com/thedailyca...rcastic-video-game,51d2f4f8da27f5d9d0f082dc/2
lets hope the petition, gets them to change their laws, or act more sensibly.
Last edited:
Associate
He might have been, it's incredibly difficult to infer tone from writing and generally requires a talented writer to do it well, which a 19 year old rarely is. I imagine it could have been him lashing out in a crude way to get the other kid to lay off him but even though it usually isn't occasionally some kid does sadly mean it.
The biggest problems with this case is he's being held without trial or resonable bail since march and while I wouldn't be suprised about police investigating something like this, most of us would only support them holding him if they thought he was serious, where in the US they're all too happy to bend someone over and **** them with the letter of the law.
Still, despite the medical advice maybe they do really believe he's unstable. Maybe he will be now.
Caporegime
What a (police) state of affairs.
Poor kid.
Poor kid.