PDA

View Full Version : Teen jailed for months after video game joke is getting brutalized




green73
07-03-2013, 02:58 PM
The family of Justin Carter, the 19-year-old Texas gamer who made offensive Facebook comments 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.

cont
http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2013/07/03/198129617/teen-jailed-for-facebook-comment-reportedly-beat-up-behind-bars

Philhelm
07-03-2013, 03:01 PM
This is obscene.

Dr.3D
07-03-2013, 03:03 PM
What happened to his first amendment rights? Now you can be jailed for just saying something?

green73
07-03-2013, 03:07 PM
What happened to his first amendment rights? Now you can be jailed for just saying something?

Actually a threat of violence is not covered by free speech, but that makes this case no less absurd.

Red Green
07-03-2013, 03:07 PM
It's for the children. The prison ass-raping that is. The solitary is just for the guard's pleasure.

Christian Liberty
07-03-2013, 03:09 PM
Actually a threat of violence is not covered by free speech, but that makes this case no less absurd.

I think there's a difference between a real threat and a joking threat. I think libertarian principle should recognize a distinction there.

Red Green
07-03-2013, 03:10 PM
Actually a threat of violence is not covered by free speech, but that makes this case no less absurd.

I agree that you can't threaten violence and expect to claim free-speech, but the threat must be realistic. An 80 YO man who can barely walk swearing at you and claiming he's gonna put you in the hospital is hardly a threat. Unless there was some background other than this jackwad's bad sense of humor, it certainly doesn't make sense to imprison him.

green73
07-03-2013, 03:12 PM
I think there's a difference between a real threat and a joking threat. I think libertarian principle should recognize a distinction there.


I agree that you can't threaten violence and expect to claim free-speech, but the threat must be realistic. An 80 YO man who can barely walk swearing at you and claiming he's gonna put you in the hospital is hardly a threat. Unless there was some background other than this jackwad's bad sense of humor, it certainly doesn't make sense to imprison him.


I totally agree, obviously. Just giving the angle LE is coming from.

jclay2
07-03-2013, 03:12 PM
Glad to hear another trash talking gamer is off the streets...err xbox live

Scrapmo
07-03-2013, 03:15 PM
Anybody who has spent any amount of time playing an on-line multiplayer game would realize that this is common in that juvenile culture. If the courts tried to process one hours worth of absurd and ridiculous threats that were made on Call of Duty, I have no doubt that 100 years would not be sufficient to finish.

CPUd
07-03-2013, 03:16 PM
I agree that you can't threaten violence and expect to claim free-speech, but the threat must be realistic. An 80 YO man who can barely walk swearing at you and claiming he's gonna put you in the hospital is hardly a threat. Unless there was some background other than this jackwad's bad sense of humor, it certainly doesn't make sense to imprison him.

If the old man has a rifle, I don't care if he can't see, I'm still running like hell.

aGameOfThrones
07-03-2013, 03:26 PM
Actually a threat of violence is not covered by free speech, but that makes this case no less absurd.

Standard established in* Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 US 444 (1969), to determine when inflammatory speech intending to advocate illegal action can be restricted. The standard developed determined that speech advocating the use of force or crime could only be proscribed where two conditions were satisfied: (1) the advocacy is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” and (2) the advocacy is also “likely to incite or produce such action.”


Protected: a man at a rally makes a conditional threat saying if he were ever drafted, the first man he'd put in the sights of his rifle would be the President. WATTS v. UNITED STATES, 394 U.S. 705 (1969). What was important here was the political nature of the speech and the hyperbole involved.

Unprotected: during a time where abortion doctors were frequently the victims of violence, an anti-abortion group put a list on their website with the names and addresses of doctors who performed abortions. Those doctors who were previously murdered had their names with a line through them; the wounded were greyed out. PLANNED PARENTHOOD v. ACLA, 290 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2001)

Protected: a man at an anti-war rally exclaims, "We'll take the f_____ing streets back/again!" in the presence of a police officer. HESS v. INDIANA, 414 U.S. 105 (1973). This is an example of the "imminent" aspect not being present - it is a threat at an unspecified future time.

Unprotected: a man leaves a voice mail for an FBI agent with the statement, "The silver bullets are coming!". The man says he was quoting the Lone Ranger, the agent says he felt very threatened and "chilled" by the threat (highlighting the intent element on behalf of the speaker vs the listener). UNITED STATES v. FULMER, 108 F.3d 1486 (1st Cir. 1997)

Christian Liberty
07-03-2013, 03:28 PM
Unprotected: during a time where abortion doctors were frequently the victims of violence, an anti-abortion group put a list on their website with the names and addresses of doctors who performed abortions. Those doctors who were previously murdered had their names with a line through them; the wounded were greyed out. PLANNED PARENTHOOD v. ACLA, 290 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2001)


Now, this is just stupid. Its impossible to "Murder" an abortion doctor. They can only be executed by vigilantes...

Melissa
07-03-2013, 03:31 PM
Anybody who has spent any amount of time playing an on-line multiplayer game would realize that this is common in that juvenile culture. If the courts tried to process one hours worth of absurd and ridiculous threats that were made on Call of Duty, I have no doubt that 100 years would not be sufficient to finish.
I so agree..I get told all kinds of things...like I should never play again...I should have my account removed..have had people private message me to quit playing forever...all because I am a mom that goes online and not very good...I wonder sometimes if it would make a difference if they saw I was not some kid that plays hours and hours..but just a middle age woman that loves a few of the games...I do suck but it is funny what they scream at me..and I try so hard to play well...but alas someone that came from Oregon Trail on the Apple 2E is not that good lol

devil21
07-03-2013, 03:36 PM
I agree that you can't threaten violence and expect to claim free-speech, but the threat must be realistic. An 80 YO man who can barely walk swearing at you and claiming he's gonna put you in the hospital is hardly a threat. Unless there was some background other than this jackwad's bad sense of humor, it certainly doesn't make sense to imprison him.

My understanding has been that in order for a "threat" to be an criminal offense that it has to be directed at someone or something in particular.

green73
07-03-2013, 03:36 PM
The ultimate tragedy is that he will probably come out of prison a real criminal type--if he doesn't off himself first.

Christian Liberty
07-03-2013, 03:39 PM
That's what prisons were made for...

sluggo
07-03-2013, 05:41 PM
$500,000 bail and being housed with violent thugs.

I hope he's learned his lesson --- that the American "justice" system is a tragic joke.

anaconda
07-03-2013, 06:21 PM
This idea that incarcerated persons are not safe appalls me. The unspoken de facto penalty of allowing the inmates to brutalize one another adds a rogue and barbaric element to the criminal justice system and makes a mockery of it.

James Madison
07-03-2013, 06:27 PM
This idea that incarcerated persons are not safe appalls me. The unspoken de facto penalty of allowing the inmates to brutalize one another adds a rogue and barbaric element to the criminal justice system and makes a mockery of it.

Many violent offenders in the criminal justice system are beyond rehabilitation. Deport them, exile them, feed them to lions -- I don't care. They're just broken. Nothing more really to say.

The Free Hornet
07-03-2013, 06:40 PM
Now, this is just stupid. Its impossible to "Murder" an abortion doctor. They can only be executed by vigilantes...

You may not have it yet. (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?418239-quot-Account-under-administrative-review-quot&p=5091464&viewfull=1#post5091464)

The Free Hornet
07-03-2013, 06:46 PM
Many violent offenders in the criminal justice system are beyond rehabilitation. Deport them, exile them, feed them to lions -- I don't care. They're just broken. Nothing more really to say.

When you are merely accused of a crime, TPTB will share your lack of caring. Sadly, they won't be anywhere nearby and you won't be able to bond over your shared values.

Being civilized to a murderous thug is not for the benefit of the murderous thug.

anaconda
07-03-2013, 06:53 PM
Many violent offenders in the criminal justice system are beyond rehabilitation. Deport them, exile them, feed them to lions -- I don't care. They're just broken. Nothing more really to say.

I don't agree that the truth you state allows us to feed the rest of the inmates to the wolves (How many non-violent drug offenders are incarcerated?). The prison system is no less of a stain on society than the collective crimes of its incarcerated.

brushfire
07-03-2013, 07:09 PM
...free speech for everyone!

green73
07-03-2013, 07:22 PM
This idea that incarcerated persons are not safe appalls me. The unspoken de facto penalty of allowing the inmates to brutalize one another adds a rogue and barbaric element to the criminal justice system and makes a mockery of it.

It was the hallmark of the gulags.

amy31416
07-03-2013, 07:25 PM
A jail/prison sentence is never just being sentenced to jail. :(

Scrapmo
07-03-2013, 07:32 PM
I so agree..I get told all kinds of things...like I should never play again...I should have my account removed..have had people private message me to quit playing forever...all because I am a mom that goes online and not very good...I wonder sometimes if it would make a difference if they saw I was not some kid that plays hours and hours..but just a middle age woman that loves a few of the games...I do suck but it is funny what they scream at me..and I try so hard to play well...but alas someone that came from Oregon Trail on the Apple 2E is not that good lol

Just hit the mute button on all of them, or better yet follow them around, talk to them and make lots of noise. They Love that.

better-dead-than-fed
07-03-2013, 07:52 PM
This idea that incarcerated persons are not safe appalls me. The unspoken de facto penalty of allowing the inmates to brutalize one another adds a rogue and barbaric element to the criminal justice system and makes a mockery of it.

If anything, it is encouraged by the staff.

better-dead-than-fed
07-03-2013, 07:57 PM
The First Amendment ... permits a State to ban a "true threat."... "True threats" encompass those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals.

Virginia v. Black, 538 US 343 - Supreme Court 2003 (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2729037874515332053)

phill4paul
07-03-2013, 08:26 PM
This idea that incarcerated persons are not safe appalls me. The unspoken de facto penalty of allowing the inmates to brutalize one another adds a rogue and barbaric element to the criminal justice system and makes a mockery of it.

Amerika = prison.

Dr.3D
07-03-2013, 08:47 PM
It's kind of hard to boycott the prison system when our "law makers" are in cahoots with the owners of that system.

Sometimes I wonder if when they say this country is governed by the rule of law and then they call a group of people "law makers", if that makes that group feel like they are rulers.

newbitech
07-03-2013, 09:03 PM
What is really disgusting is that you know the cops, the grand jury, the lawyers, the judges, the guards, and everyone else involved don't believe for one second that this kid is a "terroristic" threat. They need to make examples and case law to back up what is on the books.

I don't believe it is possible for an online gamer to be a terroristic threat based on some words he typed during role play. It seems like the enforcers are definitely targeting the youngest generation for their intimidation tactics. That is all this is.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the father of this kid lose his mind if his child continues to be put through the kind of violence that I imagine reading this news.

Dr.3D
07-03-2013, 09:05 PM
What is really disgusting is that you know the cops, the grand jury, the lawyers, the judges, the guards, and everyone else involved don't believe for one second that this kid is a "terroristic" threat. They need to make examples and case law to back up what is on the books.

I don't believe it is possible for an online gamer to be a terroristic threat based on some words he typed during role play. It seems like the enforcers are definitely targeting the youngest generation for their intimidation tactics. That is all this is.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the father of this kid lose his mind if his child continues to be put through the kind of violence that I imagine reading this news.

Those running the prison system, get paid for every one of the people they get sent their way. I believe the just-Us system sends as many people that way as they can, perhaps because they have stock in the system.

Brian4Liberty
07-03-2013, 09:38 PM
This idea that incarcerated persons are not safe appalls me. The unspoken de facto penalty of allowing the inmates to brutalize one another adds a rogue and barbaric element to the criminal justice system and makes a mockery of it.

Yep, it's a violation of the Constitution. Cruel and unusual punishment, and no conviction yet either.

matt0611
07-03-2013, 09:40 PM
It's for the children. The prison ass-raping that is. The solitary is just for the guard's pleasure.

Doesn't it have to be a specific threat though?

I can't go jail just for saying "oh gee I wanna kill some people!"

If I give you a direct threat, then yes, that's not free speech.

Brian4Liberty
07-03-2013, 09:41 PM
Anybody who has spent any amount of time playing an on-line multiplayer game would realize that this is common in that juvenile culture. If the courts tried to process one hours worth of absurd and ridiculous threats that were made on Call of Duty, I have no doubt that 100 years would not be sufficient to finish.

The only crime this kid appears to be guilty of is being immature and male. Unfortunately, that alone may constitute a crime in our society today. And if this kid is in jail for those comments, why isn't Tosh.0 in jail with him?

Brian4Liberty
07-03-2013, 09:48 PM
Did the Police find that this kid was on SSRIs? Is he seeing a psychiatrist or counselor that says that the guy may be a real threat? Is he schizophrenic and disassociated from reality? It seems that those were all factors in the real mass killers. How can they claim that this guy may become of those killers if he does not share those relevant traits?

Is their only evidence that they have a stupid kid spouting off for maximum shock value to a bunch of other dumb-asses? Once again, they better go arrest Daniel Tosh if that's all they have.

kcchiefs6465
07-03-2013, 09:51 PM
If anything, it is encouraged by the staff.
Thomas Silverstein comes to mind.

Scrapmo
07-03-2013, 10:05 PM
The only crime this kid appears to be guilty of is being immature and male. Unfortunately, that alone may constitute a crime in our society today. And if this kid is in jail for those comments, why isn't Tosh.0 in jail with him?

Along with everyother comedian, satirist, author, poet, musician, who has employed macbre imagery or humour for a shocking effect.

better-dead-than-fed
07-03-2013, 10:14 PM
I can't go jail just for saying "oh gee I wanna kill some people!"

You can go to jail for that, as this case shows. The Supreme Court says it is protected by the First Amendment; but that just means you have the right to appeal your conviction from inside prison, with assistance from a pretend lawyer who's beholden to the government.

Christian Liberty
07-03-2013, 11:02 PM
What is really disgusting is that you know the cops, the grand jury, the lawyers, the judges, the guards, and everyone else involved don't believe for one second that this kid is a "terroristic" threat. They need to make examples and case law to back up what is on the books.

I don't believe it is possible for an online gamer to be a terroristic threat based on some words he typed during role play. It seems like the enforcers are definitely targeting the youngest generation for their intimidation tactics. That is all this is.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the father of this kid lose his mind if his child continues to be put through the kind of violence that I imagine reading this news.

Makes me want to see the show "Prison Break" happen in real life.

Well, except for the conspiracy stuff, but that already IS happening. Might as well break the kid out...

Occam's Banana
07-04-2013, 07:24 AM
I think there's a difference between a real threat and a joking threat. I think libertarian principle should recognize a distinction there.

I don't. Words are words. Actions are actions. That is the only relevant distinction to be made here.

It is the failure to recognize that distinction that pernicious nonsense like "hate speech" is built upon.

tod evans
07-04-2013, 07:34 AM
I don't. Words are words. Actions are actions. That is the only relevant distinction to be made here.

It the failure to recognize that distinction that pernicious nonsense like "hate speech" is built upon.


And it really is this simple!

Even government goons can grasp the concept.

phill4paul
07-04-2013, 07:46 AM
Opps.... wrong thread.....:o

tod evans
07-04-2013, 07:48 AM
This is that same broad with the chalk?

better-dead-than-fed
07-04-2013, 08:31 AM
Words are words. Actions are actions. That is the only relevant distinction to be made here.

It is the failure to recognize that distinction that pernicious nonsense like "hate speech" is built upon.

RAV v. St. Paul, 505 US 377 - Supreme Court 1992 (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14621372290934958371):


the Federal Government can criminalize only those threats of violence that are directed against the President

I do not know what to make of this SCOTUS statement. When SCOTUS said that, there already were federal statutes prohibiting threats against regular individuals, and those statutes already had been enforced in the circuits (e.g., US v. Twine, 853 F. 2d 676 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 1988 (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4185261312404127603)).

I vaguely recall reading that threats generally were not outlawed until the mid 20th century (threats against the President were outlawed earlier). In 1942 threats were not mentioned here:


There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words....

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 US 568 - Supreme Court 1942 (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=124249671461500618)

thoughtomator
07-04-2013, 08:34 AM
I'd say what I'd do in his position but for the fear that the statement will be used against me in the future.

Philhelm
07-04-2013, 10:05 AM
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Uh oh, time to go to jail.

leverguy
07-04-2013, 10:29 AM
Seems like there's something in the constitution about excessive bail. Its right there in the 8th amendment...

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Not that the constitution really matters anymore, what with terrist threats and all... 'Murika!!!

Christian Liberty
07-04-2013, 10:31 AM
I don't. Words are words. Actions are actions. That is the only relevant distinction to be made here.

It is the failure to recognize that distinction that pernicious nonsense like "hate speech" is built upon.

Most Rothbardian type libertarians do agree that threats of violence should be illegal. Do you disagree with them?

The thing is that in certain contexts (Not this one) threats are often carried out.

Should I be allowed to say "I'm going to blow up (insert name of elementary school here) if I don't get paid a hundred grand?" without any sanctons?

Occam's Banana
07-04-2013, 12:27 PM
Most Rothbardian type libertarians do agree that threats of violence should be illegal. Do you disagree with them?

Being a Rothbardian, this is news to me. The mere unqualified making of threats (in and of itself) is not an initiation of force. As such, it is not by itself a sufficient warrant for the use of retaliatory force. It certainly cannot be consideered a "crime" in any reasonable sense of the word. When "most Rothbardians" make reference to "threats of violence" they are speaking in "short-hand" for qualified threats (which involve a lot more than mere verballizations - see below).


The thing is that in certain contexts (Not this one) threats are often carried out.

It is the carrying out (or attempt to carry out) which constitutes the crime, if any (and which may justify the retaliatory use of force) - not the threat(s) themselves. Threats are just words - nothing more. If there is nothing but someone's verbal expressions - and no concomitant actions (such as an attempted initiation of force) or reasonable expectation of such - then there is no crime. But if there actually is/are some concomitant action(s) - or reasonable expectation of such - then any verbalizations that accompany it/them are irrelevant.

For example: what is the difference between you charging at me while swinging a butcher-knife at my neck without uttering a word (on the one hand) and you charging at me while swinging a butcher-knife at my neck and shouting "I'm gonna hack you to bloody bits!" (on the other hand)? The threat ("I'm gonna hack you to bloody bits!") is superfluous and entirely irrelevant. So why should it be considered otherwise if it is the only thing you do or say? (If anything, I suppose I ought to be grateful that you've given me a "heads up" and warned me about the possibility of future aggression on your part.)

N.B.: The reaction of someone who has been threatened is an entirely separate matter. If you threaten to kill me and I pull out a gun & shoot you dead, my defense becomes a question of whether I had sufficient reason to believe that you were a credible (and perhaps immediate) danger to me. But this has absolutely nothing to do with whether your threat (qua verbalization) is/was a crime of any kind.


Should I be allowed to say "I'm going to blow up (insert name of elementary school here) if I don't get paid a hundred grand?" without any sanctons?

Yes, you should - contingent upon (1) there being no other reason for thinking that you are actually doing or trying to do any such thing (apart from your verbalization), and (2) "sanctions" meaning something other than being fined or locked in a cage or anything else that involves the initialization of aggressive physical force (such as social opprobrium, for example). Your statement may be regarded as one piece of evidence against you for some other crime - but alone, it does not constitute a "crime" itself and it is not sufficient to warrant any sort of "conviction" for such.

better-dead-than-fed
07-09-2013, 12:01 PM
I wrote the defendant's lawyer, Don Flanary, donflanary(at)hotmail.com, asking if I could provide free paralegal services. He replied:


Thank you for your interest in Justin's case. You can visit freejustincarter.org for more information and if you wish to make a donation towards his bond.

V3n
07-09-2013, 01:10 PM
Thank you for your interest in Justin's case. You can visit freejustincarter.org for more information and if you wish to make a donation towards his bond.

http://freejustincarter.org/

^clickable link

cubical
07-09-2013, 08:21 PM
What did the grand jury say exactly? Why is there a jury before the trial?

Brian4Liberty
07-09-2013, 09:18 PM
Discussion of the case...even the people on The Five can see that this is insane.

Video:

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/the-five/index.html#http://video.foxnews.com/v/2523007918001/should-sarcasm-be-a-punishable-offense/?playlist_id=1040983441001

ObiRandKenobi
07-09-2013, 09:36 PM
Is it really that hard to ascertain that he didn't really mean it?

Is every one prosecuted like they're Osama bin Laden's driver or something? Jeez.

GunnyFreedom
02-22-2014, 01:02 AM
Being a Rothbardian, this is news to me. The mere unqualified making of threats (in and of itself) is not an initiation of force. As such, it is not by itself a sufficient warrant for the use of retaliatory force. It certainly cannot be consideered a "crime" in any reasonable sense of the word. When "most Rothbardians" make reference to "threats of violence" they are speaking in "short-hand" for qualified threats (which involve a lot more than mere verballizations - see below).



It is the carrying out (or attempt to carry out) which constitutes the crime, if any (and which may justify the retaliatory use of force) - not the threat(s) themselves. Threats are just words - nothing more. If there is nothing but someone's verbal expressions - and no concomitant actions (such as an attempted initiation of force) or reasonable expectation of such - then there is no crime. But if there actually is/are some concomitant action(s) - or reasonable expectation of such - then any verbalizations that accompany it/them are irrelevant.

For example: what is the difference between you charging at me while swinging a butcher-knife at my neck without uttering a word (on the one hand) and you charging at me while swinging a butcher-knife at my neck and shouting "I'm gonna hack you to bloody bits!" (on the other hand)? The threat ("I'm gonna hack you to bloody bits!") is superfluous and entirely irrelevant. So why should it be considered otherwise if it is the only thing you do or say? (If anything, I suppose I ought to be grateful that you've given me a "heads up" and warned me about the possibility of future aggression on your part.)

N.B.: The reaction of someone who has been threatened is an entirely separate matter. If you threaten to kill me and I pull out a gun & shoot you dead, my defense becomes a question of whether I had sufficient reason to believe that you were a credible (and perhaps immediate) danger to me. But this has absolutely nothing to do with whether your threat (qua verbalization) is/was a crime of any kind.



Yes, you should - contingent upon (1) there being no other reason for thinking that you are actually doing or trying to do any such thing (apart from your verbalization), and (2) "sanctions" meaning something other than being fined or locked in a cage or anything else that involves the initialization of aggressive physical force (such as social opprobrium, for example). Your statement may be regarded as one piece of evidence against you for some other crime - but alone, it does not constitute a "crime" itself and it is not sufficient to warrant any sort of "conviction" for such.

and would the theft of the $100,000 constitute a crime in that case?

RickyJ
02-22-2014, 01:19 AM
What happened to his first amendment rights? Now you can be jailed for just saying something?

Steven King has wrote worse in his books and the Hunger Games books are pretty sick too. This society celebrates killing and makes heroes out of those that go overseas to kill the "bad guys" to teach them that we won't put up with them using razor blades to take down three skyscrapers. Until every last razor blade is out of Muslim hands the war on terror will go on.

Occam's Banana
02-22-2014, 02:02 AM
and would the theft of the $100,000 constitute a crime in that case?

I don't understand what you're asking. By definition, theft constitutes a crime.

GunnyFreedom
02-22-2014, 02:08 AM
I don't understand what you're asking. By definition, theft constitutes a crime.

but IS it a theft of the $100,000 if the school gave the money of it's own free will in response to the bomb threat?

Occam's Banana
02-22-2014, 02:21 AM
but IS it a theft of the $100,000 if the school gave the money of it's own free will in response to the bomb threat?

If the threatener accepted it, I would certainly say so.
But that goes beyond the mere making of verbalizations.

asurfaholic
02-22-2014, 05:06 AM
Fraud ^?


Btw sad there's not news posted with this bumped thread .


Here's a snippet from 7/11 Change.org petition

July 11 update: We still need your help. Thanks to an anonymous donor, Justin is now out on bail. I'm happy to have him out right now, but my son is still facing a felony terrorism charge and years in prison if found guilty.

asurfaholic
02-22-2014, 05:26 AM
Either I suck at searching for news, or this domestic terrorist child eater is still out on bond awaiting trial.