Other State Conservative Student Charged with Terrorism, Held without Bail for Weeks, for Posting Picture of Rifle on Social Media

[Andy54Hawken]

Just tossing this out here...
Lets all remember rule number 1 :

Be excellent to each other....

Attack the forum member's position , not the forum member.
Andy

 

[Koda]

Making snowflakes melt is a joke about people who cant handle little things and go awol and freak out. In no possible way is there any implied threat vague or not. Your reading in what you want to because you empathize with said group.

There is a threat when the "joke" includes a weapon. Nobody's empathizing with said group, what the kid did can and was taken in the full context of his published statement. The kid is politically savvy enough to understand political metaphors he should have been savvy enough to understand we don't joke around with weapons even vague innuendos especially in a day and age when kids doing mass shootings is a common threat and has everyone on edge. The debate here is if the punishment fits the negligence, not if it was negligent at all. Personally I dont have much sympathy for one lone individual whose majorly hurting the cause of gun rights by demonstrating exactly the kind of irresponsibility anti-gunners accuse us of. The amount of support for this kid in a gun forum is, discouraging.

 

[awshoot]

... Personally I dont have much sympathy for one lone individual whose majorly hurting the cause of gun rights by demonstrating exactly the kind of irresponsibility anti-gunners accuse us of. The amount of support for this kid in a gun forum is, discouraging.

I think it is a proportionality issue. If his punishment was picking up trash for a weekend or something like that, it wouldn't really be much of a story. But he's facing two decades in prison -- almost all of his working life -- over something that while misguided, wasn't manslaughter or rape or doing a drive-by like those punks in Seattle with 60-some arrests between them (including a drive-by for which one of them was out still roaming around).

When the application of the law stops making any rational sense, when it appears to coddle actually dangerous people while utterly destroying others for minor things that harm nobody based on politically motivated prosecution decisions -- it is easy to feel sympathy toward the person getting the boot heel for essentially nothing.

EDIT: going back the 3rd/Pine shooting -- here a kid posts a picture to a private group and rots in jail. There a guy is charged with a drive-by-shooting and is out on the street. If you want a recipe for building contempt for the law and authorities of all stripes, this is the blue ribbon winner.

 

[Koda]

I think it is a proportionality issue. If his punishment was picking up trash for a weekend or something like that, it wouldn't really be much of a story. But he's facing two decades in prison -- almost all of his working life -- over something that while misguided, wasn't manslaughter or rape or doing a drive-by like those punks in Seattle with 60-some arrests between them (including a drive-by for which one of them was out still roaming around).

When the application of the law stops making any rational sense, when it appears to coddle actually dangerous people while utterly destroying others for minor things that harm nobody based on politically motivated prosecution decisions -- it is easy to feel sympathy toward the person getting the boot heel for essentially nothing.

EDIT: going back the 3rd/Pine shooting -- here a kid posts a picture to a private group and rots in jail. There a guy is charged with a drive-by-shooting and is out on the street. If you want a recipe for building contempt for the law and authorities of all stripes, this is the blue ribbon winner.

this is perhaps the best point made on this topic and one I can fully support and agree with.

I want to add though that the OPs article has a terrible record for bias and fake news. I have tried to fact check the story and find that the base of the story happened but what I cant find is the actual alleged threat made by the student. Before I fully support arguing against the heavy handed punishment I want to see the full unedited post the kid made. I find it suspicious the only source on the web stating it is a conservative propaganda website.

 

[awshoot]

...
I want to add though that the OPs article has a terrible record for bias and fake news. I have tried to fact check the story and find that the base of the story happened but what I cant find is the actual alleged threat made by the student.
...

Absolutely. The media on all sides is really terrible at news reporting recently, and excellent at agenda pushing.

 

[Basedgreaser]

There is a threat when the "joke" includes a weapon. Nobody's empathizing with said group, what the kid did can and was taken in the full context of his published statement. The kid is politically savvy enough to understand political metaphors he should have been savvy enough to understand we don't joke around with weapons even vague innuendos especially in a day and age when kids doing mass shootings is a common threat and has everyone on edge. The debate here is if the punishment fits the negligence, not if it was negligent at all. Personally I dont have much sympathy for one lone individual whose majorly hurting the cause of gun rights by demonstrating exactly the kind of irresponsibility anti-gunners accuse us of. The amount of support for this kid in a gun forum is, discouraging.

Disagree entirely. The fact that he owns a gun is what was on display, not the implication of its use. The very image of an ar15 triggers some people. There is in no way a threat shown or implied imo. It would be no different had he held a trump 2020 sign with the same caption. Freedom of speech is the first amendment afterall. No legal consequences are justified.

 

[Koda]

Disagree entirely. The fact that he owns a gun is what was on display, not the implication of its use. The very image of an ar15 triggers some people. There is in no way a threat shown or implied imo. It would be no different had he held a trump 2020 sign with the same caption. Freedom of speech is the first amendment afterall. No legal consequences are justified.

The freedom of speech analogy is a fallacy. People who yell fire in a theater and cause a stampede are not arrested for exercising their freedom of speech. You can disagree if the kids post was threatening, but that doesn't matter to those who thought it was, and therein lies the problem. People need to be aware of what they say can be taken as threatening.

Its worth noting that none of us even know exactly what the kids actual post was....

 

[Basedgreaser]

The freedom of speech analogy is a fallacy. People who yell fire in a theater and cause a stampede are not arrested for exercising their freedom of speech. You can disagree if the kids post was threatening, but that doesn't matter to those who thought it was, and therein lies the problem. People need to be aware of what they say can be taken as threatening.

Its worth noting that none of us even know exactly what the kids actual post was....

The last part of your post is true and maybe ill bite my tongue. As pro 2a as i am, im 10,000 times more extreme when it comes to freedom of speech and is likely an area ill never see eye to eye with many on

 

[Hueco]

There is a threat when the "joke" includes a weapon. Nobody's empathizing with said group, what the kid did can and was taken in the full context of his published statement. The kid is politically savvy enough to understand political metaphors he should have been savvy enough to understand we don't joke around with weapons even vague innuendos especially in a day and age when kids doing mass shootings is a common threat and has everyone on edge. The debate here is if the punishment fits the negligence, not if it was negligent at all. Personally I dont have much sympathy for one lone individual whose majorly hurting the cause of gun rights by demonstrating exactly the kind of irresponsibility anti-gunners accuse us of. The amount of support for this kid in a gun forum is, discouraging.

I agree with your other post on wanting to see more articles and more facts on this...I wasn't able to find anything besides short snippets at best and definitely no new updates.

But, in forming an opinion on what little is there...

We don't know enough to make a determination of mens rea and can only postulate until we see the actual post.

What, then, was the actus rea? No specific person was mentioned so, not a threat. No victim, so no negligence. No plot to actually shoot up the school, so no conspiracy or terrorism.

I'm having trouble seeing any crime at all that could be committed off a vague social media post (if that is, in fact, what it was).

Given that, holding the kid without bond seems like an overreach. If the state wants to charge him for a crime and then give him his day in court...fine, let's get the facts out. I'm just most struck by the injustice of the bond situation, at least for now.

 

[Koda]

I'm having trouble seeing any crime at all that could be committed off a vague social media post (if that is, in fact, what it was).

I actually agree but what I find suspicious here is the talk of such a high punishment for such an alleged low act of negligence... to clarify, the only source stating what the kid posted is a right wing conspiracy website which I wouldn't put it past a site like that to lie or fake news a story. I'm all for the first and second amendment, but it needs to be a legit case of overreach and we need to see the actual post to judge.


Here is some background on the OPs source we are all debating over... Big League Politics - Media Bias/Fact Check

 

[awshoot]

The article from OP states:

"Taking this bad boy up. This ought to make the snowflakes melt a — and I mean snowflakes as in snow," he wrote on social media, according to a transcript of the preliminary examination obtained by Big League Politics.

I'm taking that at face value because if the transcript did not have that content in it, someone will find it and it will be an embarrassment to the publisher. It is possible they are hyping this but for now, let's go with it.

If we are being objective about the statement, it could be taken in a couple ways. It is pretty common knowledge that "snowflake" is a disparaging term for the radical left. To me it looks like edgy humor -- he obviously recognizes the double meaning with the "and I mean" part, so no, he isn't innocent, but in my mind is only guilty of a bad joke. While we are being objective, it can also be read as a veiled threat against snowflakes (the people) where the "and I mean" part is a cynical attempt at plausible deniability. Both readings are possible.

So far this is all about how others can read it and I hope that is irrelevant here because it makes the speaker responsible for all the ways something can be misunderstood. If the relevant factor is what he meant by it, then he should get off in my mind if he meant it as a joke, and should not if he meant it to be threatening.

I see this as a warning. Charlton Heston's "cold dead hands" bumper sticker quote caries within it a veiled threat without even the cover of a joke. The difference is that the threat is clearly a reaction to people coming for his guns, not an unprovoked attempt to melt snowflakes. I don't know if that is enough of a difference going forward in the future. We should all be very careful about what we say. Even the following may eventually be the source of great regret after all humor has been stripped away by bureaucrats with the power to eff you up good and proper:

 

[Wombat of Doom]

This is what the first amendment was written to prevent. plain and simple. Blatant disregard for freedom of speech, and the right to bear arms. When making an innocuous comment with a picture of something our founders wrote into the constitution is a crime. Freedom of speech is dead. The right to keep and bear arms is treated as if it were a crime.

There are terrorists in this story. From the progressive side of the coin.

I have been in numerous situations I wasn't safe. Hell, I have even been swatted once in my late teens. (Swatting wasn't a word back then.) Someone making death threats? To me personally, for my job, my religion, the color of my skin,or because I was working in psych or in the swatting incidence, I would not assist in burglary.

People need to be able to handle when life takes a giant dump on you, and the weakening of people's psyche is why I see such weak teens and young adults mentally. (And I happen to personally know that a bunch of local psychiatrists agree with me on this.)Many of them are conditioned for a padded cell by society. Adversity toughens one and it seems modernity is aimed at the softening of individuals. Can I handle being without a home for a few days? yep. I probably am too soft now to do it for 4.5 years living out of my car like I had to to attend college.Can I handle myself without turning to people to handle scary words? Yep.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

I agree with your other post on wanting to see more articles and more facts on this...I wasn't able to find anything besides short snippets at best and definitely no new updates.

But, in forming an opinion on what little is there...

We don't know enough to make a determination of mens rea and can only postulate until we see the actual post.

What, then, was the actus rea? No specific person was mentioned so, not a threat. No victim, so no negligence. No plot to actually shoot up the school, so no conspiracy or terrorism.

I'm having trouble seeing any crime at all that could be committed off a vague social media post (if that is, in fact, what it was).

Given that, holding the kid without bond seems like an overreach. If the state wants to charge him for a crime and then give him his day in court...fine, let's get the facts out. I'm just most struck by the injustice of the bond situation, at least for now.

What is actis rea?

 

[cookie]

Politicians and unionized government employees are a top to bottom crime gang.