That ;) You Type Can and Will Be Used Against You in a Court of Law - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Code3Response;47140559]Fucking seriously? I [I]wonder[/I] what his real message was in that then. He insinuated that hes going to kill a cop if he came in contact with them. The internet is all fun and games and kinda disgusting at times, but when you take it off websites and on to the most publicized social media site, someone is going to notice.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure who you grew up with, but I grew up in Chicago and most of my friends talked like the guy in OP does. It's all about trying to look tough. Without knowing more about the guy but knowing that he grew up in a similar environment as me, I'm almost certain he wasn't being serious, just trying to show off how hard he is. I'm sure I could go on many of their facebook profiles and see similar things posted. Arresting him because "eh, he might be. toss the scumbag in jail" is incredibly stupid. [editline]14th February 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=U.S.S.R;47140513]Better to prevent a crime than to respond to one.[/QUOTE] I think it would be better to investigate him and arrest him if they could prove intent to commit the crime. Arresting someone for writing something online stupid. For many people it's the mental equivilent of saying something aloud to their friends, especially on Facebook.

I think if you post a picture of a gun non-anonymously and openly state you plan to use it to kill someone and there's sufficient reason to believe you intend to deliver on that statement you should get at least investigated. The whole emoji thing is pretty sensationalist, this is more about that fact that he posted a pic of his gun and said he felt like catching a body

My conclusion is that luckily we'll soon have a new generation -[I]our[/I] generation- of lawyers and judges... people who are infinitely more internet-savvy than the previous ones. I mean, if a 70 year old judge, or a jury comprised of mostly old people, are speculating on a sentence because they doesn't understand what emoticons really mean, then it's time for them to either get on with the times, or just move along and let people who have a better grasp of today's interpersonal communication skills take up their mantle.

[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;47141102]My conclusion is that luckily we'll soon have a new generation -[I]our[/I] generation- of lawyers and judges... people who are infinitely more internet-savvy than the previous ones. I mean, if a 70 year old judge, or a jury comprised of mostly old people, are speculating on a sentence because they doesn't understand what emoticons really mean, then it's time for them to either get on with the times, or just move along and let people who have a better grasp of today's interpersonal communication skills take up their mantle.[/QUOTE] and then comes along X new thing which our generation are not savvy with and the cycle continues ad infinitum

[QUOTE=JgcxCub;47138660]i wonder how they'll interpret :3[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_xoP2ezvpU7I/TOpwOt_abqI/AAAAAAAAAoI/gJZ8nRSZkoU/s1600/zoidberg.png[/IMG]

[QUOTE=adam1172;47138285]Didn't the secret service and Scotland Yard contacted Garry once because someone was making obama death threats on FP?[/QUOTE] When? Don't tell me it was when that someone said that to test if the thread viewers increased.

[QUOTE=sasherz;47140454]I have a problem with this way of thinking. You're arresting someone even though they haven't committed a crime. It's certainly cost effective to just arrest the guy as opposed to investigating him, but that doesn't make it any more right to say "he posted a gun picture (presuming the one in the OP) and then hinted in emojis that he was going to kill cops. this man is a dangerous suicidal killer arrest him immediatly." Perhaps his post was a thoughtless reply to the recent events of cops shooting unarmed civilians? Perhaps it's the pseudo gangster bravado that his language makes me suspect he falls for. I don't think it's right to call someone a criminal for simply threatening.[/QUOTE] It is illegal to threaten someone (or in this case a group of someone's- the police). You don't need the ability to commit the crime, the tools, the will- none of this matters. The threat in of itself is unlawful. That people are using the "lol just kidding defense" isn't surprising. It also won't work out well.

[QUOTE=H8Entitlement;47142892]It is illegal to threaten someone (or in this case a group of someone's- the police). You don't need the ability to commit the crime, the tools, the will- none of this matters. The threat in of itself is unlawful.[/QUOTE] I'm arguing that I don't think the threat by itself should be unlawful for the reasons I stated above.

[QUOTE=sasherz;47142987]I'm arguing that I don't think the threat by itself should be unlawful for the reasons I stated above.[/QUOTE] It's impossible to tell the difference between a genuine threat and a kid being stupid on the internet due to Poe's law. Posting public threats online is not a right people need, kids just need to learn how to keep their "acting tough" in private messages where the recipient will understand the context. EDIT: And besides, there have been real cases where teens put pictures up on the internet and made threats that no one reacted to, resulting in a preventable school shooting.

[QUOTE=sasherz;47140602]I'm not sure who you grew up with, but I grew up in Chicago and most of my friends talked like the guy in OP does. It's all about trying to look tough. Without knowing more about the guy but knowing that he grew up in a similar environment as me, I'm almost certain he wasn't being serious, just trying to show off how hard he is.[/QUOTE] Variant of the "lol just kidding" defense IMO. [QUOTE=sasherz;47140602] I'm sure I could go on many of their facebook profiles and see similar things posted. Arresting him because "eh, he might be. toss the scumbag in jail" is incredibly stupid.[/QUOTE] He wasnt arrested because he was going to kill police. He was arrested for threatening to kill police. You can murder someone without a threat of, and you can threaten without the actual action ever being taken. Its important to note those are two different (though sometimes related) crimes. [QUOTE=sasherz;47140602] I think it would be better to investigate him and arrest him if they could prove intent to commit the crime. Arresting someone for writing something online stupid. For many people it's the mental equivilent of saying something aloud to their friends, especially on Facebook.[/QUOTE] There was an investigation. Thats how they found him, and then arrested him. But what you are implying is that the investigation should "prove" intent for the threat to be legally actionable. So how would one prove intent? Do potential cop killers need an actual to do list with number three being kill a cop before they can be charged? I'll try to tl/dr this... You have the right to feel safe and secure. I have the right to say things. When what i say infringes on your right to feel safe and secure- that's when it becomes a crime. My rights end where your rights begin. [editline]14th February 2015[/editline] important to note- that public messages (such as facebook) are public. Private conversations with friends are private. Making a statement such as "im going to kill a cop" and posting a pic of the gun you could use- on facebook- is a public declaration of your intent. Such a statement made to friends- well realistically that's never going to result in charges is it?

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;47140483]It really blows my mind that I live in a country where you can be thrown in jail on the basis of a single, short post on the internet.[/QUOTE] Why? "I am going to shoot up the place" is a short sentence, but it doesn't mean it shouldn't be taken seriously.

[QUOTE=Snickerdoodle;47143210]Why? "I am going to shoot up the place" is a short sentence, but it doesn't mean it shouldn't be taken seriously.[/QUOTE] I guess it's just that I don't really consider Internet speech to be on the same level as actual speech. I grew up with the Internet that answered every post or comment with "lol kill urself fag". Internet commenting, to me, is supposed to be consequence-free speech. It's just firing bullshit into the ether. I suppose I just remember being acclimated to an Internet where you were just expected to put up with shit. If somebody threatened to rape you to death, you just had to shut up and deal with it. I'm really, really, uncomfortable with cops kicking doors because somebody said something on the Internet.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;47143320]Internet commenting, to me, is supposed to be consequence-free speech.[/QUOTE] There's no such thing as freedom from consequences, and especially not from consequences due to something you said in a public place. It's the exact same thing as walking down the road and saying it to nobody in particular.

[QUOTE=H8Entitlement;47143163]Variant of the "lol just kidding" defense IMO. [/QUOTE] Summarising the arguement in a rediculous wording does not defeat it. [QUOTE=H8Entitlement;47143163]There was an investigation. Thats how they found him, and then arrested him. But what you are implying is that the investigation should "prove" intent for the threat to be legally actionable. So how would one prove intent? Do potential cop killers need an actual to do list with number three being kill a cop before they can be charged?[/QUOTE] Though I am not a psychologist, I would look at the situation as thought it had already happened and determine their motives for the shooting. Is there evidence the person obsessed over this notion? Had the person made multiple similar statements to friends? Is the person's facebook filled with anti-police writing that consistantly shows him as being a lethal threat? Things of that nature could indicate more reliably than the simple evidence of him owning a gun and making a vague reference to shooting cops. Oh and no, there was no investigation. His arrest came about because of a complaint someone made. [QUOTE=H8Entitlement;47143163] I'll try to tl/dr this... You have the right to feel safe and secure. I have the right to say things. When what i say infringes on your right to feel safe and secure- that's when it becomes a crime. My rights end where your rights begin. [/QUOTE] I think there is a fine line between presenting yourself as a legitimate threat and infringing on freedom of speech and thought. This case really rubbed on that fine line for me. From the information presented in this article, this man's only offense was posessing a firearm, making what I've experienced in his kind of culture as an empty, "tough guy" statement, then making a vague reference to the target of his statement being police officers through emojis. I don't feel that this by itself proves this person a threat to society and warrants his being made a criminal. [QUOTE=Lijitsu;47144591]There's no such thing as freedom from consequences, and especially not from consequences due to something you said in a public place. It's the exact same thing as walking down the road and saying it to nobody in particular.[/QUOTE] As with many comparisons to the internet and real life, I don't think this one matches up. Writing behind the mask of a computer screen mentally allows people to feel a freedom from scrutiny and responsibility for what they say, which I feel makes it different from someone randomly telling me unprompted in real life "I want to shoot a police officer". [QUOTE=Snickerdoodle;47143210]Why? "I am going to shoot up the place" is a short sentence, but it doesn't mean it shouldn't be taken seriously.[/QUOTE] I think it should be taken seriously in that it be investigated and the person perhaps questioned or investigated, but I don't think that short sentence should constitute a crime.

[QUOTE=Snickerdoodle;47143210]Why? "I am going to shoot up the place" is a short sentence, but it doesn't mean it shouldn't be taken seriously.[/QUOTE] I think the problem isn't with the threats themselves but a misinterpretation of the messages, the reason you can ignore the majority of the "I am going to shoot up the place" messages is because it could easily be explained as a way that the person was expressing their dislike of a certain place or that it's difficult to express sarcasm over a message on the internet. PS: Most of these messages are only worth being deleted by an admin then having the offender banned, IMO. Like, I've easily gone to school plenty of times and said "please kill me" to people, does that make me a suicidal person that requires immediate attention from the appropriate authorities or should you just ignore me for being a dumb-ass?

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;47140580]I'm going to steal the Declaration of Independence :^)[/QUOTE] I am going to kill Santa. God damn commie giving gifts to everyone :D