Student arrested for edgy school shooting joke, Judge bans him from playing violent video games - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=ZombieDawgs;53172718]Who else here remembers shooting up their first school? Good memories eh?[/QUOTE] I only ever shot one, but man those were some ace photos if I do say so myself.

[QUOTE=TheBorealis;53172740]Even the Constitution? The 18th Amendment forbids cruel and unusual punishment, and one of the criteria for something to count as that by the SCOTUS was defined as "A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary." A lawyer could argue video games has no impact on what he said, which could make it unnecessary. (i'm not a lawyer, sorry if this is dumb) edit: reading more the person was playing a violent game while making the joke threat, which would make it harder to argue. Anyway violent is undefined, mario kart could be counted as violent with carts hitting each other. Just a stupid ban.[/QUOTE] Minors in America have no Constitutional Rights afforded to them until their 18th birthday, whereupon they become adults and therefore citizens of America. Minors have NO freedom of speech, religion, etc. Welcome to America!

[QUOTE=Quark:;53173149]Minors in America have no Constitutional Rights afforded to them until their 18th birthday, whereupon they become adults and therefore citizens of America. Minors have NO freedom of speech, religion, etc. Welcome to America![/QUOTE] Is there a source you can give? And you're a citizen if you're simply born in the US or a US territory (McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone and that's why he could run for president) Why did someone decide that rights didn't apply to US citizens under 18? :why:

[QUOTE=TheDrunkenOne;53172699]Mario Kart is not violent? I disagree: [IMG]https://www.mariowiki.com/images/thumb/9/95/RedShellMK8.png/200px-RedShellMK8.png[/IMG][/QUOTE] Well, it certainly might be the cause of it. [img]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/60/Mario_Kart_Blue_Shell.png/220px-Mario_Kart_Blue_Shell.png[/img]

[QUOTE=TheBorealis;53173165]Is there a source you can give? And you're a citizen if you're simply born in the US or a US territory (McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone and that's why he could run for president) Why did someone decide that rights didn't apply to US citizens under 18? :why:[/QUOTE] [URL="https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Children%27s_rights"]yup[/URL]. [URL="https://people.howstuffworks.com/do-children-teenagers-have-constitutional-rights.htm"]:([/URL] [QUOTE=Article on Children's Rights] The United States has signed but not ratified the CRC. As a result, children's rights have not been systematically implemented in the U.S. Children are generally afforded the basic rights embodied by the Constitution, as enshrined by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. ...[T]here are other concerns in the United States regarding children's rights. The American Academy of Adoption Attorneys is concerned with children's rights to a safe, supportive and stable family structure. Their position on children's rights in adoption cases states that, "children have a constitutionally based liberty interest in the protection of their established families, rights which are at least equal to, and we believe outweigh, the rights of others who would claim a 'possessory' interest in these children." Other issues raised in American children's rights advocacy include children's rights to inheritance in same-sex marriages and particular rights for youth. [/QUOTE] You're [I]technically[/I] a [I]naturalized citizen[/I] if you're born in America, yes. However, you're not a [I]full citizen[/I] unless you have [I]full constitutional rights.[/I] Here's an example: [QUOTE=Second Source] Under the law, children in the United States are fully formed human beings with the same basic constitutional rights that adults enjoy. Like every other citizen, children have the right to due process under the law and the right to counsel. They're also protected against cruel and unusual punishment and unreasonable searches and seizures.[B] However, the law also recognizes that children aren't physically and emotionally mature enough to handle the responsibility attached to legal activities like drinking, let alone the right to vote or run for public office.[/B] The law reconciles these two ideas [B]by implementing [I]ages of majority[/I][/B] designed to define when a person has the ability to exercise his or her rights responsibly. [/QUOTE] So, to simplify it: Children in America don't have rights beyond basic [I]human rights.[/I]

[QUOTE=Quark:;53173194]So, to simplify it: Children in America don't have rights beyond basic [I]human rights.[/I][/QUOTE] Your second quote snippet has this though [QUOTE] They're also protected against cruel and unusual punishment and unreasonable searches and seizures[/QUOTE] But anyway what exactly counts as a human right? I mean the contents of the Bill of Rights should be a basic human right right?

That varies by state unfortunately

[QUOTE=Quark:;53173285]That varies by state unfortunately[/QUOTE] Are there any states that have full constitutional rights for minors? (I thought your sources refuted the idea minors don't have constitutional rights, based off this) [QUOTE]Children are generally afforded the basic rights embodied by the Constitution, as enshrined by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. [/QUOTE] Guess not if its on a by state basis.

This is on the same level as the judge who ordered a kid to go to mandatory church

[QUOTE=TheBorealis;53173293]Are there any states that have full constitutional rights for minors? (I thought your sources refuted the idea minors don't have constitutional rights, based off this) Guess not if its on a by state basis.[/QUOTE] Like I said, the keyword in that snippet is [I]generally[/I]. This is why/because it varies by state. It's hard to find a source for 'states where minors have full constitutional rights' because it's probably an embarrassing fact that minors have [I]almost no rights[/I] at all. However, [URL="https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Minor_(law)#/Emancipation_of_minors"]I did find this[/URL] which you may find pertinent: [QUOTE=Minor Emancipation Law] Emancipation of minors is a legal mechanism by which a minor is no longer under the control of their parents or guardians, and [B]is given the legal rights associated with adults. [/B] [/QUOTE] In looking into the emancipation law, and what these legal rights associated with adults are, it - once again - [URL="http://family.findlaw.com/emancipation-of-minors/rights-privileges-and-duties-of-emancipation.html"]varies by state![/URL] :v: [QUOTE=Rights of Emancipated Minors] Once declared to be emancipated, minors have the same rights, privileges, and duties in society as adults. Although the specific rules vary among the states, emancipated minors can typically do the following: Live away from his or her parents. Keep whatever money he or she earns, enter into contracts and leases, be a party to a lawsuit (either as a plaintiff or a defendant) in their own name. Buy or sell real estate or other property. Write a legally valid will, inherit property, enroll in school, get married, and agree to various types of medical treatment. [/QUOTE] An example of it varying by state, [URL="http://family.findlaw.com/emancipation-of-minors/rights-privileges-and-duties-of-emancipation.html"]you ask?[/URL] In Illinois, if a minor becomes emancipated,[I] the court will determine[/I] what rights and privileges the minor will be given and [I]only those rights listed in the court order[/I] will be in effect, until the minor's 18th birthday. However, in most states, an emancipated minor still can't participate in activities that are banned by law until they reach a certain age. This includes drinking alcohol, obtaining a driver's license, or voting. An emancipated minor can't quit school before the age of sixteen since federal law requires minors to attend school until that age.

[QUOTE=Quark:;53173327]Like I said, the keyword in that snippet is [I]generally[/I]. This is why/because it varies by state. It's hard to find a source for 'states where minors have full constitutional rights' because it's probably an embarrassing fact that minors have [I]almost no rights[/I] at all. However, [URL="https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Minor_(law)#/Emancipation_of_minors"]I did find this[/URL] which you may find pertinent: In looking into the emancipation law, and what these legal rights associated with adults are, it - once again - [URL="http://family.findlaw.com/emancipation-of-minors/rights-privileges-and-duties-of-emancipation.html"]varies by state![/URL] :v: An example of it varying by state, [URL="http://family.findlaw.com/emancipation-of-minors/rights-privileges-and-duties-of-emancipation.html"]you ask?[/URL] In Illinois, if a minor becomes emancipated,[I] the court will determine[/I] what rights and privileges the minor will be given and [I]only those rights listed in the court order[/I] will be in effect, until the minor's 18th birthday. However, in most states, an emancipated minor still can't participate in activities that are banned by law until they reach a certain age. This includes drinking alcohol, obtaining a driver's license, or voting. An emancipated minor can't quit school before the age of sixteen since federal law requires minors to attend school until that age.[/QUOTE] I actually saw child emancipation in the wikipedia article earlier while looking for US minor rights, your findlaw article also mentions "implied partial emancipation", gave the example of a minor being emancipated but the parents are still responsible for medical bills, interesting I guess.

[QUOTE=Quark:;53173194][URL="https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Children's_rights"]yup[/URL]. [URL="https://people.howstuffworks.com/do-children-teenagers-have-constitutional-rights.htm"]:([/URL] You're [I]technically[/I] a [I]naturalized citizen[/I] if you're born in America, yes. However, you're not a [I]full citizen[/I] unless you have [I]full constitutional rights.[/I] Here's an example: So, to simplify it: Children in America don't have rights beyond basic [I]human rights.[/I][/QUOTE] What exactly are you talking about here? Your source explicitly states that children get their constitutional rights. [quote]Under the law, children in the United States are fully formed human beings with the same basic constitutional rights that adults enjoy. Like every other citizen, children have the right to due process under the law and the right to counsel. They're also protected against cruel and unusual punishment and unreasonable searches and seizures.[/quote] It also explicitly states that the only rights not afforded to children are the right to drink (which is state level legislation forced at gunpoint by reagan, not federal), or the right to hold public office. Both of those are a no brainer. Neither of your sources state anything that would make children the half citizens you're claiming.

[QUOTE=Bordellimies;53172701]If he gets caught playing a game with the [I]slightest[/I] bit of physical violence, it's instant jailtime.[/QUOTE] arrested for playing video games fucking WOW

[QUOTE=Rocâ„¢;53173360]arrested for playing video games fucking WOW[/QUOTE] I know right, World of Warcraft is too violent.

you know, I always wanted to make a CS:S map of my school because it was like the perfect shape and layout for a CS:S map this judge seems to be treading on very thin ice considering he's essentially ruling on no evidence about the relationship of videogames and because enforcement is vague and practically rediculous given how ESRB is not at all like MPAA this all seems like excessive overkill as well

I went to Lake Park High School! That's really all I wanted to say, but it's weird seeing my hometown in the news for such a stupid reason.

[QUOTE=TheRealFierce;53172687][url]http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/ct-met-roselle-high-school-threat-20180227-story.html[/url][/QUOTE] Seems fair enough to me, the kid was being a dumbass. I'm all for an edgy joke but you don't just post that shit as a highschool student in the wake of a school shooting amid dozens of shootings. People have every right to be on edge and that snapchat joke is the classic sort of offhanded comment you see in the days leading up to so many shootings. So of course the school and the courts would take action, he's lucky he got off that easy, the little shit should know better. [editline]2nd March 2018[/editline] But seriously though he got a laughably minor punishment. The judge put him in juvie for a night and basically told his parents to ground him for a while. They're not gonna "enforce" the grounding or the violent video games thing with swat officers or anything, the judge is literally just leaving it to the parents on good faith, this kind of thing happens all the time. It's not even a slap on the wrist.

[QUOTE=P.;53172801]But Mario Kart has bullets in it: [IMG]https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/320307236884971531/419245563343667204/maxresdefault.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] That's the most american thing ever, so its permitted

[QUOTE=Karmah;53173640]That's the most american thing ever, so its permitted[/QUOTE] On full moons on the 4th of July Americans turn into assorted ammunition. It is said that if you fire them with a rifle baptized by holy water their and your wishes will all be granted.

You know going by actual scientific studies; [I]frustrating[/I] video games cause violence. Not violent ones. Therefore, Mario Kart would very well motivate a school shooting more so than one with violent subject matter. Source: After many years of playing Grand Theft Auto and Call of Duty as an underage child, the only game to make me actively throw the controller at the television in rage [I](to this day)[/I] was the multiplayer for some Ratchet and Clank game for the PS2.

[QUOTE=General J;53173746]You know going by actual scientific studies; [I]frustrating[/I] video games cause violence. Not violent ones. Therefore, Mario Kart would very well motivate a school shooting more so than one with violent subject matter. Source: After many years of playing Grand Theft Auto and Call of Duty as an underage child, the only game to make me actively throw the controller at the television in rage [I](to this day)[/I] was the multiplayer for some Ratchet and Clank game for the PS2.[/QUOTE] to be fair, the older GTA games were extremely frustrating themselves, rockstar didn't really make the shooting controls good until 4/5

[QUOTE=General J;53173746]You know going by actual scientific studies; [I]frustrating[/I] video games cause violence. Not violent ones. Therefore, Mario Kart would very well motivate a school shooting more so than one with violent subject matter. Source: After many years of playing Grand Theft Auto and Call of Duty as an underage child, the only game to make me actively throw the controller at the television in rage [I](to this day)[/I] was the multiplayer for some Ratchet and Clank game for the PS2.[/QUOTE] As someone who has never thrown a controller/any expensive electronic device in my life, I have known friends who would actively throw their controllers while playing games like Halo online, and these people have displayed less violent tendencies than I myself have outside of that. Everyone is different on these things, trying to categorize it is useless.

[QUOTE=Qwerty Bastard;53173577]Seems fair enough to me, the kid was being a dumbass. I'm all for an edgy joke but you don't just post that shit as a highschool student in the wake of a school shooting amid dozens of shootings. People have every right to be on edge and that snapchat joke is the classic sort of offhanded comment you see in the days leading up to so many shootings. So of course the school and the courts would take action, he's lucky he got off that easy, the little shit should know better. [editline]2nd March 2018[/editline] But seriously though he got a laughably minor punishment. The judge put him in juvie for a night and basically told his parents to ground him for a while. They're not gonna "enforce" the grounding or the violent video games thing with swat officers or anything, the judge is literally just leaving it to the parents on good faith, this kind of thing happens all the time. It's not even a slap on the wrist.[/QUOTE] Yeah absolutely not. There's a difference between being on edge and actually punishing someone for a fucking joke, let alone in such a stupid heavy handed way. What a fucking shit judge. America actually priding itself on its freedom of speech yet having this kind of shit is a joke.

Freedom of speech is just the right to your opinion without censorship. There are types of speech not protected under the constitution and criminal threats are one of them. Even if you don't have the ability to carry out your threat, it counts Indefinite house detention and the banning of video games, though? That's a bit extreme and over reaching. Turning over the phone since that's how he communicated his threat and a couple months probation would be more fitting given the circumstances This is just a case of a judge throwing the book at the kid to make an example out of him

[QUOTE=Quark:;53173194][URL="https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Children%27s_rights"]yup[/URL]. [URL="https://people.howstuffworks.com/do-children-teenagers-have-constitutional-rights.htm"]:([/URL] You're [I]technically[/I] a [I]naturalized citizen[/I] if you're born in America, yes. However, you're not a [I]full citizen[/I] unless you have [I]full constitutional rights.[/I] Here's an example: So, to simplify it: Children in America don't have rights beyond basic [I]human rights.[/I][/QUOTE] you realize that your second source says the exact opposite of what you're arguing regarding constitutional rights, right? To my knowledge as a law student and human rights major there's no concept in american jurisprudence of "full citizen" or "full constitutional rights." [quote]Under the law, children in the United States are fully formed human beings with the [B]same basic constitutional rights that adults enjoy[/B]. Like every other citizen, children have the right to [B]due process [/B]under the law and the [B]right to counsel[/B]. They're also protected against [B]cruel and unusual punishment[/B] and [B]unreasonable searches and seizures[/B]. However, the law also recognizes that children aren't physically and emotionally mature enough to handle the responsibility attached to legal activities like drinking, let alone the right to vote or run for public office. The law reconciles these two ideas by implementing ages of majority designed to define when a person has the ability to exercise his or her rights responsibly.[/quote] that right there is the 4th Amendment, 5th Amendment (also See [I]In re Gault[/I] and [I]In re Winship[/I]), the 6th Amendment, and the 8th Amendment (also See [I]Roper v. Simmons[/I]). While you could try to argue that the inability to vote is a violation of Article 1 Section 2, the 26th Amendment specifically prohibits voting restrictions past the age of 18. The idea of an age of majority is a universal international norm. There are also special rights and protections for minors that are not afforded to those who have surpassed the age of majority. See [I]Prince v. Massachusetts[/I]. Further, there is a long-standing practice of judicial review regarding constitutionality. If a specific statute, prohibition, whatever can be interpreted in two ways - one of which is constitutional, the other of which is unconstitutional - you interpret it in the way that is constitutional. AKA, a restriction on a kid's right to vote, [I]even if[/I] it could be perceived as violating Article 1 (which it can't, because Art.1 leaves voting age to the states), it [i]would be considered constitutional under the 26th Amendment.[/i] As to running for office, I would point you to Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution. This is mirrored elsewhere for the president at an even higher age. "The People" is left undefined as to age, reserving that to the several states. [quote=The United States Constitution, Article I]1: The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members [B]chosen every second Year by the People[/B] of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature. 2: [B]No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five[/B] Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.[/quote] The truth is that the Constitution and the rights it affords specifically considered the status of children within the United States. Just because [I]different[/I] constitutional rights and obligations are laid out for people of certain ages does not mean that they have "almost no constitutional rights." Also re:"technically naturalized citizens": children born in the United States are [B]by definition[/b] not naturalized citizens. The difference between a born citizen and naturalized citizen is primarily the attainment and renouncement of citizenship. The statement that kids have "almost no" constitutional rights is contradictory to the Constitution itself, and the overwhelming majority of case law. [quote=The 14th Amendment][B]All persons born or naturalized[/B] in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, [B]are citizens[/B] of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. [B]No State shall[/B] make or enforce any law which shall [B]abridge the privileges or immunities[/B] of citizens of the United States; [B]nor[/B] shall any State [B]deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law[/B]; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the [B]equal protection of the laws.[/B][/quote] Moving on... [QUOTE=Quark:;53173327]An example of it varying by state, [URL="http://family.findlaw.com/emancipation-of-minors/rights-privileges-and-duties-of-emancipation.html"]you ask?[/URL] In Illinois, if a minor becomes emancipated,[I] the court will determine[/I] what rights and privileges the minor will be given and [I]only those rights listed in the court order[/I] will be in effect, until the minor's 18th birthday. However, in most states, an emancipated minor still can't participate in activities that are banned by law until they reach a certain age. This includes drinking alcohol, obtaining a driver's license, or voting. [b]An emancipated minor can't quit school before the age of sixteen since federal law requires minors to attend school until that age.[/B][/QUOTE] This is the weirdest thing so far. Are you saying that it's a violation of rights to force education? Because, you know, the provision of compulsory primary education is literally in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 28(1)(a) (cited as the CRC in your first source). And, when they're in school, they have constitutional protection. See [I]Tinker v. Des Moines[/I]. listen i get the whole "kids don't get enough" line of argument, and there are plenty of places where the justice system falls short for kids. Getting charged with adult offenses, getting put in shitty underfunded juvenile facilities which only serve to exacerbate any problems, school to prison pipeline, etc., etc. But to just hand-waive it and say "kids have no constitutional rights!" isn't just being a bitter cynic, it's wrong and only serves to reinforce the idea that it's true. In reality kids have many of the same rights as adults, and have [I]way[/I] more protections than adults do. NOW ON TO THE INTERESTING QUESTION: [QUOTE=Crimor;53172698]As fucking retarded that the kid may be, is it actually within the rights of judges in the US to decide what legal media you're allowed to consume?[/QUOTE] On a quick bit of research this looks like it's ripe for an appeal under [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Entertainment_Merchants_Ass%27n]Brown v. EMA[/url], which held that video games qualify for First Amendment protection; but, it's hard to tell without seeing the court documents and further research on the scope of judicial power for home detention.

Who gets to decide what games count as violence then? This seems all over the place I cant believe "don't play violent games" was said by a judge.

[QUOTE=Amber902;53173358]What exactly are you talking about here? Your source explicitly states that children get their constitutional rights. It also explicitly states that the only rights not afforded to children are the right to drink (which is state level legislation forced at gunpoint by reagan, not federal), or the right to hold public office. Both of those are a no brainer. Neither of your sources state anything that would make children the half citizens you're claiming.[/QUOTE] Children get their rights but Parents and Schools have repeatedly been given the ability to curtail those rights because its their job to raise the child.

If you're given rights, while someone else is given the right to deny you your rights, you don't have those rights. You have temporarily granted permission that is at any time revocable. Exactly like minors in America. This isn't difficult to understand.

[QUOTE=Quark:;53176636]If you're given rights, while someone else is given the right to deny you your rights, you don't have those rights. You have temporarily granted permission that is at any time revocable. Exactly like minors in America. This isn't difficult to understand.[/QUOTE] It's also not difficult to understand that there are only 7 non-derogable rights that exist: 1) right to life 2) freedom from torture & cruel punishment 3) freedom from slavery 4) freedom from contractual imprisonment 5) freedom from ex post facto laws 6) freedom from discrimination 7) freedom of speech. However, guess what - a bunch of these are subject to limitations. Specifically, 1, 5, 6, and 7. Right to life? Lost the moment that you're a threat to others. Police are allowed to shoot you if you've got a knife to somebody's throat. In that vein, let's say they manage to subdue you. Well, ex post facto is only for criminal convictions. Civil liability? Oh hell yeah, there's plenty of liability imposed by ex post facto laws. Especially on corporations for shit they did in the past. Discrimination? It's [B]literally written into international treaties[/B] that discrimination [B]can be used[/B] to further equity, see the special measures in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (basically legalizing discrimination for affirmative action purposes to achieve equity, and then requiring the elimination of said practices upon attainment of the same), as well as the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women. Freedom of speech? Obscenity laws. Child pornography. Fighting words. Defamation. Speech harmful to children. etc. etc. [B]etc.[/B] Like it or not from a [B]legal and practical standpoint[/B] almost [I]all[/I] of your rights can (and, in some circumstances, [I]should[/I]) be restricted. For instance, your right to property. Does your right to do what you want with your property mean that you can dump toxic waste on it? How about install automated vuvuzelas pointed at your neighbor's windows that start blaring at 3:00 in the morning? The entire concept of law and human and constitutional rights is the [B]balancing of competing rights of the populace[/B] to facilitate public policy goals. That is the entire reason why certain protections for children exist that adults don't get access to, and why children don't get rights that adults have access to. [B]A child can't legally consent to sex. A child can't legally consent to enter into a contract. Why? Because they're not developed enough to make that decision. Consequently, we temporarily restrict those rights until they are capable of enjoying them responsibly. The argument you're putting forth would say that we should allow it.[/B] Stop spouting bullshit. You don't know what you're talking about. Clear the second that you said that a child born in the US was a naturalized citizen, lol. Google what a naturalized citizen is.