Jagex Busts Teen for School Shooting Comment

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4
 

Abandon4093:

Xarathox:

Abandon4093:

I didn't say anything about the first amendment.

I'm just pointing out that some stupid kid saying stupid shit online isn't really a threat.

Investigate the claims, sure. That's only smart. But claiming he had means and opportunity because his dad owns a gun and he goes to school.

Well that's just fucking silly.

You did say he didn't commit a crime, which is factually false. Threats of violence in the US is a crime. Whether or not someone will go through with such threats is irrelevant, as they can be arrested for stating such intent.

Is it though? Is saying childish shit on an MMO really a crime? As far as I'm concerned, unless someone has some real proof that the idiot was actually going to do anything, then he was just a stupid kid trying to get some attention by acting like a tool online.

By technicality, what he said (that he was going to shoot up his school, tomorrow) is an actual crime by definition of the first amendment. Therefore it is a law that he broke, and in no way was law enforcement in the wrong by arresting him for it.

Whether or not you agree with it is a moot point. And I'm not taking a side either way, just pointing out that he did, in fact, commit a crime by the definition of our constitution.

Free speech and the protection of it have nothing to do with accountability. We ARE accountable for ALL that we SAY and DO.

While accountability is an increasingly alien concept to younger generations who have a hyper-inflamed sense of self entitlement; the internet, or games or text message or whatever electronic medium you want to site does not waive responsibility and accountability.

Simply because one wants anonymity through the internet does not mean consequence-free. If you say it, your words own you as much as you do them, for better or worse.

If you think i'm crazy, look at the growing trend of rape victims being harassed to or near to suicide by people using the internet as a consequence free zone to "blame the victim" in ways that would have them charged with harassment if they said it face to face

Xarathox:

Abandon4093:

Xarathox:

You did say he didn't commit a crime, which is factually false. Threats of violence in the US is a crime. Whether or not someone will go through with such threats is irrelevant, as they can be arrested for stating such intent.

Is it though? Is saying childish shit on an MMO really a crime? As far as I'm concerned, unless someone has some real proof that the idiot was actually going to do anything, then he was just a stupid kid trying to get some attention by acting like a tool online.

By technicality, what he said (that he was going to shoot up his school, tomorrow) is an actual crime by definition of the first amendment. Therefore it is a law that he broke, and in no way was law enforcement in the wrong by arresting him for it.

Whether or not you agree with it is a moot point. And I'm not taking a side either way, just pointing out that he did, in fact, commit a crime by the definition of our constitution.

By that logic anyone whos ever threatened to throttle Justin Beiber or kill any other annoying personality should be getting the same treatment as this guy.

We distinguish between credible and empty threats, then act upon them accordingly.

Abandon4093:

Xarathox:

Abandon4093:

Is it though? Is saying childish shit on an MMO really a crime? As far as I'm concerned, unless someone has some real proof that the idiot was actually going to do anything, then he was just a stupid kid trying to get some attention by acting like a tool online.

By technicality, what he said (that he was going to shoot up his school, tomorrow) is an actual crime by definition of the first amendment. Therefore it is a law that he broke, and in no way was law enforcement in the wrong by arresting him for it.

Whether or not you agree with it is a moot point. And I'm not taking a side either way, just pointing out that he did, in fact, commit a crime by the definition of our constitution.

By that logic anyone whos ever threatened to throttle Justin Beiber or kill any other annoying personality should be getting the same treatment as this guy.

We distinguish between credible and empty threats, then act upon them accordingly.

There is a difference between saying "I am going to shoot up my school tomorrow" and "I really want to throttle Bieber."

If you cant tell the difference then I am very sorry.

If you wanted them to be similar it would be "I am going to go throttle bieber tomorrow."

Stating you have a plan to do something is legally different from expressing a desire to do something.

I think there is a bigger story here, people are still actually playing Runescape!

In all seriousness though it was good that they were able to catch this guy before something was done and the players that reported him should be given something for possibly saving lives.

Desert Punk:

Abandon4093:

Xarathox:

By technicality, what he said (that he was going to shoot up his school, tomorrow) is an actual crime by definition of the first amendment. Therefore it is a law that he broke, and in no way was law enforcement in the wrong by arresting him for it.

Whether or not you agree with it is a moot point. And I'm not taking a side either way, just pointing out that he did, in fact, commit a crime by the definition of our constitution.

By that logic anyone whos ever threatened to throttle Justin Beiber or kill any other annoying personality should be getting the same treatment as this guy.

We distinguish between credible and empty threats, then act upon them accordingly.

There is a difference between saying "I am going to shoot up my school tomorrow" and "I really want to throttle Bieber."

If you cant tell the difference then I am very sorry.

If you wanted them to be similar it would be "I am going to go throttle bieber tomorrow."

Stating you have a plan to do something is legally different from expressing a desire to do something.

You chose both of those phrasings, not me.

I never said whether the threat against Beiber was expressed as a desire or an intent. Either way, both of them will happen. And the reason half of the world isn't locked up is because we separate the credible threats from the empty ones.

You know... this kinda makes me sad. What happened to freedom of speech? This is almost as bad as the "bomb scares" of the 90's. If anyone even said the word bomb while in school teacher flipped a desk. It was fucking stupid. Its the internet. Just because I say something doesn't mean its going to happen. I can say I'm going to sneak an explosive twinky into the white house and give obam-a-care a piece of his own medicine. Does that mean I'm going to do it? No. Do I have amendment of the constitution that allows me to say things like that? Hell yes I do. Does that give the authorities the right to arrest me because I said something? NO, It shouldn't. Because I as an American Citizen of the United States have the right to say whatever I want as long as its not personally harming someone. Arrests are to be made on people when the officer's have reasonable suspicion of a possible committed act. Saying something is NOT proper reasonable suspicion. Now if this kid had been going on and on to friends, frequented bomb building sites, THEN BOUGHT supplies for such a thing. That is reasonable suspicion. Its the acting upon knowledge this is the key. Not the knowledge or lack there of itself.

This kinda reminds me of the high profile baby killing trial back in florida. A young man has flipped the bird at a statement. The Judge has a sign up saying paraphrased "No talking or judgemental remakes."
He threw that guy in jail for 25 days. REally? So a judge who is SWORN INTO OFFICE TO PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION. In a STATE building took away a constitutional right? THIS is the uptight political bullshit this nation is coming to? This last part was a rant obviously. But it was to show a point of perspective. I don't care if this guy was being an asshat troll. I don't care if he was kidding or Not. The most he was doing was breaking their ROC.

PS I'm going to shoot up my school tomorrow.(Haven't been in school for years) With an exacto knife full of hate. It has 14 reloads because thats how many segments are on the blade. Also I'm going to kill myself after the manslughter using a ben and jerries tub of icecream and a small shovel. /mutha-F!@king sarcasm.

Tiamattt:
Hm, think I'll just edit mine a little.

I'm sorry to all the people that's cheering this, but I really don't like the idea of people being arrested solely on what they say, especially in a online setting where people are used to that anonymous feeling which tends to make people say what they would normally never say/act IRL. And definitely when it's a dumb teen who are known for saying stupid meaningless crap just to try to make themselves look good/superior.

There had to be a better way to deal with this, and I would be extremely surprised if the charges stick, much less gets in front of a jury.

And if nobody had batted an eyelash at his comment, and he ended up killing 20 innocent class mates... what would you say then?

Xarathox:
[quote="Abandon4093" post="7.405689.16861001"][quote="Xarathox" post="7.405689.16859369"][quote="Abandon4093" post="7.405689.16858317"][quote="Devoneaux" post="7.405689.16858030"][quote="Abandon4093" post="7.405689.16857873"][quote="Desert Punk" post="7.405689.16857847"][quote="Abandon4093" post="7.405689.16857840"]

By technicality, what he said (that he was going to shoot up his school, tomorrow) is an actual crime by definition of the first amendment. Therefore it is a law that he broke, and in no way was law enforcement in the wrong by arresting him for it.

Whether or not you agree with it is a moot point. And I'm not taking a side either way, just pointing out that he did, in fact, commit a crime by the definition of our constitution.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

My definition of the first amendment law what now? You need to try again. This kid broke no "amendment law."

It's funny because so many of you are screaming "Freedom of Speech!" which means you obviously know little to nothing of the constitution. The Supreme Court has said many times certain forms of speech are NOT protected. Threats are one of the categories, unless an average person would see it as bs. Blackfire001's blatant sarcasm and extreme point is obviously, hyperbole. Simply stating you're going to commit a shooting, or a bombing, including a date, makes the threat seem very real. That is not protected by the first amendment. A bit of research may help the lot of you claiming it's a constitutional violation make more informed posts in the future.

P.S. if a judge warns everyone verbally or with a sign, to be silent and/or respectful (as is their right in their courtroom, it qualifies as a court order) and you break that rules, they are within their right to cite you for contempt of court which means a fine and/or jail time.

The more you know...

YES! You are accountable. However being held accountable for what you say and being arrested with no reasonable doubt is another. Its only thing to say something and get watched. Its another to be arrested for an idea.

While I suspect he wasn't ACTUALLY planning on shooting up the place I admire the proactive attitude towards his "threats". Not sure if an arrest should have been made unless they found some more substantial evidence of a planned attack, but an investigation was certainly warranted.

Their rights in the courtroom are NOT to supersede the constitution. Even more so in a STATE GOVERNMENT BUILDING. That is illegal. Yes some forms of "speech" are not protected. Verbal assault is the easiest of examples. However saying he's going to do something with no advertent history is not an arrestable offence. At least it isn't in many states. You have to have reasonable intent. You can NOT get intent on simply words alone. You have to have backing, you have to have context. You can't take someone on their word alone. Now to arrest him in the home and take the weapons from his father they would have to have a warrant. Meaning a judge had to ok the execution of arrest.(varies by state) I would LOVE to be the lawyer on this case. Because I want to see the evidence that gave the judge reasonable intent that this was a viable threat.

"Thomas Frongillo of 44 Ennis Road, North Oxford, is studying criminal justice at Anna Maria and is currently in the police academy. He had been promised a job as a part-time officer with the Oakham Police Department, which was sponsoring him in the academy, his lawyer said."

So he knows weapon systems, and is a smart ass. I fail to see how that makes him a criminal.

"threatening to commit a crime and threatening a bombing or hijacking." I want to read the context of this law. Because I'll bet you a gallon of gas it doesn't cover context. Meaning it was a law signed that is so open and varied a bunny could be arrested for taking a fatty dump on a schools lawn.

For fuck's sake people, there is a huge difference between saying "I'll kill you!" to someone, and telling the same person "I'm going to go home, grab my gun, go over to your house, and kill you!" In the first one, you cannot determine if it is serious. In the second...there is clearly some planning going on there. It's not like the guy said "Man, school sucks. I should go shoot it up!" He said "I'm shooting up my school tomorrow". Granted, there may be some context, such as if anyone asked him "Hey, what are you doing tomorrow", and that was his joking response. But with the evidence the police have, should they just look at the threat and say, "Meh, we'll wait to see if he actually does it"?

Seriously, people complain about school shooting and say we need better laws, better security, and all that. But when the police take pre-emptive action based on evidence, they get criticized because he may not have been serious. What do you want from the justice system, precognition?

SpAc3man:

Father Time:

SpAc3man:
What a dickface. He may or may not have been taking the piss but he needed to be made an example of.

If he was just joking then why does he need to be made an example of?

Because there are unacceptable ways of behaving in society and people need to be shown that we will not tolerate this shit.
The authorities had no idea if it was a joke or not so they acted in the proper way. He will likely be given a slap on the wrist and told to stop being a little shit but at least people have been given the message that threats like this will have repercussions.

That seems fair.

A bit harsh considering HA HASNT DONE ANITHING YET, and im pretty sure you have to actually commit a crime in order to be punished for it, but since he IS 18 hence responsible for whatever comes out of his mouth (or fingers in this case) these precautionary measures can be considered "acceptable" a bit unconstitutional but acceptable nonetheless (to bad you cant jail people for being dumb)

Blackfire001:
Their rights in the courtroom are NOT to supersede the constitution. Even more so in a STATE GOVERNMENT BUILDING. That is illegal. Yes some forms of "speech" are not protected. Verbal assault is the easiest of examples. However saying he's going to do something with no advertent history is not an arrestable offence. At least it isn't in many states. You have to have reasonable intent. You can NOT get intent on simply words alone. You have to have backing, you have to have context. You can't take someone on their word alone. Now to arrest him in the home and take the weapons from his father they would have to have a warrant. Meaning a judge had to ok the execution of arrest.(varies by state) I would LOVE to be the lawyer on this case. Because I want to see the evidence that gave the judge reasonable intent that this was a viable threat.

meaning you want to "protect" this little piece of shit, im an atheist but im sure that there is a especial hell for all lawyers, he DESERVED what happened to him independently of context or proper procedures, go ask any of the parents of ANY kid in a school shooting if you think im wrong

Blackfire001:
"Thomas Frongillo of 44 Ennis Road, North Oxford, is studying criminal justice at Anna Maria and is currently in the police academy. He had been promised a job as a part-time officer with the Oakham Police Department, which was sponsoring him in the academy, his lawyer said."

So he knows weapon systems, and is a smart ass. I fail to see how that makes him a criminal.

"threatening to commit a crime and threatening a bombing or hijacking." I want to read the context of this law. Because I'll bet you a gallon of gas it doesn't cover context. Meaning it was a law signed that is so open and varied a bunny could be arrested for taking a fatty dump on a schools lawn.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/t/terroristic-threat/

BOOM CONTEXT!

OT: He wasn't arrested and prosecuted for something he didn't do like a lot of people defending him are saying. If the charges were homicide then I would agree that it was thought crime, but he was prosecuted for a terroristic threat, which are taken very seriously.

CrossLOPER:

IanDavis:
Further digging revealed that he previously talked about shooting a squirrel with a .12 shotgun.

STONE. COLD. KILLA.

Ehhh, it depends on the squirrel:

I'm not sure I like the way that anything anyone posts on the internet is being dredged back up to spite them, then again, you actually have to post this crap in the first place for it to be used against you. There's a lesson in that somewhere...

Oh yeah, don't be a dick!
Problem solved.

IanDavis:
It doesn't matter if he did or didn't, simply threatening to do so is a crime. It doesn't matter if you talk about shooting one person or a dozen. It's not as serious a crime as actually doing it, but legally, that's not something that's condoned.

There are many such limits on free speech. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is another good example.

Agreed. He needs to be punished and made an example of...

DVS BSTrD:
Hey Congress, gamers just PREVENTED a school shooting!
SUCK IT FEINSTEIN!

Your avatar is perfect for what you posted! it made me smile.

OT: When will people realize that what you post online can be seen by hundreds or even thousands of people? You wouldn't make a comment like that in a crowded building or street, so why assume that online is any better? because you cannot actually see the people who can see what you're saying and doing? Good to see a troll getting in trouble for doing something stupid like this, but I hope the school shooting hysteria doesn't turn this into something that will ruin his life. Just a slap on the wrist might be enough to teach him a lesson, jail time seems a little excessive

Oh, wow, i am appaled by the responses. It seems that most escapists want to arrest and put behind bars anyone who ever considers of making a joke thats anything else than black humour or use any sort of expression/slang in their online conversation. And its jagex folk that reported it, i dont even.....
"im going to shoot them up" can very easily be expression of him maknig a presentation that is going to leave them stiff or any other 100 things he is going to do. by the logic presented in this article, 90% of internet should be locked down becuase "Their criminal psychopaths".

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here