Petition to Free Jailed League of Legends Player Reaches 100,000 Sigs

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT
 

Good luck USA. If your country keeps going in the direction it's heading now, you'll have a worse human rights record than places like North Korea. It wont happen over night, but give it 30 years of increased surveillance, phone and internet tapping and imprisonment for the slightest comment and you'll all be totally fucked. You're only a few steps away from being arrested for making anti-government comments. Believe me, I have lived in such countries and you really are that close.
Good luck.

Li Mu:
Good luck USA. If your country keeps going in the direction it's heading now, you'll have a worse human rights record than places like North Korea. It wont happen over night, but give it 30 years of increased surveillance, phone and internet tapping and imprisonment for the slightest comment and you'll all be totally fucked. You're only a few steps away from being arrested for making anti-government comments. Believe me, I have lived in such countries and you really are that close.
Good luck.

Internet tapping? The US government didn't tap this kids internets, it was some Canadian lady.

Father Time:

chikusho:
'Murica, Land of the Free my ass.

This is is rapidly turning into something reminiscent of the Salem witch trials.

There is no longer such a thing as "innocent until proven guilty".

A. This is a couple counties in Texas not the federal government.
B. The kid has not had a trial yet. In the U.S. if you don't pay bail you stay in jail until the trial. It's very possible he'll be found innocent when he gets a trial.

Yes, keep telling yourself that A: a couple of counties in Texas are the only places where these practices occur (as if that would have made things even remotely better), that B: considering the circumstances, setting a bail for $250.000 is a just and reasonable decision.
And this is not even considering how no arrest should have been made in the first place, as there is no evidence of any kind of crime.

bdcjacko:

Internet tapping? The US government didn't tap this kids internets, it was some Canadian lady.

I guess you've missed the fact that the US government have been trying to tap _all of the internet_?

bdcjacko:
Internet tapping? The US government didn't tap this kids internets, it was some Canadian lady.

No one tapped anyone. He posted it on facebook. Equivalent of writing it on the wall of YOUR house, your t-shirt or submitting an ad to a newspaper, with contact info.
8 years is too much. A fine and lots of hours of community service would've been enough.

bdcjacko:

Li Mu:
Good luck USA. If your country keeps going in the direction it's heading now, you'll have a worse human rights record than places like North Korea. It wont happen over night, but give it 30 years of increased surveillance, phone and internet tapping and imprisonment for the slightest comment and you'll all be totally fucked. You're only a few steps away from being arrested for making anti-government comments. Believe me, I have lived in such countries and you really are that close.
Good luck.

Internet tapping? The US government didn't tap this kids internets, it was some Canadian lady.

You haven't been keeping up with the news, have you.

GladiatorUA:

bdcjacko:
Internet tapping? The US government didn't tap this kids internets, it was some Canadian lady.

No one tapped anyone. He posted it on facebook. Equivalent of writing it on the wall of YOUR house, your t-shirt or submitting an ad to a newspaper, with contact info.
8 years is too much. A fine and lots of hours of community service would've been enough.

That was pretty much my point...about the Canadian lady calling the authorities.

Li Mu:

bdcjacko:

Li Mu:
Good luck USA. If your country keeps going in the direction it's heading now, you'll have a worse human rights record than places like North Korea. It wont happen over night, but give it 30 years of increased surveillance, phone and internet tapping and imprisonment for the slightest comment and you'll all be totally fucked. You're only a few steps away from being arrested for making anti-government comments. Believe me, I have lived in such countries and you really are that close.
Good luck.

Internet tapping? The US government didn't tap this kids internets, it was some Canadian lady.

You haven't been keeping up with the news, have you.

No, I have been. I also am not trying to connect the dots that are in two different books and one is actually a period.

I'm with Penny Arcade on this one, if people had heard half the shit I said (always in misguided jest) when I was that kids age, I'd be in jail for the rest of my life. What he did was really stupid, but guess what? Kids are idiots, they do shit like this all the time, that doesn't mean we ruin their lives for it.

Intent is all that ever matters, and it should have been blatantly obvious to everyone that this dipshit had no intention of doing what he said.

The thing that really irks me is that I guarantee you, for every kid who says something dumb like this on Facebook and gets Team America: World Police kicking their door in, there are a hundred others who say stuff just like it, or worse, in real life without repercussions just because they're lucky enough to not be overheard by a kneejerk reactionist.

I'm actually shocked by all the people saying they're on the fence, saying that he somewhat deserved it.

Shocked and frankly disgusted.

Li Mu:
Good luck USA. If your country keeps going in the direction it's heading now, you'll have a worse human rights record than places like North Korea. It wont happen over night, but give it 30 years of increased surveillance, phone and internet tapping and imprisonment for the slightest comment and you'll all be totally fucked. You're only a few steps away from being arrested for making anti-government comments. Believe me, I have lived in such countries and you really are that close.
Good luck.

(Posted like this because apparently the Escapist won't let you embed more than 3 quotes deep or something)

bdcjacko:

Li Mu:

bdcjacko:

Internet tapping? The US government didn't tap this kids internets, it was some Canadian lady.

You haven't been keeping up with the news, have you.

No, I have been. I also am not trying to connect the dots that are in two different books and one is actually a period.

Uhh...no one said or even implied that this particular case did involve the US government tapping this kid's internet. Just that, WITH the increase of internet-tapping and arrests for the slightest sarcastic comment, yada yada human rights.

You don't need to strawman here.

I signed the petition. This is an absolutely disgusting violation of the justice system, and that kid deserves no punishment because he committed no crime whatsoever.

chadachada123:

Li Mu:
Good luck USA. If your country keeps going in the direction it's heading now, you'll have a worse human rights record than places like North Korea. It wont happen over night, but give it 30 years of increased surveillance, phone and internet tapping and imprisonment for the slightest comment and you'll all be totally fucked. You're only a few steps away from being arrested for making anti-government comments. Believe me, I have lived in such countries and you really are that close.
Good luck.

(Posted like this because apparently the Escapist won't let you embed more than 3 quotes deep or something)

bdcjacko:

Li Mu:

You haven't been keeping up with the news, have you.

No, I have been. I also am not trying to connect the dots that are in two different books and one is actually a period.

Uhh...no one said or even implied that this particular case did involve the US government tapping this kid's internet. Just that, WITH the increase of internet-tapping and arrests for the slightest sarcastic comment, yada yada human rights.

You don't need to strawman here.

1) it not a strawman arguement to point out a false comparison that is implied.

2) it is not a human rights violation to be put on trial for making threats of violence.

Rednog:
Sigh I don't understand how people can say he should be punished in any way shape or form.
Some people have a really dark sense of humor/personality, you either roll with it and realize that it's in jest or you just don't associate yourself with that kind of person. Society is really fucked if we suddenly start just chucking people in jail for inane comments.
This guy pretty much sums up my stance on the issue, really hope the poor guys gets out of this bs.

Seriously. If he gets 10 years for that then let these idiots spend 2 hours on Facebook or watch a LoL stream. There are thousands more that could be convicted. This shit is ridiculous.

Eh, maybe a quick punch to the head would have done, but honestly, I think if these kids are going to insist on saying disgusting things because they think hiding behind their computer screens will protect them, and can't summon any decency on their own, perhaps they should start being made examples of.

This is absolutely disgusting.

The woman who reported it was a prude, the policework involved was shoddy, the legal proceedings were shady and the jail time, in solitary, with a bail he couldn't possibly pay, is absolutly unjustifiable.

The fact that not one of the people involved realized just how dumb this all was and ended it all is very depressing.

Jesus Christ, is this stupid. Eight years? EIGHT? Here in Germany where I live right now, you could actually do what he said in his obviously sarcastic comment, and you may get 15 years, but get out on probation after 7 under the right circumstances.
There's been idiots who hung up papers in school saying they'll come shooting everyone, which was a joke (or they hoped school would be closed for a day), but made to look like a serious threat. I think they just got a psychological checkup, had to pay a fine that is not even close to 1/10 of this guy's bail, and maybe some community service or very few months in juvenile prison. However comments and jokes like these are being made all the time.

A much bigger threat are people that can't even read the most obvious sarcasm without taking everything seriously. One day, someone will say "I'm so evil, I'm going to nuke the entire planet right now" and a moron will shoot him, saying he had to save the world.
That's kind of what happened here, isn't it? Some moron destroyed a young man's life by being dense.

Also, a message for the woman who reported him,
I hope you are happy that you ruined someone's life. I hope you have trouble living with yourself after this. Lord knows that I'd be wracked with guilt. I hope you are too.

chikusho:

Father Time:

chikusho:
'Murica, Land of the Free my ass.

This is is rapidly turning into something reminiscent of the Salem witch trials.

There is no longer such a thing as "innocent until proven guilty".

A. This is a couple counties in Texas not the federal government.
B. The kid has not had a trial yet. In the U.S. if you don't pay bail you stay in jail until the trial. It's very possible he'll be found innocent when he gets a trial.

Yes, keep telling yourself that A: a couple of counties in Texas are the only places where these practices occur (as if that would have made things even remotely better), that B: considering the circumstances, setting a bail for $250.000 is a just and reasonable decision.
And this is not even considering how no arrest should have been made in the first place, as there is no evidence of any kind of crime.

You're the one claiming its commonplace across America you prove it.

I wasn't defending the arrest, the bail and all that, I'm saying that this isn't something that's taking place across the states and we still have innocent until proven guilty.

Father Time:
and we still have innocent until proven guilty.

Perhaps, but when bail is set so high the innocent is forced to stay/be punished with the people that actually have been proven guilty, it becomes hard to tell.

Tiamattt:

Father Time:
and we still have innocent until proven guilty.

Perhaps, but when bail is set so high the innocent is forced to stay/be punished with the people that actually have been proven guilty, it becomes hard to tell.

I have no idea how much his family makes but I'm 95% certain this violates his 8th amendment right to not have excessive bail.

Father Time:

Tiamattt:

Father Time:
and we still have innocent until proven guilty.

Perhaps, but when bail is set so high the innocent is forced to stay/be punished with the people that actually have been proven guilty, it becomes hard to tell.

I have no idea how much his family makes but I'm 95% certain this violates his 8th amendment right to not have excessive bail.

Agreed, also congrats on post#6500. :)

Loki_The_Good:

fletch_talon:

Grats man, you used the word context in their somewhere. Now its time to apply it to this situation.
A woman saw a facebook post about a kid being messed up in the head and killing people. In a world (and for that matter especially a country) where this happens, more often than it should.
That seems to be the context she had. So no, the police shouldn't investigate "no matter the context". They should certainly investigate if the context is unknown.

Context is important, you seem to acknowledge that, so next time how about you put a little more thought into how it applies to this situation.

Right context. Like the fact it was followed by lol jk. Like the fact it was in response to someone calling him crazy to which he started in agreement a large indicator of sarcasm. Like the fact he used grossly exaggerated imagery that no one would actually say so as to clearly identify it as an exaggeration. Like the fact that it was said in an argument to someone else and not as a general statement. Like the fact no other threat was made and further no other writing such as extended diatribes against society are attributed to him. Not to mention lack of access to weapons history of mental health problems ect. Context is important, you seem to acknowledge that, so next time how about you put a little more thought into how it applies to this situation.

Good try, but no.
A bomb threat or indeed any threat of violence followed by "lol j/k" does not suddenly become acceptable nor does it remove the possibility that the threat was serious.
When you respond like that to an accusation of mental illness it can just as easily be an indicator of mental illness as it could be of sarcasm. The context of said accusation was also (I believe) unknown, as it had progressed from a game to facebook, yet as far as I can tell, no reference was made to said game.
If someone was mentally ill then exaggerated imagery is not something you can use to judge the seriousness of a comment.

And then finally you go on about a bunch of stuff which was not known until after an investigation was made.

A lady did the right thing, she didn't take a chance that the kid who just said he was going to shoot a bunch of people might really just be "lol j/k". She told the police that there may be an issue, they investigated. I've already said a couple times now that the prison time is excessive and will do more harm than good.
However to claim that potential threats shouldn't be investigated, when there is insufficient context to rule them out as fake or in jest, is stupid. As much as it pains me to say this, I really hope that one day this incident repeats itself, but have it turn out the kid was guilty. I'd be interested to see how many people call the informer a "whiny bitch" in that case.

Oh and you do yourself a disservice trying to mimic my line about context. You draw attention to your own faults by doing so. I've given plenty of thought to this, you clearly haven't. You just tried to argue that no investigation should have occurred, and attribute this to aspects of the situation (mental health, weapons, previous threats etc.) which could only be discovered by an investigation. I'm sure I don't need to point out the flaw in this particular argument.

I don't even know what to say. It's just so surreal.

I have literally not signed into this site in at least a year but I had to today. I haven't gotten so fired up about something in a long time. I could say all my opinions on the matter, but many have said them on here already, perhaps more eloquently than I would have. Why I really signed in is just to levee my complete disgust with some of my fellow Escapist forumers who as condoning this... I enjoy Anthony Jesselnick and other such comedians who really would make jokes about school shootings and I actually am repulsed by the fact people like you are around. Not only are around, are actively spreading your opinion when it- to me at least- is just so mind boggling insane... It's not even like this kid posted it on his Newsfeed... he made an off-hand comment to a pal of his.

As many have said, we have all made comments like this. If you claim you haven't, either you are some sort of monk or a liar or perhaps both. I have said probably thing hundreds of times worse than that on X-Box Live messing around with my friends, and honestly I consider myself a very decent human being, definitely much more so than some people on this very forum thread.

It all reminds me of The Crucible or other works by Hawthorne, like the one about the priest in the black mask... You can condemn this young man, but honestly you should condemn yourselves for being so heartless. He was not threatening anyone. Not only that, they clearly found that he wasn't in any position nor had any actual interest in perpetrating the crime.

"Oh, it's just Texas, you guys should just ignore it LOL!!!" You are even worse than the people in Texas who are sick enough to go through with this. If you just sit idly by when injustice is taking place, shame on you. I have seen people at my very school getting bullied and beaten up until the LITERALLY commit suicide and you know what the police did? Nothing. The kid's sister was at a dance several days after this horrific tragedy, and you know what people said to her? They were glad he killed himself because he deserved it. We reported it to the police. They did nothing. The bankers who ruined many people's lives and almost ruined our economy? No jail time. The men who are torturing innocents and killing them in drone strikes? No jail time. This kid who made some comment? Eight years as a BARGAIN?

I could go on all day about how upset this makes me and how unfair it is. Obviously, in our country we, the people, have no say and can do nothing but apparently just accept all of this happening. But that won't stop me from posting this comment castigating all of you who are apparently so cruel you can't see the evil in this situation. That way, I can sleep at night and know that even though I have no power, at least I did my small part today against the insanity that we are all living today. I hope at least one person reads this comment and thinks a little more...

Be careful everyone out there and you all have my best. Even those who among us who have apparently have no empathy. I wouldn't wish what this child has gone through on anyone. Not even you. Maybe you should reevaluate your world view.

As Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. wrote in the 1989 Texas v. Johnson decision...

"if there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable."

Some of you people being all right with this, or even calling for punishment, for a tasteless off-hand joke, are, in my opinion, much more deserving of evaluation than this poor sod.

As has been stated before, likening this sarcastic statement, made on facebook, to yelling "bomb" in an airport is just disingenuous and, frankly, a false comparison. If this guy had walked into a school and loudly proclaimed he'd shoot up the place, then you would have a point.

As it stands, this is a gross overreach of police power and a violation of numerous rights afforded to a U.S. citizen.

By all means, investigate the kid. But that is all. Going to these lengths, setting the bail so high, placing the kid in solitary, only after he was beaten by other inmates, and not holding a hearing for months, even as their investigation turned up absolutely nothing of value...

How can any of you defend something so reprehensible? Gods above, I certainly don't hope something so terrible should befall any of you lot, but if it means you'd get the wake-up call you clearly deserve...hell even then I wouldn't wish it on you.

fletch_talon:

Loki_The_Good:

fletch_talon:

Grats man, you used the word context in their somewhere. Now its time to apply it to this situation.
A woman saw a facebook post about a kid being messed up in the head and killing people. In a world (and for that matter especially a country) where this happens, more often than it should.
That seems to be the context she had. So no, the police shouldn't investigate "no matter the context". They should certainly investigate if the context is unknown.

Context is important, you seem to acknowledge that, so next time how about you put a little more thought into how it applies to this situation.

Right context. Like the fact it was followed by lol jk. Like the fact it was in response to someone calling him crazy to which he started in agreement a large indicator of sarcasm. Like the fact he used grossly exaggerated imagery that no one would actually say so as to clearly identify it as an exaggeration. Like the fact that it was said in an argument to someone else and not as a general statement. Like the fact no other threat was made and further no other writing such as extended diatribes against society are attributed to him. Not to mention lack of access to weapons history of mental health problems ect. Context is important, you seem to acknowledge that, so next time how about you put a little more thought into how it applies to this situation.

Good try, but no.
A bomb threat or indeed any threat of violence followed by "lol j/k" does not suddenly become acceptable nor does it remove the possibility that the threat was serious.
When you respond like that to an accusation of mental illness it can just as easily be an indicator of mental illness as it could be of sarcasm. The context of said accusation was also (I believe) unknown, as it had progressed from a game to facebook, yet as far as I can tell, no reference was made to said game.
If someone was mentally ill then exaggerated imagery is not something you can use to judge the seriousness of a comment.

And then finally you go on about a bunch of stuff which was not known until after an investigation was made.

A lady did the right thing, she didn't take a chance that the kid who just said he was going to shoot a bunch of people might really just be "lol j/k". She told the police that there may be an issue, they investigated. I've already said a couple times now that the prison time is excessive and will do more harm than good.
However to claim that potential threats shouldn't be investigated, when there is insufficient context to rule them out as fake or in jest, is stupid. As much as it pains me to say this, I really hope that one day this incident repeats itself, but have it turn out the kid was guilty. I'd be interested to see how many people call the informer a "whiny bitch" in that case.

Oh and you do yourself a disservice trying to mimic my line about context. You draw attention to your own faults by doing so. I've given plenty of thought to this, you clearly haven't. You just tried to argue that no investigation should have occurred, and attribute this to aspects of the situation (mental health, weapons, previous threats etc.) which could only be discovered by an investigation. I'm sure I don't need to point out the flaw in this particular argument.

Or you know a five minute database search gun registry brief scan over past writing previous record done. And no by th eway that wasn't the first thing posted on facebook there was a fair discussion led to the previous person calling him crazy to which he replied. 'Oh yeah, I'm real messed up in the head, I'm going to go shoot up a school full of kids and eat their still, beating hearts' which was followed by saying JK (just kidding) and LOL (laughing out loud). I'm going to guess from your previous comments you haven't really picked up on the basic cues of writing presented here so I'll go through a break down.

"Oh, yeah" This part right here is already a good indicator of sarcasm. The tone implies by this part is clearly false agreement meaning he does not believe the previous statement to be true and that the following is most likely exaggerated satire. This is a fairly basic and common pattern of sarcasm and also that there is not truth or intent in what will follow.

"I'm real messed up in the head" Here is the reassertion of the false agreement part of the setup clarifying the part he is 'agreeing' to. It's clear that it's a false agreement as they had been previously arguing heatedly and so the likelihood of him changing his tone and position once being insulted is around zero. Since it follows "Oh yeah," the tone is also too aggressive for a true relinquishment of the argument which would take a far more passive tone so it is fairly obvious he is not agreeing with the person he is talking too. In fact you can pretty much picture the eye rolling that was done as he wrote it.

"I'm going to go shoot up a school full of kids and eat their still, beating hearts." And here's the exaggeration as expected from the sarcasm setup. The first part gives an example of something a messed up person would do. This is also a good indicator of a lack of intent. He is labeling it as a messed up thing to do through the structure of the joke. People who are actually messed up - actually crazy - don't think they are. They think that their actions are justifiable through some sort of mental gymnastics. Strange as it sounds people who do these kinds of attacks see themselves as the victim and the kids as aggressors or facilitators of some wrong. Bulling is a common justification the idea that all the kids allowed them to be picked on even if it was only a handful. In the Sandy Hook case the man in question saw the children as taking away his mothers affection and support turning her against him. By labeling the action as messed up he shows none of the necessary mental justification is present for this to be a true threat and further calling it messed up shows a level of awareness someone considering these actions would not have. Nobody who commits atrocities thinks they are committing atrocities.

However, the biggest clue that it is exaggeration comes from the latter half. People don't say things like "eat their still, beating hearts"" it's a trope that comes from badly written comic books and movies. In essence the phrase is used here to evoke an image of a super villain speech taking something serious and exaggeration it to absurd levels using a stock cliche line. Hence "the joke" part of the sarcastic comment.

Then come the part that makes the sarcasm smack you in the face obvious the "lol jk" this is a receding of the statement to clarify that it's intents were fictitious to anyone who had not yet clued in. You say a bomb threat or threat of violence is not justified just because it's followed by just kidding. ........ In what paranoid universe is that true. Go to a comedy club I promise you one if not all comedians mill make a violent threat against someone followed by just kidding and everyone will laugh. You know why? He's not serious. How can you tell? He just said so. Heck keep your ears open to some conversations on the street. Our language can be pretty violent no matter what the level. Context identifies which are true threats of violence and which are invocations of violent imagery for another purpose. In this case the context was given both indirectly and directly. The context is that it was a joke, a bad joke true, but a joke none the less. How do we know? Because among other things he said it was - flat out. Should he maybe have followed it with "HAHAHAHAHA I made a joke just then exaggerating your paint to discredit it look over there <----- seee it it's a joke and should not be taken seriously I bare no ill will against anyone." I don't know it's a bit over kill to me and rather clunky but if some people still don't get it maybe we need to start like the warnings on coffee cups that yes indeed coffee is hot.

There is the context of when it was said too. Professing your desire to commit some other crime to someone you don't like during a heated argument is not something anyone would do. Even crazy people would be too paranoid to let it slip like that. The kinds of people that do this kind of thing tend to rarely post their intentions explicitly and when they do it is past a designated point of no return. An almost religious expression glorifying general violent imagery and vague justifications that are written to "make sense" after the fact. These are then posted to the general public without any direction as an attempt to seek validation for the actions they plan to take. The context of this comment is completely atypical of the behavior of someone who intends to do this. By informing not just anybody but an enemy of your plans you jeopardize the whole operation. Paranoia and a persecution complex are both typical of these kinds of people and so the chance that this would even happen by slipping out does not make sense. In other words these kinds of threats are not made this way.

I hope this helps you understand written context better and that sarcastic comments are more obvious in the future. To help out I've littered the previous messages with different kinds of sarcastic statements. See if you can find them all :D

Father Time:

You're the one claiming its commonplace across America you prove it.

I wasn't defending the arrest, the bail and all that, I'm saying that this isn't something that's taking place across the states and we still have innocent until proven guilty.

I don't have the time to google right now, but for every zero tolerance law or rule there are an abundance of ridiculous arrests everywhere in the country. Not to mention how the US has been spying on _everyone_ and are the verge of beginning to arrest journalists for doing their jobs.

Ok, so you think arresting someone on ludicrous grounds, putting them through hell for 5 months and then pressuring them for a confession for reduced sentence is a perfect example of the presumptions of innocence? Gotcha.

Loki_The_Good:

Or you know a five minute database search gun registry brief scan over past writing previous record done. And no by th eway that wasn't the first thing posted on facebook there was a fair discussion led to the previous person calling him crazy to which he replied. 'Oh yeah, I'm real messed up in the head, I'm going to go shoot up a school full of kids and eat their still, beating hearts' which was followed by saying JK (just kidding) and LOL (laughing out loud). I'm going to guess from your previous comments you haven't really picked up on the basic cues of writing presented here so I'll go through a break down.

"Oh, yeah" This part right here is already a good indicator of sarcasm. The tone implies by this part is clearly false agreement meaning he does not believe the previous statement to be true and that the following is most likely exaggerated satire. This is a fairly basic and common pattern of sarcasm and also that there is not truth or intent in what will follow.

"I'm real messed up in the head" Here is the reassertion of the false agreement part of the setup clarifying the part he is 'agreeing' to. It's clear that it's a false agreement as they had been previously arguing heatedly and so the likelihood of him changing his tone and position once being insulted is around zero. Since it follows "Oh yeah," the tone is also too aggressive for a true relinquishment of the argument which would take a far more passive tone so it is fairly obvious he is not agreeing with the person he is talking too. In fact you can pretty much picture the eye rolling that was done as he wrote it.

"I'm going to go shoot up a school full of kids and eat their still, beating hearts." And here's the exaggeration as expected from the sarcasm setup. The first part gives an example of something a messed up person would do. This is also a good indicator of a lack of intent. He is labeling it as a messed up thing to do through the structure of the joke. People who are actually messed up - actually crazy - don't think they are. They think that their actions are justifiable through some sort of mental gymnastics. Strange as it sounds people who do these kinds of attacks see themselves as the victim and the kids as aggressors or facilitators of some wrong. Bulling is a common justification the idea that all the kids allowed them to be picked on even if it was only a handful. In the Sandy Hook case the man in question saw the children as taking away his mothers affection and support turning her against him. By labeling the action as messed up he shows none of the necessary mental justification is present for this to be a true threat and further calling it messed up shows a level of awareness someone considering these actions would not have. Nobody who commits atrocities thinks they are committing atrocities.

However, the biggest clue that it is exaggeration comes from the latter half. People don't say things like "eat their still, beating hearts"" it's a trope that comes from badly written comic books and movies. In essence the phrase is used here to evoke an image of a super villain speech taking something serious and exaggeration it to absurd levels using a stock cliche line. Hence "the joke" part of the sarcastic comment.

Then come the part that makes the sarcasm smack you in the face obvious the "lol jk" this is a receding of the statement to clarify that it's intents were fictitious to anyone who had not yet clued in. You say a bomb threat or threat of violence is not justified just because it's followed by just kidding. ........ In what paranoid universe is that true. Go to a comedy club I promise you one if not all comedians mill make a violent threat against someone followed by just kidding and everyone will laugh. You know why? He's not serious. How can you tell? He just said so. Heck keep your ears open to some conversations on the street. Our language can be pretty violent no matter what the level. Context identifies which are true threats of violence and which are invocations of violent imagery for another purpose. In this case the context was given both indirectly and directly. The context is that it was a joke, a bad joke true, but a joke none the less. How do we know? Because among other things he said it was - flat out. Should he maybe have followed it with "HAHAHAHAHA I made a joke just then exaggerating your paint to discredit it look over there <----- seee it it's a joke and should not be taken seriously I bare no ill will against anyone." I don't know it's a bit over kill to me and rather clunky but if some people still don't get it maybe we need to start like the warnings on coffee cups that yes indeed coffee is hot.

There is the context of when it was said too. Professing your desire to commit some other crime to someone you don't like during a heated argument is not something anyone would do. Even crazy people would be too paranoid to let it slip like that. The kinds of people that do this kind of thing tend to rarely post their intentions explicitly and when they do it is past a designated point of no return. An almost religious expression glorifying general violent imagery and vague justifications that are written to "make sense" after the fact. These are then posted to the general public without any direction as an attempt to seek validation for the actions they plan to take. The context of this comment is completely atypical of the behavior of someone who intends to do this. By informing not just anybody but an enemy of your plans you jeopardize the whole operation. Paranoia and a persecution complex are both typical of these kinds of people and so the chance that this would even happen by slipping out does not make sense. In other words these kinds of threats are not made this way.

I hope this helps you understand written context better and that sarcastic comments are more obvious in the future. To help out I've littered the previous messages with different kinds of sarcastic statements. See if you can find them all :D

I think the two of you could do with being a lot less sarcastic. Myself and fletch argued past each other due to it for half a page.

I don't think we actually know who the woman is who contacted the police in this example. Have we been given that information? Aside from the fact that she was Canadian, I don't think we have anything. Which is probably safe, frankly.

In any case, the comment was dumb. I think in hindsight a few people, myself included briefly, got angry with the woman who phoned the police because, in hindsight, it turned to shit.
But that's not her problem. There are plenty of older people who, frankly, are terrified of school shootings. It's still not her fault that the police went nuts. She didn't need to turn into a psychic to figure out if the kid was being sarcastic. She might not even know what "jk" means. Right?

You've written a page on how to detect that the kid was joking. I think we can also determine that he was joking by the fact that he didn't have any weapons in his house, but whatever. It's difficult to shoot up a school without guns and weapon training. Two points:

1)The police get a decent amount of shit after every actual school shooting. There's usually an inquiry into "Should the police have known?". Right? So they have to be careful on that point. Even after the Boston Bombing they had an inquiry into whether the police should have done something about the terrorists earlier, after Russia contacted the US about them.

2)Like fletch said to me, and it gets caught up in the sarcasm so we need to cut it out:
For the police to actually read the comment, they need to investigate. I was confused by this point when fletch pointed it out, I didn't consider reading the comment to count as investigating, but he is right.
They're the ones who need to figure out if the kid is joking. If they can't be sure (and to be fair, the comment is fairly ruthless), then they visit the kid or phone his parents/school:

"Miss Carter, sorry to disturb. We've received a complaint about your son. Is he home at the moment? We would like to send a constable around to talk to him."
(At this point you can probably figure out that I'm not super familiar with policework).
And then after twenty minutes of talking to the kid they should have figured out that he wasn't a psychopath. And with no weapons, that's really it. Case closed. "Don't do it again, son."

You can do ALL that and not even get remotely close to threatening to imprison the kid, for 8 years or at all.

And despite your essay about the intricacies of his facebook post, I wouldn't blame someone for getting scared from reading it, nor would you blame the police for investigating. To us, it might be obvious. In hindsight it's clearly obvious. The kid's a regular nerd. It SHOULD be obvious to the police now. I have no idea what they're going to say in court.

"No your honour, we have no evidence on how he was going to put his plan into action. No, your honour, just one facebook post. Yes, your honour, he did write how he was going to eat their hearts. Err, 'jk' means 'just kidding', colloquially, your honour."

So yeah. It's absurd.

TL;DR: You can't blame the woman for phoning the police. Chances are, she was scared by school shootings. It's not her fault that the police force in the kid's jurisdiction are fucking off their rocker.
You also wouldn't really get angry with a police force for starting a brief investigation, for the two main points above:
They cop tons of shit if the kid actually goes nuts and they knew about it beforehand.
They actually have to investigate, if you want to call it that, to figure out if he's joking.

Father Time:

-snip-

Edit: Don't know why it cut this out. So you're basically saying that my interpretation doesn't count because I've been hostile a few times.

Ad hominem right there!

Have to agree with you there. Just because SOME people are gruff and callous and offensive doesn't make them any less right or criminal.

I sincerely hope the judge who tries this kid isn't a complete fuckwit for that matter. ANYONE can see this whole thing is bullshit. The cops fucked up and now they'd rather send an otherwise innocent kid to prison rather than own up to it.

I'm so glad I went to Iraq so we could enjoy freedoms like speech and shit. le sigh.

Caiphus:
Kinda what I'm saying, but less provacative

Thank you for being the voice of reason here at least now I'll be able to gauge whether I'm wasting my time trying to explain things. If he can still find cause to argue with you or still keeps up the attitude in spite of your reasonable explanation then I won't bother any further. Its quite possible he and I would never agree anyway, but no doubt the endless back and forth of sarcasm and disdain wasn't helping matters.

chikusho:

Father Time:

You're the one claiming its commonplace across America you prove it.

I wasn't defending the arrest, the bail and all that, I'm saying that this isn't something that's taking place across the states and we still have innocent until proven guilty.

I don't have the time to google right now, but for every zero tolerance law or rule there are an abundance of ridiculous arrests everywhere in the country. Not to mention how the US has been spying on _everyone_ and are the verge of beginning to arrest journalists for doing their jobs.

Ok, so you think arresting someone on ludicrous grounds, putting them through hell for 5 months and then pressuring them for a confession for reduced sentence is a perfect example of the presumptions of innocence? Gotcha.

In the U.S. if you don't pay bail, you stay in jail until the trial. Sometimes people get pressured for plea bargains. This kid will have his day in court.

Most zero tolerance policies, bullshit as they are, do not result in police getting called they only result in school discipline. And please give me a source that they're going to arrest journalists.

Should you be allowed to post whatever you want online with no repercussions? No Should you able to have 8 years for a dumb thing on facebook? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

A most he should just say he is sorry and be done with it, if asked to say sorry i bet he would have its just a dumb little mistake and we all make them not fair to put him in jail for all that time.

All this madness is making me question how good the bail system actually is. Like isn't the purpose just to make sure people show up to their court dates? Because I sure most people can't afford just toss away thousands of dollars to the court, especially when they want to prove their innocence. Speaking of that word, why is the presumed innocent before guilty tossed in jail with the actual guilty criminals just because they can't afford bail? I thought the whole point of jail was to punish/"rehabilitate" criminals for doing crimes, not to punish people for not having money. I'm not saying everyone should just get a free pass if they can't afford bail, I just think that perhaps there are better places to put them while they wait their trial besides in prison with convicted criminals.

It's all probably due to costs anyway, like why spend extra money to keep them someplace safer when it's easier and cheaper to toss them into cells that's already been paid for. Probably sounding too idealistic, I know that it's not going to change anytime soon and it'll be alive and well long after me and anyone possibly reading this is gone, but it feels wrong and stupid the way things are now. Especially considering the extremely long wait people have to go through just for their trial to start. Just saying things could/should be done better, too bad money has a funny way of getting in the way of that.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT

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