Former Teacher Acquitted of Videogame Massacre Threat

[Therumancer]

Okay, let's be blunt here:

This is the result of living in the post-columbine world, where the civil liberties have been stripped away from students and school employees by bureaucrats who find persecuting any mention of, or image of, violence easier than addressing the central problems that lead to that school shooting and other similar incidents.

Those who comment on "gee, I'm glad I don't live in the US" seem to miss the point having never dealt with the central incidents, or the fallout thereof. While similar things have happened around the world, few have turned into quite the same level of international media circus. If things played out in a similar fashion I think most other countries would be even more draconian.

This guy is also not the first teacher to have gotten in trouble for this kind of thing, I'm pretty sure there have been other similar kinds of incidents.

Rather than going off about "The Patriot Act" due to the specific charge, I think people should instead be focusing on restoring civil liberties to schools, including the right to express violent thoughts and so on. This being both for students and teachers.

When it comes to the charge of "Terroristic Threatening" keep in mind that it's a general practice for the authorities to slap people with both as many charges as possible, and also the most severe ones that they can. The cops don't negotiate what they arrest people for down,that's the job of the prosecutor. In cases where there are a ton of charges (which doesn't seem to be the case here) the idea is a "shotgun effect", in the attempt to stop a wrong doer in our society the idea is to hit him with everything remotely applicable in hopes that something sticks.

"The Patriot Act" despite left wing persecution is a good thing, representing a middle ground between martial law and peacetime functioning while we're engaged overseas. I do not think this law would be repealed until "The War On Terror" is over and we feel the threat no longer applies. Also to be entirely honest the law on many levels simply gives our goverment powers that other nations already possess, and we're not talking "Nazi Germany" in a historical context, but places like the UK and Canada. While there are doubtlessly exceptions in there, I've read some comparisons in police powers that make the overreaction seem fairly obvious.

To be entirely honest, if someone wanted to make a big deal about it, the guy could have been charged before "The Patriot Act", the key element of course being "threatening", and the person making the accusation being taken seriously. While the case is ridiculous, a threat to committ mass murder was never exactly legal if your doing it seriously. It's just stupid in this context since nobody seemed to seriously investigate, and it should be pretty obvious that no threat was intended, school paranoia being the culprit.

As far as what happened with his job and such goes, well that is also a problem that needs to be addressed. The charges following him around are also an issue, and for that we can thank the persecution of sex offenders and the "right" of people to keep databases and inform people (employers, neighbors, etc...) of someone's backround. As I'm alway warning people, you have to be careful of the "snowball effect", even if you can defend that thing for sex offenders, the law is effectively "blind" and it opens the door for people to do it with anything so a charge like this can follow the guy around forever unless something changes, because ongoing community persecution of freed/accused criminals has been upheld.

 

[Nuke_em_05]

you are assuming "run for the hills and hide in caves!"

That's exactly the kind of attitude I've observed when I lived in the US.
Also you did say something about having to avoid "giving even the *appearance* that you *might* do something bad", frankly there, I know blind panic and mass hysteria when I see it.

So you're generalizing then? Also, my example was specific to youth programs. I was talking about precautions we used. For instance, there were always two adults per any amount of children. If any strangers showed up on campus, they were greeted and brought to a sign-in area. Children were never left alone. Bathrooms were always monitored. Things like that. They were just procedures, but you want to believe we ran around all twitchy "ah, kid!", "ah, kid!", "ah, they're everywhere!", which is simply not the case.

You also seem to think that my opinion on one issue dictates my behavior over my whole life.

Basically, you're admitting you are a hypocrite.

No, what I am saying is that I have only said I think it is appropriate to take precautions first; and you have assumed that I run around in a constant state of panic attack. Again, not the case.

I'm not saying the system is perfect. They probably could have handled it differently, but you also must keep in mind that this was in a town of less than 4,000 people. It is probably due less to panic and corruption and more due to inexperience with a scenario like this of the school and law enforcement staff.

There's a point where "inexperience" becomes plain stupidity, and this is it.

I think you missed the point here; it would almost seem you are only reading and acknowledging points that you can contend, removing the context of the rest of the post, forcing me to repeat myself. Hey, isn't that what you claim the police did?

Oh wait, here it is, you just split them up.

It is easy to pass judgement and speculate about how "I would have done it" sitting comfortably behind a computer screen and having all of the facts up front. It is another thing entirely to experience it firsthand and understand what was happening at the time.

Actually I've heard people talking about killing in video games, in public places, and I sometime joined the conversation.

My point is, we don't know how it all went down. There could have been too much confusion started by the students that the teachers had to knee-jerk it, with the police following suit.

Again, you completely miss the point here. You might not have reacted to the conversation the same way, but maybe the person who reported it wasn't you, eh? Maybe they only heard that bit. Maybe they heard "I need to kill 500 people" in a stress-ed out voice and figured inquisition might not have been the safest course of action. It feels like I'm repeating myself here... Maybe you aren't the principal, maybe you'd react differently to a student running up to you screaming "Mr. Davis is going to shoot us all!", or if the story changed, via students, before it got there and it was "Mr. Davis has a gun and is shooting people!". Maybe it was regular "I heard Mr. Davis talking about killing people"; and you aren't trained to handle that, you've got a couple hundred students and staff whose safety while on-campus is your responsibility. Maybe you are a cop called in a small town about a shooting threat. You don't know what to do, so you arrest the guy to make sure he can't do it, then investigate. My point is, hindsight is 20/20.

All-in-all; legally, he is clear. I do believe he was wrongfully jailed with that being the case.

Good start, now you can begin demanding a better system.

Again with the hindsight, "He was proven innocent, therefore jailing was wrong". Nope, again, you seem to be unable to grasp the difference between jail and prison. He was put in jail to eliminate a potential threat. Once it was verified that threat was false, he was released. Yes, the time it took seems a bit unreasonable; but again, we're talking about a small town whose local law enforcement and courts were probably ill-prepared for a scenario like this. So, they figured it out, he was cleared, and really everything should have gone back to normal. No problem.

The problem is the school fired him. Without a conviction against him, they have no grounds. That is a fault of the school that you are trying to pin on the legal system.

 

[incal11]

Oh and I took some things as personal attacks when I'm apparently just wrong? (and I am)

Exactly.
You were saying it is alright for a state to keep someone in prison without a trial(legally that's not how it's called, I know, but in pracice that's undeniably what it was). For saying the wrong thing at the wrong time.
This is the kind of attitude I observed when I lived in the US, so I naturally used it to illustrate one of my point.
It is never too late to change though, so I'm not having a permanent judgement on you.

But considering that he's a "terrorist" he'd be transferred to a more important court than his own town, probably. He was probably even transferred to a more secure prison. Again, I don't know as it doesn't give me the details. That would explain why he had to wait a month after his hearing to go to trial, however. Depending upon where he had to go, it could take that long till a final trial is set up.

Hell, my dad - a lawyer - has to go through more than one trial and each one can span a month until the next. It's not so much the legal system is the problem, it's that it's getting flooded and we're not doing a damn thing to help it.

He spend a totally useless month in jail, sure he was not transfered in a worse prison, he just should not have been in jail for so long in the first place, hence why the system is inept.
Why is it being flooded ? because it is badly in need of a revision.

but declaring that he should sue and that he has the right to is wrong. He doesn't have a chance in the world. Which has been my stance, both sides are wrong - the school and him -

This isn't an issue I was discussing with you.
His fault his considerably smaller than that of the state or the school, so in a better world he should be able to sue, I don't know all about the local laws so I don't disagree that he can't.

as far as I can care and the police should have done a better job, but the fact remains they did a job so it doesn't matter.

It matters because someone's life was destroyed, but at least we agree that they did a bad job.

So you're generalizing then? Also, my example was specific to youth programs(...)Things like that. They were just procedures, but you want to believe we ran around all twitchy "ah, kid!", "ah, kid!", "ah, they're everywhere!", which is simply not the case.
(...)No, what I am saying is that I have only said I think it is appropriate to take precautions first; and you have assumed that I run around in a constant state of panic attack. Again, not the case.

This is a slight exageration, but it is the general tendency, yes.
In effect you did admit to be living in fear of saying the wrong thing at the wrong time.
Maybe it's not really your case, but I do know it is the case of plenty of others, and it's a real problem.

I think you missed the point here; it would almost seem you are only reading and acknowledging points that you can contend, removing the context of the rest of the post, forcing me to repeat myself. Hey, isn't that what you claim the police did?

I am reading and acknowledging ALL of your points, but if you think I ignored something important then bring it and I'll prove you wrong yet again.

My point is, we don't know how it all went down. There could have been too much confusion started by the students that the teachers had to knee-jerk it, with the police following suit.
(...)Maybe you are a cop called in a small town about a shooting threat. You don't know what to do, so you arrest the guy to make sure he can't do it, then investigate.

Yes we don't how it went down exactly, but the important facts remain.
At least we agree that the cop should have done something, maybe lock the teacher in the police station while he check the veracity of the threat immediately, using common sense.
Since it's a small town I doubt waves of crimes kept him busy a whole month.

"He was proven innocent, therefore jailing was wrong". Nope, again, you seem to be unable to grasp the difference between jail and prison. He was put in jail to eliminate a potential threat. Once it was verified that threat was false, he was released. Yes, the time it took was extremely unreasonable;

He was jailed (or imprisoned if you prefer) a whole month with no evidence, and really, when you are behind bars the only difference between "jail" and "prison" are degrees of discomfort.

but again, we're talking about a small town whose local law enforcement and courts were probably ill-prepared for a scenario like this. So, they figured it out, he was cleared, and really everything should have gone back to normal. No problem.

We agree law enforcement was ill prepared, and I'm saying that's why it suck ; and no, a month behind bars and career destroyed is both a problem and not normal.

The problem is the school fired him. Without a conviction against him, they have no grounds. That is a fault of the school that you are trying to pin on the legal system.

It is indirectly the fault of the legal system, the mentality of the school heads could be questioned, but it's another topic.

 

[Nuke_em_05]

You were saying it is alright for a state to keep someone in prison without a trial...

He spend a totally useless month in jail, sure he was not transferred in a worse prison, he just should not have been in jail for so long in the first place, hence why the system is inept. ..

At least we agree that the cop should have done something, maybe lock the teacher in the police station while he check the veracity of the threat immediately, using common sense...

He was jailed (or imprisoned if you prefer) a whole month with no evidence, and really, when you are behind bars the only difference between "jail" and "prison" are degrees of discomfort.

I think this boils down to something I have said several times already in this thread: you do not understand the difference between jail and prison.

Jail is where the police lock people away while they investigate. Jail is where you wait to be tried.

Prison is where you go once you've had a trial, been convicted, and sentenced.

They are two very different functions of the legal system. Yes, they don't feel any different, I'm sure, especially if you are innocent; but being charged and held in jail is still beans compared to being convicted and imprisoned; especially as far as employment goes.

That's why I say this went "good"; it was handled appropriately had there been a threat, and since there wasn't, he wasn't convicted. Yes, he certainly shouldn't have waited that long in jail; but threats of violence in school are something people tend to be diligent about around here. Again, we weren't there at the time, we don't know how confusing the circumstances may have been.

Where it went bad: the school terminated him. If he had been convicted, that would be the legal system's fault. He wasn't, however. The school has no grounds for the termination.

If this was as clear-cut from the outset as you believe, then this is entirely the school's fault as they would have figured it out from the start and the police would never have been involved.

Perhaps, then, this was just an elaborate way to make a budget cut without the awkward "we like you, your work is top-notch, but we have to make cuts and you are the low man on the totem pole" phase.

Hey, there's a thought, he was a first-year teacher, budgets are shrinking faster than a hard-on at a nursing home, what if not renewing his contract just had unbelievably bad timing with a layoff that would have happened anyway?

How can we presume to know any of it, really? We weren't there. The details are very light as to how, when, where, and what exactly he said. We don't even know who "reported" it or how.

 

[incal11]

I think this boils down to something I have said several times already in this thread: you do not understand the difference between jail and prison.

I understand the difference, you do not understand that I u.n.d.e.r.s.t.a.n.d. it ; and you do not understand it is not relevant in regard of what I'm saying, that the way things went is totally wrong.

They are two very different functions of the legal system. Yes, they don't feel any different, I'm sure, especially if you are innocent; but being charged and held in jail is still beans compared to being convicted and imprisoned; especially as far as employment goes.

The worst was avoided, it was still pretty bad and it should not have hapened at all.

That's why I say this went "good"; it was handled appropriately had there been a threat, and since there wasn't, he wasn't convicted. Yes, he certainly shouldn't have waited that long in jail; but threats of violence in school are something people tend to be diligent about around here. Again, we weren't there at the time, we don't know how confusing the circumstances may have been.

Okay, One More Time...
People are diligent about a piece of overheard conversation because they are stupidly paranoid.
Yes the layoff may not be a direct consequence of that fuckup, we don't know ; on the other hand there is strong evidence that it may be.
A detail again, it does not change the fact that he spent a month in prison when basic investigations would have gotten him out during the day, confusion or no, 'tarded country cop or no.
Sorting the confusion should have been the job and the priority of the police, in the end the details do not matter it is the result that counts, and here the result is bad.

 

[incal11]

double post

 

[duchaked]

...okay that is just bullcrap

ughhhh I mean really, even the most 'successful' and infamous of serial killers only ever really got past triple kill and killing frenzy
(not including the one time shooting spree ones like at Columbine or Virginia Tech)

 

[Mr. Grey]

Oh and I took some things as personal attacks when I'm apparently just wrong? (and I am)

Exactly.
You were saying it is alright for a state to keep someone in prison without a trial(legally that's not how it's called, I know, but in pracice that's undeniably what it was). For saying the wrong thing at the wrong time.
This is the kind of attitude I observed when I lived in the US, so I naturally used it to illustrate one of my point.
It is never too late to change though, so I'm not having a permanent judgement on you.

This is where I think you're straight up trolling. Also, I'm still waiting for that explanation.

He had a hearing, the trial can be scheduled a month from said hearing. He wasn't imprisoned or sentenced with anything during that month, but he couldn't be released because of either A) He couldn't post bail or B) The judge said he couldn't because he had reasonable belief that Mr. Davis would flee the country. Option B is the fault of his defense attorney being horrible at their job.

He had the hearing, that's his due process. It happened, so they have the right to hold him. So yes, it is "all right" to hold him. The actual trial is where he got set free, so the system worked as intended and he's good to go. The crime he was accused of is a serious offense so the bail would be difficult for him to post, regardless.

The problem here isn't the fact he was held without trial - because he wasn't - it's that he couldn't afford the bail or that there wasn't one.

But considering that he's a "terrorist" he'd be transferred to a more important court than his own town, probably. He was probably even transferred to a more secure prison. Again, I don't know as it doesn't give me the details. That would explain why he had to wait a month after his hearing to go to trial, however. Depending upon where he had to go, it could take that long till a final trial is set up.

Hell, my dad - a lawyer - has to go through more than one trial and each one can span a month until the next. It's not so much the legal system is the problem, it's that it's getting flooded and we're not doing a damn thing to help it.

He spend a totally useless month in jail, sure he was not transfered in a worse prison, he just should not have been in jail for so long in the first place, hence why the system is inept.
Why is it being flooded ? because it is badly in need of a revision.

The system is fine, what we need to do is expand it so it isn't flooded anymore.

What do you do when you overfill a cup of water, but you want more than it's giving you? You get a bucket to hold the water. Revising it won't do anything to help the problem that it's flooded other than rejecting court cases that can prove to be important. In fact, they're more inclined to arrest people of lesser importance right away without a trial, which they'll have to do as they can't take care of the case.

but declaring that he should sue and that he has the right to is wrong. He doesn't have a chance in the world. Which has been my stance, both sides are wrong - the school and him -

This isn't an issue I was discussing with you.
His fault his considerably smaller than that of the state or the school, so in a better world he should be able to sue, I don't know all about the local laws so I don't disagree that he can't.

I know it wasn't, that was my stance -- you're trying to change the subject and/or dispute a point that wasn't made to win the argument. You seem to think I'm on the side that says the school and the police were right. They weren't, but I'm being realistic about it and not ignoring the fact the man is screwed, plain and simple.

He teased the bull and got gored.

And in a better world? Okay, let's take him to a country that would have had a court sentence him on the first hearing and he'd be brought up to a firing wall and shot dead. You seem to have a problem with something that's already better than most of the world.

as far as I can care and the police should have done a better job, but the fact remains they did a job so it doesn't matter.

It matters because someone's life was destroyed, but at least we agree that they did a bad job.

Again, you assume I'm on the side of the police. I said it doesn't matter in the sense of that it doesn't matter to the courts, it doesn't matter to the rest of the world, that it doesn't matter to time itself. This case will be forgotten as soon as another sprouts up just like it.

This isn't the first time this has happened, hell, even students can get expelled for this. And you want a teacher to be able to say the things that the students shouldn't say? Someone who is supposed to be a figure of authority and set an example for the students? What he did, didn't do that. So the school sought to fire him.

What he did was irresponsible. The school over-exaggerated, but that doesn't change the fact they have the right to reject him.

 

[incal11]

I know it wasn't, that was my stance -- you're trying to change the subject and/or dispute a point that wasn't made to win the argument. You seem to think I'm on the side that says the school and the police were right. They weren't, but I'm being realistic about it and not ignoring the fact the man is screwed, plain and simple.

You were the one to bring this up to me, I'm not trying to "win" anything with this, I just commented on it. At least here is something on which we agree.

This isn't the first time this has happened(...)What he did was irresponsible. The school over-exaggerated, but that doesn't change the fact they have the right to reject him.

It's a right the school should not have, again, in a better world, but this is yet another topic.
What I dislike most about you is how apathetic you are about the suffering of others, and worse, how you are unwittingly proud of being apathetic.
As shown by your first post where you basically say that you don't care about the injustices of the world because there is nothing you can do, like it should interest anyone.
You should keep that kind of self centered crap to yourself.
One way to make the world better is to start caring about actual justice being done, even if you despise most of your fellow human beings.

This is where I think you're straight up trolling. Also, I'm still waiting for that explanation.

I gave you the explanation, what made it unclear was that your opinion here is part of your personality, if you can't comprehend it it's not my problem, moving on ...

I never said that you were on the side of the police or the school, you did not get what I dislike in your opinion.
Read the following carefully so we may stop going in circles.

The problem here isn't the fact he was held without trial - because he wasn't - it's that he couldn't afford the bail or that there wasn't one.

What do you do when you overfill a cup of water, but you want more than it's giving you? You get a bucket to hold the water. Revising it won't do anything to help the problem that it's flooded other than rejecting court cases that can prove to be important. In fact, they're more inclined to arrest people of lesser importance right away without a trial, which they'll have to do as they can't take care of the case.

In effect he was held without trial for a month ; the "trial" that came at the end of it does not excuse that length of time.
The "flooding" is there in the first place because the system IS inept, it cannot serve to excuse it.
Especially since all they did at the "trial" was ask questions and check facts the police should have asked and checked on the spot, had it been their prerogative to do so ;
and it should have been.
Here I just explained what could make your sacred american system better easily !

"hey, if it's so easy why don't you come and try to do it yourself"
It's not my coutry to begin with, read this post to the end before reblowing the same arguments I already shot down.

He had the hearing, that's his due process. It happened, so they have the right to hold him. So yes, it is "all right" to hold him. The actual trial is where he got set free, so the system worked as intended and he's good to go. The crime he was accused of is a serious offense so the bail would be difficult for him to post, regardless.

Here is what setting me off.
It not "all right", it never was and never will be.
I know there are worse systems in the world, but this is still bad.
Sure the system worked as intended, and no he was not "good to go" at the end of it.

The real problem we have in this argument is I see the glass half empty, and you see it half full.
In the end our opinions are the same (save for the amount of compassion).
Being a realist does not stop you from asking for changes, even if it does not amount to much you're supposed to live in a democracy, apathy won't help.

 

[Mr. Grey]

I know it wasn't, that was my stance -- you're trying to change the subject and/or dispute a point that wasn't made to win the argument. You seem to think I'm on the side that says the school and the police were right. They weren't, but I'm being realistic about it and not ignoring the fact the man is screwed, plain and simple.

You were the one to bring this up to me, I'm not trying to "win" anything with this, I just commented on it. At least here is something on which we agree.

It was apart of my entire explanation of my stance. You singled out a part to make it seem irrelevant, whereas if you kept it whole you would realise that I was explaining my stance so as to avoid further confusion.

This isn't the first time this has happened(...)What he did was irresponsible. The school over-exaggerated, but that doesn't change the fact they have the right to reject him.

It's a right the school should not have, again, in a better world, but this is yet another topic.
What I dislike most about you is how apathetic you are about the suffering of others, and worse, how you are unwittingly proud of being apathetic.
As shown by your first post where you basically say that you don't care about the injustices of the world because there is nothing you can do, like it should interest anyone.
You should keep that kind of self centered crap to yourself.
One way to make the world better is to start caring about actual justice being done, even if you despise most of your fellow human beings.

I am not proud of being apathetic, for to be proud proves I am not apathetic.

I don't care about the injustices of the world? You don't know me, you don't get to make that kind of a call. The fact you do only further shows your condescending attitude. You refuse to treat this as a polite discussion and continue to insult me. Never make that kind of a call, again.

And justice was done, he's free and not currency in prison. That's a victory, even if it's hollow.

This is where I think you're straight up trolling. Also, I'm still waiting for that explanation.

I gave you the explanation, what made it unclear was that your opinion here is part of your personality, if you can't comprehend it it's not my problem, moving on ...

I never said that you were on the side of the police or the school, you did not get what I dislike in your opinion.
Read the following carefully so we may stop going in circles.

You never explained where you lumped me in with the stupid and paranoid that cause blind panic.

The problem here isn't the fact he was held without trial - because he wasn't - it's that he couldn't afford the bail or that there wasn't one.

What do you do when you overfill a cup of water, but you want more than it's giving you? You get a bucket to hold the water. Revising it won't do anything to help the problem that it's flooded other than rejecting court cases that can prove to be important. In fact, they're more inclined to arrest people of lesser importance right away without a trial, which they'll have to do as they can't take care of the case.

In effect he was held without trial for a month ; the "trial" that came at the end of it does not excuse that length of time.
The "flooding" is there in the first place because the system IS inept, it cannot serve to excuse it.
Especially since all they did at the "trial" was ask questions and check facts the police should have asked and checked on the spot, had it been their prerogative to do so ;
and it should have been.
Here I just explained what could make your sacred American system better easily !

"hey, if it's so easy why don't you come and try to do it yourself"
It's not my coutry to begin with, read this post to the end before reblowing the same arguments I already shot down.

The flooding is happening because of an increased populace with many different issues that must be addressed. You want to know why our crimerate is higher than Japan? Other than Japan being even more "inept" than our system? Because we have a greater population than them. So we must accommodate this increased population or just arrest everyone like how Japan likes to. Lets not forget that Japan has a tendency to throw away certain crimes depending upon the defendant and the victim.

What kind of ineptitude you ask? Well... they let rapists go because of how they define rape in their legal terms. They also try to discourage women from reporting rape, but that's not the system... oh wait, it is. The government actually tries to dissuade them. Or has, maybe they're finally taking a step forward.

It's not a perfect system, but it's better than most countries. Like Japan, where Mr. Davis would definitely be in prison right now and they let rapists go free. I just find it silly to be concerned over this guy, when he's free and has a chance at a job - albeit slim - when there are things of the nature I referred to happening in Japan and other nations.

The police and the courts are completely different. I know how inept police can get, I've heard recordings of questionings and just how stupid they can be. What you don't seem to understand is that they're obligated to do these things, like every police of every nation are. Each state and nation has different precautions and rules that the police must abide by. If Kentucky instituted such a law that made the police act as they did, it's not their fault. It's their fault for not paying enough attention, there's nothing wrong with the police department, just the morons that didn't do a thorough investigation.

But hey! At least they're not like the morons that let Jeffrey Dahmer go with his victim. You know, who was later murdered.

I never said you should come and fix it, you're putting words in my mouth again.

He had the hearing, that's his due process. It happened, so they have the right to hold him. So yes, it is "all right" to hold him. The actual trial is where he got set free, so the system worked as intended and he's good to go. The crime he was accused of is a serious offense so the bail would be difficult for him to post, regardless.

Here is what setting me off.
It not "all right", it never was and never will be.
I know there are worse systems in the world, but this is still bad.
Sure the system worked as intended, and no he was not "good to go" at the end of it.

The real problem we have in this argument is I see the glass half empty, and you see it half full.
In the end our opinions are the same (save for the amount of compassion).
Being a realist does not stop you from asking for changes, even if it does not amount to much you're supposed to live in a democracy, apathy won't help.

Why do you think I put the "all right" in quotation marks? To symbolize sarcasm, as in I disagree with it being all right, but it nonetheless is "all right".

If it's still bad, then we should get on England's ass as we developed our court system from their example. If it's still bad we should get on Canada's ass as well, as they too have a very similar system. You just seem to like targeting ours because of one little incident.

One that isn't at all like all of the court cases where meth-addicted mothers get the kids while the sober for two years father has to pay her alimony and child support. Oh, did I mention that said mother is dating a pedophile? But that's not the fault of the system, that's the fault of biased judges that think mothers are better parents. The system isn't flawed, the people in it are.

We live in a Republic, not a Democracy. Change isn't made by individual people working together to vote on one issue, it's made by the people we put into power. Which makes it that much harder to create change on our own. And as for asking for changes... yeah, that's not up to me as I don't live in Kentucky. I can shout for change all I like, but that won't change their mind as I'm not a resident there. Mr. Davis is and can write a strongly worded letter to his state senator or his county senator. He can raise a protest on Facebook and rally a support troop. In fact, I encourage him to do so.

But my stance wasn't in response to those that wanted change, it was to those that wanted him to sue.

 

[incal11]

It was apart of my entire explanation of my stance. You singled out a part to make it seem irrelevant, whereas if you kept it whole you would realise that I was explaining my stance so as to avoid further confusion.

I'm singling out the relevant parts, I'm the only one trying to do this here, these walls of text are already too huge as they are. It's not to make them irrelevant, it's to adress them more clearly.
You keep getting sidetracked, it does not help ease the confusion, I try to be as direct as possible, but I do read your posts entirely before answering.

But my stance wasn't in response to those that wanted change, it was to those that wanted him to sue.

I never challenged you on that, we got tangled together first because I was upset by some thoughless words of yours.

You never explained where you lumped me in with the stupid and paranoid that cause blind panic.

I did explain and you refused to see, so here I try again:
Because you said something that is exactly what a "stupid and paranoid that cause blind panic" person would say.
You stated an opinion that shed light on a side of your personality, hence why my questioning of your argument felt like a personal attack.
I am not being condescending, but rather unforgiving ; being condescending would be treating you like a total idiot (you've not seen what I'm capable of yet), and then not answering to your indignation.

I don't care about the injustices of the world? You don't know me, you don't get to make that kind of a call. The fact you do only further shows your condescending attitude. You refuse to treat this as a polite discussion and continue to insult me. Never make that kind of a call, again.

Never tell me what I can't do.
This conversation lasted long enough for me to have a good idea about your personality, here's a reminder of how you started in this thread:

Now to be serious for a moment. I don't care? I just don't, it's sad that he lost his job, but he lost it by being stupid and talking about this in a freaking school.

I deeply disagree that saying something inapropriate is worth waiting for a trial when all that was needed was basic police inquiry,
and I know it's not how it work over there, but that's how it should work no matter what the circumstances,
and I know the world does not work like we'd want to, but that's not a reason for not feeling pithy for the wronged or not asking for change under the rotten excuse that it's worse elsewhere (cough).

The flooding is happening because of an increased populace with many different issues that must be addressed. You want to know why our crimerate is higher than Japan? Other than Japan being even more "inept" than our system? Because we have a greater population than them. So we must accommodate this increased population or just arrest everyone like how Japan likes to. Lets not forget that Japan has a tendency to throw away certain crimes depending upon the defendant and the victim.
(...)I never said you should come and fix it, you're putting words in my mouth again.

Getting sidetracked with Japan and some other stuff...
It's not that I'm avoiding arguments I suposedly can't counter, I'm only avoiding getting drawn out and derailing this whole conversation. Your exemples of greater injustices are gripping but not relevant to the thread since they do not contradict anything I say.
I have a long experience of flamewar and I knew there was a high probability of you reacting in certain ways, I wanted to avoid some more useless exchanges.

Also, Increased population, still not a good excuse, comparison to even worse systems, not an excuse either.

And justice was done, he's free and not currency in prison. That's a victory, even if it's hollow.

and justice was not done, he was imprisoned for a month...
sigh
We're now at the point where I have to tell you to re-read my previous posts, because I'd like not to have to repeat myself for the Nth time.
Actually that's not necessary, read what immediately follows, no use going in circles when our opinions are basically the same...

Why do you think I put the "all right" in quotation marks? To symbolize sarcasm, as in I disagree with it being all right, but it nonetheless is "all right".

Your choice of word is awfully tasteless still.
Ok, if you do mean "all right" = "pretty bad but could have been worse".
I'm more along the line of "pretty bad and could/should have been better", no use antagonising for the sake of contradicting me.
It's only the point of view that is different, but we can finally agree that it's bad.
I just disapprove your stance, basically saying that "it's good that things are not even worse, no need to try to make them better" is what I call being apathetic.

(..)that's not up to me as I don't live in Kentucky. I can shout for change all I like, but that won't change their mind as I'm not a resident there. Mr. Davis is and can write a strongly worded letter to his state senator or his county senator. He can raise a protest on Facebook and rally a support troop. In fact, I encourage him to do so.

If you don't live in Kentucky but if your state's laws are remotely like that of Kentucky you should be asking for changes in the ways available to you.
Other than that, it's good to see you finally having a more positive attitude on something, phew, that was hard.

 

[Nuke_em_05]

I think this boils down to something I have said several times already in this thread: you do not understand the difference between jail and prison.

I understand the difference, you do not understand that I u.n.d.e.r.s.t.a.n.d. it ; and you do not understand it is not relevant in regard of what I'm saying, that the way things went is totally wrong.

They are two very different functions of the legal system. Yes, they don't feel any different, I'm sure, especially if you are innocent; but being charged and held in jail is still beans compared to being convicted and imprisoned; especially as far as employment goes.

The worst was avoided, it was still pretty bad and it should not have hapened at all.

That's why I say this went "good"; it was handled appropriately had there been a threat, and since there wasn't, he wasn't convicted. Yes, he certainly shouldn't have waited that long in jail; but threats of violence in school are something people tend to be diligent about around here. Again, we weren't there at the time, we don't know how confusing the circumstances may have been.

Okay, One More Time...
People are diligent about a piece of overheard conversation because they are stupidly paranoid.
Yes the layoff may not be a direct consequence of that fuckup, we don't know ; on the other hand there is strong evidence that it may be.
A detail again, it does not change the fact that he spent a month in prison when basic investigations would have gotten him out during the day, confusion or no, 'tarded country cop or no.
Sorting the confusion should have been the job and the priority of the police, in the end the details do not matter it is the result that counts, and here the result is bad.

So, I'm pretty sure you are trolling at this point; but let me indicate a few things for you.

This happened in May of 2009. He posted bail in June 2009. In order for him to post bail, they must have determined pretty quickly that he had no actual intent to kill anyone. The case was, of course, about threatening. Threatening, even without intent, is still a pretty serious issue.

From the article linked:

The school system had notified Davis before the incident that he would not be rehired for the 2009-10 school year.

Hrmm... he was fired... before all of this...

Also, here's an article from when it actually happened:

http://thetimestribune.com/local/x1065254290/Teacher-threatens-500-people

It indicates he made the statements twice, on Wednesday, also with him mentioning something about making headline news. The school did its own investigation, the police did an investigation, and the arrest was made the following Tuesday.

So, again, I think the news is over-simplifying this, possibly to stir sensationalism against law enforcement, and you, as well as the Escapist and the majority of its community that bothered to comment, took the bait.

Lucky for you, only you, Mr. Grey, and I still bother to read this thread; so the article was largely successful.

See, I have a bigger problem with the media. They put "the school district will not renew his contract" in the same article about his allegation to create a false association. The media implied the association, but the article clearly says they made that decision before this incident. That is another thing, they put that bit towards the end. People read the headline and some key paragraphs about the association, and generally don't bother to check around. The whole article is based on assumptions, and only at the end, if then, do they explain the assumptions, which are generally pretty ill-backed.

Much like this thread evidences, people will read what they want to read form the opinion suggested by the article, and move on without really thinking about it or investigating on their own, giving the media extreme power of suggestion.

Later, another article, maybe similar to this one, will be posted written with the same assumptions. Since people already adopted an opinion based on this one, they will be more accepting of the future article. They might even say "this reminds me of that one time a guy was arrested for talking about videogames, what a terrible world we've created".

I wonder if that inspires the fear and panic you are so concerned about? Right? "Don't trust anyone, and the world is spinning out of control." Why? Because if people have something to fear, they're more likely to search for news about it; thus giving news outlets more subscribers and hits.

Look how far down this post is. By the time I was able to look more into it, we're at six pages and several days from posting, and no one cares anymore. The immediate posts are knee-jerk reactions. Reinforcing the false assumptions.

Didn't you say you believe the problem here is that people are living in artificial fear and panic, so they knee-jerk over-reacted to something that could have easily be cleared up with a little investigation?

Turns out you were right, but looking in the wrong place, one step behind.

 

[Computer-Noob]

OMFG HES JUST A REGULAR TEACHER BUT HE SAID HES GUNNA KILL 500 PEOPLE SO HE CANT BE LYING THAT MEANS HES A TERRORIST OMG OMG

...

How thick do the people at that school have to be? Now this guy is screwed for life because most people aren't going to ask him why this charge is on his record and instead refuse to hire him. If I were an employer, I'd probably be sitting there laughing my ass of at the stupidity of the person who had him charged, after asking what had happened.

This also just lets people know how fast your rights are taken away at even the slightest mention of terrorism in the USA. I'm sure he said that he was just talking about a video game ample times, and of course only after a whole fucking month did someone bother listening.

 

[Mr. Grey]

But my stance wasn't in response to those that wanted change, it was to those that wanted him to sue.

I never challenged you on that, we got tangled together first because I was upset by some thoughless words of yours.

I never said you did.

You never explained where you lumped me in with the stupid and paranoid that cause blind panic.

I did explain and you refused to see, so here I try again:
Because you said something that is exactly what a "stupid and paranoid that cause blind panic" person would say.
You stated an opinion that shed light on a side of your personality, hence why my questioning of your argument felt like a personal attack.
I am not being condescending, but rather unforgiving ; being condescending would be treating you like a total idiot (you've not seen what I'm capable of yet), and then not answering to your indignation.

That doesn't mean I'm on their side. They happen to be on the side that's protected, so what I said was what makes them practically invulnerable to a lawsuit. I thought they were idiots, but I realised that they're protected and explained why.

I don't care about the injustices of the world? You don't know me, you don't get to make that kind of a call. The fact you do only further shows your condescending attitude. You refuse to treat this as a polite discussion and continue to insult me. Never make that kind of a call, again.

Never tell me what I can't do.
This conversation lasted long enough for me to have a good idea about your personality, here's a reminder of how you started in this thread:

Now to be serious for a moment. I don't care? I just don't, it's sad that he lost his job, but he lost it by being stupid and talking about this in a freaking school.

I deeply disagree that saying something inapropriate is worth waiting for a trial when all that was needed was basic police inquiry,
and I know it's not how it work over there, but that's how it should work no matter what the circumstances,
and I know the world does not work like we'd want to, but that's not a reason for not feeling pithy for the wronged or not asking for change under the rotten excuse that it's worse elsewhere (cough).

Oh, so then you realise that I suffer from depression and every time I wake up I ask why I'm still alive? Do you want to know why? Because the things that happen in the world make me so. Which means I do care about the injustices in the world, I just have my priorities about it.

Oh, and you ignored where I said it was sad that he lost his job.

The flooding is happening because of an increased populace with many different issues that must be addressed. You want to know why our crimerate is higher than Japan? Other than Japan being even more "inept" than our system? Because we have a greater population than them. So we must accommodate this increased population or just arrest everyone like how Japan likes to. Lets not forget that Japan has a tendency to throw away certain crimes depending upon the defendant and the victim.
(...)I never said you should come and fix it, you're putting words in my mouth again.

Getting sidetracked with Japan and some other stuff...
It's not that I'm avoiding arguments I suposedly can't counter, I'm only avoiding getting drawn out and derailing this whole conversation. Your exemples of greater injustices are gripping but not relevant to the thread since they do not contradict anything I say.
I have a long experience of flamewar and I knew there was a high probability of you reacting in certain ways, I wanted to avoid some more useless exchanges.

Also, Increased population, still not a good excuse, comparison to even worse systems, not an excuse either.

I never compared it to justify it. I compared it that there are worse systems we should be focusing on, first.

And contradiction? You said I don't care about the world and the injustices in it. When quite obviously I do as I brought up things that we should be focusing on first.

And justice was done, he's free and not currency in prison. That's a victory, even if it's hollow.

and justice was not done, he was imprisoned for a month...
sigh
We're now at the point where I have to tell you to re-read my previous posts, because I'd like not to have to repeat myself for the Nth time.
Actually that's not necessary, read what immediately follows, no use going in circles when our opinions are basically the same...

He was never imprisoned, he was held. There is a difference and Nuke'Em already covered it.

He also apparently covered why. Maybe you should read it.

Why do you think I put the "all right" in quotation marks? To symbolize sarcasm, as in I disagree with it being all right, but it nonetheless is "all right".

Your choice of word is awfully tasteless still.
Ok, if you do mean "all right" = "pretty bad but could have been worse".
I'm more along the line of "pretty bad and could/should have been better", no use antagonising for the sake of contradicting me.
It's only the point of view that is different, but we can finally agree that it's bad.
I just disapprove your stance, basically saying that "it's good that things are not even worse, no need to try to make them better" is what I call being apathetic.

I never antagonised. I said it as it's all right for them, but not for me.

And I always thought what they did was a poor job. You never changed an opinion of mine.

Our system is fine, the people in it are the problem. You can't change people.

(..)that's not up to me as I don't live in Kentucky. I can shout for change all I like, but that won't change their mind as I'm not a resident there. Mr. Davis is and can write a strongly worded letter to his state senator or his county senator. He can raise a protest on Facebook and rally a support troop. In fact, I encourage him to do so.

If you don't live in Kentucky but if your state's laws are remotely like that of Kentucky you should be asking for changes in the ways available to you.
Other than that, it's good to see you finally having a more positive attitude on something, phew, that was hard.

It's not. In fact, our police are well regarded except for the occasional dipstick. But that's in every police station in the world.

Again, you never changed my opinion. You automatically assumed "my opinion" for me.

With this I've regarded you as a troll, one that took one little article so seriously to judge our system while ignoring the incidents similar to your own. Also ignoring the successes that are never portrayed in the media because that's not ratings worthy, they have to be sensationalist so people watch. The media does this the world over.

 

[incal11]

So, I'm pretty sure you are trolling at this point

Ah, of course, you cannot be wrong ever, so anyone who does prove you wrong just has to be a troll.

I wonder if that inspires the fear and panic you are so concerned about? Right? "Don't trust anyone, and the world is spinning out of control."

Things like the Columbia massacre obviously, despite those incidents I'm convinced he was victim of an overreaction and that charges like "second degree terroristic threatening" are obviously dictated by fear and paranoia and serve only to make the justice system tragically ineffective.
The real problem we have with each other is that You seem to approve of something as inept as "second degree terroristic threatening" charges and it's unfortunate consequences.
And I don't understand how you can approve of that ; when someone looks like he's loosing his marbles you ough to help him work out his issues, not set the justice on him, because at worst this could make him into a real killer.

Look how far down this post is. By the time I was able to look more into it, we're at six pages and several days from posting, and no one cares anymore. The immediate posts are knee-jerk reactions. Reinforcing the false assumptions.

Didn't you say you believe the problem here is that people are living in artificial fear and panic, so they knee-jerk over-reacted to something that could have easily be cleared up with a little investigation?

As I'm going to explain, you own investigation did not clear up anything, you just pointed out an ultimately irrelevant detail.
I am not an attention whore, but I'm very stubborn, like you.

Turns out you were right, but looking in the wrong place, one step behind.

So I am right after all, but I'm going to show you that I was in fact looking in the right direction.

This happened in May of 2009. He posted bail in June 2009. In order for him to post bail, they must have determined pretty quickly that he had no actual intent to kill anyone. The case was, of course, about threatening. Threatening, even without intent, is still a pretty serious issue.

I'll just repeat what I just said to Mr.Grey.
I deeply disagree that saying something inapropriate is worth waiting for a trial when all that was needed was basic police inquiry (but they did an inquiry after all and still put him behind bars for a month, this is even more inept than I first though),
and I know it's not how it work over there, but that's how it should work no matter what the circumstances,
and I know the world does not work like we'd want to, but that's not a reason for not feeling pithy for the wronged or not asking for change under the rotten excuse that it's worse elsewhere (cough).

People read the headline and some key paragraphs about the association, and generally don't bother to check around. The whole article is based on assumptions, and only at the end, if then, do they explain the assumptions, which are generally pretty ill-backed.

That'll serve remind me not to trust the headlines completely,
still...

The school system had notified Davis before the incident that he would not be rehired for the 2009-10 school year.

That makes his state of stress more understandable.
his issues could have been easily solved with a calm conversation about this between him and the school heads. Then even if it was not possible to keep him, launching the cops on him was a gross overreaction, probably he did not have good relations with his co-workers and that did not play well with his bad way of expressing his distress.

Also, here's an article from when it actually happened:

http://thetimestribune.com/local/x1065254290/Teacher-threatens-500-people

I don't see how this article is more reliable than the one linked by the OP, it's also more ancient so it is not necessarily more acurate.
One passage in particular:

He also allegedly said he would, or the high school would, make national headlines on or before the last day of school next Friday.

The key here is "allegedly", now that too is stirring sensationalism, not stating a fact.

the comment was in reference to playing a video game, according to Davis and his attorney.

Of course you can also doubt him and his attorney, but the facts that the police did not find any weapons, and that the trial lasted only ten minutes rest my case.

 

[incal11]

That doesn't mean I'm on their side. They happen to be on the side that's protected, so what I said was what makes them practically invulnerable to a lawsuit. I thought they were idiots, but I realised that they're protected and explained why.

I explained why they should not be protected and explained why, now that's cleared up.

Oh, so then you realise that I suffer from depression and every time I wake up I ask why I'm still alive? Do you want to know why? Because the things that happen in the world make me so. Which means I do care about the injustices in the world, I just have my priorities about it.
Oh, and you ignored where I said it was sad that he lost his job.

Again , you admit to being a hypocrite, it's not hard to guess what your priorities are.

I never compared it to justify it. I compared it that there are worse systems we should be focusing on, first.

These systems are not in your country, you're just saying "look over there" while you wash your hands of the issues closer to you

He was never imprisoned, he was held. There is a difference and Nuke'Em already covered it.

Being behind bars is being behind bars, no matter how you call it, no matter the legal justifications, which in this case are screwy.
I just answered to Nukee'Em, you should read that before you answer me again, if I didn't finally wore you out.

I always thought what they did was a poor job. You never changed an opinion of mine.

Ah, we agree on the poor job part, but ...

Our system is fine, the people in it are the problem. You can't change people.

Here is the real source of our disagreement, the system is not fine, and comparing it to worse system won't make it fine, saying that touching it would be breaking it is cowardice and bad faith.
I believe I could change at least you provided you don't just turn your back on me and forget everything I say, illustrating the futility of arguing over the internet.
It's probably futile, but I decided I'll work things out with you 'till we reach an agreement, or untill you go and erase my arguments from your memory, so you can avoid questioning yourself.

With this I've regarded you as a troll, one that took one little article so seriously to judge our system while ignoring the incidents similar to your own. Also ignoring the successes that are never portrayed in the media because that's not ratings worthy, they have to be sensationalist so people watch. The media does this the world over.

Again, naturally, since I proved you wrong I just have to be a troll...
I'm taking this no more seriously than you do, or you would have left a lot sooner.
None of the other incidents you talked about hapened in my country.
I'm not forgetting the successes, the failures should still serve to point out the flaws that are still there so it's easier to fix them.
That they make for sensationalists headlines is an unfortunate consequence.

 

[Nuke_em_05]

Snip

You continue to omit and re-phrase to suit your stance, just to keep it going. Hence troll.

You clearly didn't understand the idea of Jail here, but once explained to you, the troll decided that it wasn't important and knew all along anyway.

You claimed no investigation was made before the arrest, but we see now there was a week before the arrest; so the troll says "it just proves the investigation was inept".

However, it really just demonstrates there was more going on here than just a simple "he said he's going to kill people! Ahhhhhhhh!" situation. For instance that he also mentioned the school making headline news by that Friday. I don't know about you, but that sure would make interpreting it as a video-game conversation a little less clear-cut for me. "No," says the troll; "it simply was bad justice because I know your system is broken".

You were really heavy-handed on the idea it "ruined" his life because he was fired for it. However, if he were fired for the charge it would be the school's fault. Then, as it turns out, he was already fired before any of it started. "That's okay", says the troll, "it just means he was more stressed, which somehow helps my point".

I'm not calling you a troll because you have convinced me of anything. You haven't.

I'm calling you a troll because you are a troll.

 

[incal11]

snip

You clearly don't want to understand that being behind bars is tantamount to "jail" and that's what I meant from the beginning, no amount of legal justifications and bad faith will make it any less true.
Also "he said he's going to kill people! Ahhhhhhhh!" is a good summary, he got the cops when he needed couselling and a bit of compassion.

Well, I tried everything I could, and in the face of logic you remain perfectly immovable.
Confronted to arguments you just cannot counter you choose to dismiss them to save your honor.
Since it appear you see as trolls anyone who proves you wrong you might as well see me as one. You, on the other hand, just lost, even if you'll never admit it.

 

[Nuke_em_05]

snip

You clearly don't want to understand that being behind bars is tantamount to "jail" and that's what I meant from the beginning, no amount of legal justifications and bad faith will make it any less true.
Also "he said he's going to kill people! Ahhhhhhhh!" is a good summary, he got the cops when he needed couselling and a bit of compassion.

Well, I tried everything I could, and in the face of logic you remain perfectly immovable.
Confronted to arguments you just cannot counter you choose to dismiss them to save your honor.
Since it appear you see as trolls anyone who proves you wrong you might as well see me as one. You, on the other hand, just lost, even if you'll never admit it.

Condescending, arrogant, personal attacks are also strong behavioral indicators of a troll.

 

[incal11]

Condescending, arrogant, personal attacks are also strong behavioral indicators of a troll.

That describes your attitude too, I can't help appearing condescending to you since I'm right and you are hopelessly wrong.