Former Teacher Acquitted of Videogame Massacre Threat

[Wardnath]

Seriously wtf?

Don't you think that if he HAD killed 500 people, someone might have found one of the bodies?

And why in hell's name did he spend a month in jail? Didn't anyone just talk to the poor guy?

Jeezuz...I guess he's lucky his name's only Jason. Mohammed would have probably been electrocuted long before that.

And here's a thought, how about arresting the informant for wasting police time? Or is that too smart for them?

Fixed that for ya.

Edit: Thank fucking God I live in Australia. Say what you want, but at least this shit doesn't happen over here.

 

[crimson sickle2]

It's really insane how any kind of criminal charge (acquitted or not) can leave such a huge imprint over a person's life. Why didn't they just ask the guy what he was talking about before they arrested him.

 

[Mr. Grey]

Spoiler

It took a jury to find him innocent. This was the actual trial, they usually have a hearing beforehand and that may be the due process your thinking of. So he got his due process then the judge said that he will be held in prison until the trial date was settled. He either couldn't post bail or they wouldn't let him go due to that inane Patriot Act and this falling under "terrorism". So, he honestly has no right to sue the state.

But if it is the fault of the Patriot Act, he could petition the Supreme Court to strike down said Act. He can't sue the country or the state because of it, however. Well he could, but he won't have anything to gain out of it save for the Act being removed. The chance is slim.

And suing the state to be punished for doing something to protect people... yeah, that'll never backfire later on. Like when it's actually going to happen and they do nothing as they fear another lawsuit. Even then he'd probably only lose and have to pay their attorney's fees.

What he should do is sue the person that reported him in Civil Court, but that won't work because he probably doesn't have proof of intent or motivation let alone anything actually useful. He could sue the school for discrimination, but of what kind? They have the right to fire anyone they want so long as they don't suffer from a disability, they are old or they happen to be a darker skin tone.

He's screwed, plain and simple. The best he can do is move to another county or state and see if there is a school that will hire him.

EDIT:

Unless that state allows people to not be discriminant of criminals, but he isn't exactly a criminal since he had an acquittal.

"And suing the state to be punished for doing something to protect people... yeah, that'll never backfire later on."

He's a video game geek. No one was in any danger.

OK, considering all you have said, he should sue the police for incompetent investigation, they didn't seem able to determine the deeper meaning of the words that were allegedly said... I don't know, like looking at his video game collection and online activity? Interviewing his associates?

The police did NOT do their job as they charged an innocent man with trumped up charges. This was not just a failure to prove a crime, this was patently obviously innocent.

I suppose you are right that the courts had no choice, they had to go through the motions, it is not their job to investigate details surrounding the allegations at the hearing stage, they can only go on what the police present to them... right?

So the police are negligent for jumping the gun, he should Never have been charged! You know, all it would have taken was a little bit of actual POLICE WORK(!) rather than just leaving it up for the courts to clear up Their Mess. I really do despair at the way police investigations are conducted on the 100% assumption of guilt and they have NO INCENTIVE AT ALL for trying to determine innocence.

Well if they were sued for their incompetence then they'd shape up. I wouldn't count on local government to do more than anywhere else, play it safe to get re-elected.

Ah, but they'd probably pull the ever so effective "we protect you people" card. Fuck that. The sense of entitlement from coppers from all over the world who act as if it's acceptable to victimise a couple innocent people (due to their own ignorance, incompetence and laziness) as long as they catch the bad guys the rest of the time. It's not like this was a Sherlock Holmes mystery, seriously, 5 minutes out of the mindset of "this guy is definitely guilty" would have found the truth.

By that logic Medics should be entitled to a few negligent homicides and firemen immune to arson laws.

As for the backfiring statement, I never meant to imply he was a danger. I'm saying that you can make the state itself skiddish to act on a similar event that may very well be real. That doesn't help anyone should it come to be.

As for the rest of your statement. They are obligated to answer, probably brought on by the school shootings before, then you have to figure the event known as 9/11 with the paranoia allowing the Patriot Act to pass and what-have-you. You are right that the investigation is a joke, but that tends to not matter. This isn't a domestic dispute, this apparently qualifies as terrorism and they have to hold Mr. Davis until the investigation is over and all evidence is presented to the prosecution. The defense attorney is allowed to request any and all evidence from the prosecutor and said prosecutor must oblige.

They didn't do anything that they weren't supposed to do. The gathering of character witnesses and such is something that the lawyers must do, prosecution and defense. The cops didn't have any evidence other than the statement from the witness, they brought in said witness and the defense probably brought in the student to combat it. Which later led to Mr. Davis' innocence, if I had to call the stage of events.

The police probably couldn't scrounge anything more than circumstantial evidence. They couldn't get anything definitive, but that doesn't change that they did everything they were supposed to do. Personally, I think they should have just talked to both sides and get a clear detail of what happened, but apparently since this is "terrorism" and we're still Post 9/11... I don't really need to say more.

What you want is the Patriot Act and Acts/Bills like it struck down so that cops can use common sense. Possibly revamp how they function.

And I prefer Sherlock Holmes' brother, as he can solve crimes without ever having to leave his house. In fact he solved all crimes he came across without having to leave his house and seek out the culprit.

 

[Treblaine]

*Click Mr Grey's name to see source quote*

Well I have two issues:

(1) the WORDING of this particular part of The Patriot Act:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threatening_terrorism_against_the_United_States

This to spite reasonable on the surface clearly gives a legal basis to scaremongering rumours, quotes removed from context and meaning, the basis merely being that people FEEL AFRAID and reasonably so considering WHAT THEY KNOW! So police have authority to arrest based on fear, supposition and rumour. This isn't about facts, or clear threats like "i'm gonna kill you" but merely that someone gets half the story.

(2) the way police investigate crime:

As in so often they DON'T!

If only it was a damn investigation, if they are called down by a panicky school board with "she said he said" rumours of terrorism, they pretty much have to walk away with someone in cuffs. And police have hugely incentive to find crime and prosecute over and above the truth. It should have taken all of 10 minutes to find who the student who was talking to the accused and get his side of the story who heard the WHOLE conversation.

But fuck that, far better to go through the motions of assumed guilt in all but name.

The "guilty till proven innocent" is a common rule throughout countries under English Common law like UK, USA, the commonwealth and all over the world... and everywhere it is an utterly empty phrase. The police consistently use shamefully unscientific approach and the courts are less a safety net for ensuring justice, that is the ONLY place to find justice!

The courts won't object. It's money in the bank for the lawyers and judges, but the public pays in the end.

10 minutes. Even less than that it would have taken to interview the actual subject of the conversation. I wonder if they even had a Detective Investigator or if a patrol officer just arrested him and then "interviewed" him at the nick on what - by then - would be a third hand testimony who overheard a fragment of a conversation about a fictional event.

If the US Cops are only half as bad as the UK police (were in the 90's) then they may even have talked with the kid who protested the teachers innocence, passed the acquitting evidence on to the defence yet gone ahead with the trial anyway hoping "something will stick".

 

[Mr. Grey]

SNIP! Click link to source, should be right above this post though.

1. I agree. Which is why I hope he petitions to finally remove the Patriot Act, with him and this recent debacle I'm sure more will sprout up and we'll have a force to be reckoned with when they march up the steps to the Supreme Court. It's a joke and the people have stopped laughing.

2. We need to figure the time they arrived, we'll assume the student left the school. They will have to detain him at the department, then they follow out on the student's name by the teacher after the interview. They go and call the home of the student, they get the mom, the kid doesn't tell his mom that he did something wrong and she believes that the teacher is lying. Voila! That's all the police need.

No really, this is all about what cards are dealt to you. He happened to have an awful hand until the they both went all in.

And you seem to be upset with the time he was held. The reason it reached a month was because he went through a hearing and couldn't post the bail specified then had to wait for a trial date to be settled so they can get on with the show. We covered this and I'm sure you understood it, now here's the part you have the largest problem with: I'm sure the cops took up to ten minutes of talking with the teacher and then calling the mother of the student. They are not obliged to walk all the way over there and they won't.

So you want a revamp of how they function, along with the bill being struck down... the problem with this is that the guy happened to have a failtastic bunch of cops to do the investigation with. Not all cops are like this, these guys probably just got the worst day they ever had with the worst call they ever had to answer. Plus they probably found out the department ran out of doughnuts while they were answering the call, which really just rubbed salt in their wounds.

I mean, he can bring attention to this, but he can't sue them. If he riles enough people he could eventually get the state to revamp how police do investigations, but that's it at most. Then he can get some TV time and checks from various things such as interviews and possibly a memoir, but that's pushing it with the memoir. Unless he takes this all the way to the Supreme Court and dismantles the Patriot Act. Then that's a sealed deal, maybe even a documentary.

Then again, there may be a loophole in his state that allows him to sue the police. Each state operates this differently, so you never know. If he does get it to the courts, though, he'd have a hell of a time to win the case.

In the end I agree that this was just a huge mess. However, it's not feasible to get them all punished nor is it going to do much good. The best way to fix all of this is to strike down the bills that allowed it to happen to begin with. The police unfortunately have to arrest him with them around, unless a greater evidence is presented. The sad thing is, they both had equal evidence so the police had to go through with the trial.

 

[Extraintrovert]

I am enjoying the topic of this thread. Stupid people doing stupid things, being punished by other stupid people for stupid reasons. As for the thread itself, random internet affiliates proclaiming empathy when we most probably couldn't care less if there weren't video games involved, cliche and outdated proclamations of lost faith in humanity, and, of course, the inevitable defense of stupid behaviour. Good stuff.

Also,

People take schools seriously, they don't sit on their asses when someone talks about killing people - be it even in a video game, sometimes especially depending upon the IQ of said person overhearing the conversation - they go and report it to prevent the next Columbine or Virginia Tech.

This is just plain hilarious. Firstly, if everyone who said they were going to kill someone was arrested, there wouldn't be a single person remaining. Humans after all do have a propensity for hyperbole. Secondly, the USA seems to be the only nation on the planet to not realise that decreasing the availability of firearms decreases shootings, not arresting people for singular remarks.

 

[instantbenz]

he needs to sue. screwed his career for no raisin. assholes

 

[Mr. Grey]

People take schools seriously, they don't sit on their asses when someone talks about killing people - be it even in a video game, sometimes especially depending upon the IQ of said person overhearing the conversation - they go and report it to prevent the next Columbine or Virginia Tech.

This is just plain hilarious. Firstly, if everyone who said they were going to kill someone was arrested, there wouldn't be a single person remaining. Humans after all do have a propensity for hyperbole. Secondly, the USA seems to be the only nation on the planet to not realise that decreasing the availability of firearms decreases shootings, not arresting people for singular remarks.

You'll be sorry when you take away our Second Amendment and thus our capability to apply pressure to our own government. When that is gone they can effectively declare themselves a military state and move on to the rest of the world! [/tinfoilhatmoment]

Hey, I never said it happened all of the time. I said it's stupid to push your luck, especially with something like this in a public school.

And decreasing the availability of firearms changes nothing. If they're that determined, they'll find a way to get it regardless or try a different method entirely, such as pipe bombs. Or makeshift flamethrowers. Hell, you can make mustard gas at home if you wanted to.

 

[Extraintrovert]

Hey, I never said it happened all of the time. I said it's stupid to push your luck, especially with something like this in a public school.

I agree that it was stupid (which is perhaps something I should have clarified; oh well), the point that others are making is that the reaction was more stupid by several magnitudes, performed by supposed professionals and had far more lasting damage than a mistaken comment made in passing. He shouldn't have said it though, so I won't argue with you on that point.

And decreasing the availability of firearms changes nothing. If they're that determined, they'll find a way to get it regardless or try a different method entirely, such as pipe bombs. Or makeshift flamethrowers. Hell, you can make mustard gas at home if you wanted to.

They can find a way. They most definitely can. But they won't, because people are stupid and lazy, and we are far more likely to simply acquire a ready-made weapon than manufacture one ourselves. There are those that would be determined enough to do what you suggest, but they are negligible in comparison to the mass of idiots that would just get a gun and be done with it. Hell, I know that if I had access to a gun, I would have killed plenty of people a long time ago, myself included. But I don't, and so I haven't, because I'm lazy and stupid, just like the people that shoot their unarmed classmates for the lulz. It's about not giving idiots the opportunity.

But all of this is irrelevant. I'm not going to change your mind, you're not going to change mine, and I've just wasted thirty minutes of my life typing something no-one is going to read. Move along, nothing to see here.

 

[Treblaine]

People take schools seriously, they don't sit on their asses when someone talks about killing people - be it even in a video game, sometimes especially depending upon the IQ of said person overhearing the conversation - they go and report it to prevent the next Columbine or Virginia Tech.

This is just plain hilarious. Firstly, if everyone who said they were going to kill someone was arrested, there wouldn't be a single person remaining. Humans after all do have a propensity for hyperbole. Secondly, the USA seems to be the only nation on the planet to not realise that decreasing the availability of firearms decreases shootings, not arresting people for singular remarks.

You'll be sorry when you take away our Second Amendment and thus our capability to apply pressure to our own government. When that is gone they can effectively declare themselves a military state and move on to the rest of the world! [/tinfoilhatmoment]

Hey, I never said it happened all of the time. I said it's stupid to push your luck, especially with something like this in a public school.

And decreasing the availability of firearms changes nothing. If they're that determined, they'll find a way to get it regardless or try a different method entirely, such as pipe bombs. Or makeshift flamethrowers. Hell, you can make mustard gas at home if you wanted to.

He's right in the sense that less guns = less gun crime (duh)

Look at UK where even coppers are unarmed. Better yet, look INSIDE A PRISON where guards and inmates are unarmed save for those in the watchtowers. That's not to say it is "safe" in UK or inside a prison walls. I don't like the "prison island" strategy of a disarmed populace, it strikes me as bad as the worst parts of the patriot act, trading individual liberty for collective safety.

The way I see it in USA the govt only has the power (if any) to restrict law-abiding citizens' access to guns. They cannot stop criminals being armed and disarming the average law abiding citizen in the time being - I agree - will only increase suffering and injustice.

American Criminals have also shown to be EXTREMELY resourceful. Just look at the incredibly productive "cottage industries" of crack cocaine cookers and crystal meth brewers. A similar level of technical expertise and resource input could be used in mass production of submachine guns (see WWII partisans) if the supply of black market pistols ever dries up.

USA has a huge border to police and virtually no real internal borders, which makes smuggling (as seen with drugs) a HUGE problem, that means any gun ban would never be that effective.

 

[Cody211282]

First off " terroristic threatening" shouldn't be a damn thing the cops can arrest you for, what the fuck happened to freedom of speech, I mean for the love of god it's right there in t he constitution! Secondly whoever called the cops about it should have had the balls to talk to the guy first, and you know, ask him what the hell he meant.

 

[Dogstile]

Double post. Shockwave player crashed.

 

[Dogstile]

I know, I know, we're all gamers and this is just all so unjust and blah blah blah blah.

Talking about killing 500 people, even if in the context of a videogame, is probably not the best conversation to be having with students, at a school, and you are the teacher.

As for "they should have asked him", are you serious? Like this guy:

Before they effing arrested the guy, much less let the thing go to trial.

Police: What were you talking about when you said you wanted to kill a bunch of people?

Jason: I meant in a video game.

Police: Oh... Well if you actually do go kill people, we'll have to arrest you.

Jason: That's reasonable.

Really? You think that's how law enforcement works? Law enforcement does just that, enforce. If there's a call on a threat of violence, their job isn't to determine what actually happened, it is to arrest.

It is the judge and jury's job to decide what happened and if any law or consequences apply.

As it turns out, the jury figured it out really quick. So I suppose that shows the system works, to a point.

There is the wait time in jail, and the arrest. He was still not proven guilty.

The key thing is, this guy was an idiot. As a teacher, you need to be mindful of your speech. What he said was undeniably stupid. Yes, it was taken out of context, the point is he probably shouldn't have said it in the first place, even in-context.

I work on the same floor as the Mayor and the City Council of a city with about one half of a million people; talking about murder or assassination or terrorism, even if in a game, would not be a smart move on my part. It's like talking about bombs or terrorism on an airplane or in an airport; even if they aren't your plans to actually do anything of the sort, it still puts people on edge and context or no, it isn't unreasonable to determine a threat from that. Kind of like if you say "It's not like I said I'm going to rape you" and someone only hears "I'm going to rape you", you'll be eating mace before you can say "but I-!".

If someone comes up behind you and puts something up to your back and says "gimme all your money", and (in your dreams) you turn around and punch them in the face, only to find out it was a friend masking their voice as a joke, you aren't going to feel bad about it because even if it was a joke in-context, for all you knew it was a legitimate threat and you don't have time to ascertain context; you need to react first and evaluate later. Also, you will consider your friend an idiot.

Yes, he lost his job over a false-positive. That is something you need to be very well aware of when your work involves minors. When I was working for Salvation Army youth programs and camps, there were very strict policies and procedures on even avoiding the appearance of a possibility of someone taking advantage of a minor; be it a threat, violence, abuse, or sexual misconduct. Many were specifically put in place due to so many false-positive cases. It is something you need to be aware of. This guy wasn't. A false-positive indicates he wasn't careful.

He's in a tough spot which could have been avoided if he had been more careful.

But, no, you guys are right, this is about videogames, and we love videogames, so this guy is some sort of epic martyr.

No, its a case of the legal system taking something out of context and people overreacting. At any point he could have explained that both him and the student talking about a game and common sense should have kicked in making people think "hang on, this guy was using humour and getting along with his students!".

You say he shouldn't have been talking about this sort of thing with his students. I say he should on the grounds that getting along and connecting with your students is key to being able to actually teach them. The teachers I learned the most from were the ones who i could talk to about skateboarding, tv, and more recently, gaming.

And hell, putting someone in jail for just saying something? For a month? That in itself is over the top. I mean, seriously? Every day i'm talking about killing americans (COD) or marines (halo wars). Occasionally i talk about planting a bomb (The saboteur). I get weird looks, but most people tend to either stick around and listen to the rest of the conversation to see what the hell i'm talking about or ignore it. Even the policeman that overheard me (and subsequently joined in).

But of course, you can act like we're outraged because its a case of video games and not nothing else. Because that's not asking to be flamed at all.

To prove a point, is anyone else here annoyed that the dude who got into sarah palins email was found guilty of unlawful access to a computer?

Guy shouldn't speak that way on the job anyway. Teachers are supposed to be role models.

And you're more likely to follow a role model that you can relate too.

we most probably couldn't care less if there weren't video games involved.

That's not the point. Sure it wouldn't have been brought to attention if games wern't involved, this is a gaming website after all, but i'd have been just as annoyed if he was talking about art and his drawing, or a media project.

 

[Ralphfromdk]

oh the irony.... now he actually got a reason to go out and kill a whole bunch of people

thank goodness for not living in the US

 

[Nuke_em_05]

Snip

There's no need to get personal here.

Jail exists for due process. Drunks are put in jail overnight until they sober up. Guys who get into a brawl in public are put in jail if they refuse to calm down on-site, or until at-fault/assault charges can be determined. In some cases, the police are able to make an evaluation and release someone from jail. For more serious crimes, suspects are held there until trial. A potential threat of violence in a school would fall under that category.

If I was so dense as to utter the phrase "I need to kill 500 people" in any context in a school; then the me typing right now would deem jail-time reasonable.

When it comes to a threat of violence in a public school, the Police's job is to neutralize the potential threat (arrest), then investigate. It was probably reports from such an investigation that allowed the jury to come to their conclusion. With a situation like that, judgement is reserved for the jury and not the police.

It is important to note that the decision took ten minutes. The actual presentation of evidence and actual trial proceedings would have taken longer. The decision took ten minutes of deliberation. It wasn't "it was about videogames", "oh, alright then". The jury talked about it for ten minutes. It wasn't a snap decision. Yes, it was a quick decision, but obviously they still deliberated on for a time, after going over all the evidence and such. The trial itself could have gone on over the twenty days he was in jail.

I'd prefer that people have "brooms up their asses" when it comes to public safety, especially child safety, than risk a breach of either.

A lot of the outrage in this thread seems to be due to a lack of understanding of the legal system in the United States. Particularly when it comes to public safety, the difference between jail and prision, the judiciary responsibilities of police vs juries, and how due process works.

I'm sure this outrage is further aggrivated by the fact he lost his job. People lose sight of the fact he said the wrong thing in the wrong place. They also blame the legal system, when if he was terminated due to this, and no one will hire him even though the charges were dropped, that is a problem with the employer. He could sue and probably win in a wrongful termination suit. I would encourage him to. Just quit blaming the system for the employer's choice.

Also, we're all using hindsight; "he was proven innocent, so they made the wrong choice in arresting him". Arresting him was the right thing to do on the chance he was a threat.What if they took the day to investigate, determine the accuracy, and then arrest him afterwards? Well, if it was true by then he would have gone ahead with it, wouldn't he?

Snip

Oh please. Not everyone is that paranoid. I'd figure he was just shooting his mouth off, or if uncertain, I'd say 'I'm sorry, what?'. Simple...

How many more innocent lives need to be destroyed before the blind application of 'Zero Tolerance' is replaced with some common fucking sense?

And how appropriate is it for a teacher to "shoot his mouth off" in a school, using the phrase "I need to kill 500 people", in any context? Sure, you might have thought it was nothing, but is it that unreasonable that someone took it the "wrong" way?

I really wouldn't find it that unreasonable to fire him just for that, charges notwithstanding. You run your mouth the wrong way, especially as a teacher, it's just poor form. Especially if you mention killing people, in any context.

As far as his life being ruined, I'm going to say the call, arrest, and trial, went exactly as they should have. His record is essentially clean. Yes, he went to trial, it is also marked that he was acquitted. For the wrongful termination based on that trial, I agree it is wrongful. That isn't the justice system's fault, that is the employer's fault.

Again, however, it boils down to him being careless and saying the wrong thing at the wrong time.

So the police are negligent for jumping the gun, he should Never have been charged! You know, all it would have taken was a little bit of actual POLICE WORK(!) rather than just leaving it up for the courts to clear up Their Mess. I really do despair at the way police investigations are conducted on the 100% assumption of guilt and they have NO INCENTIVE AT ALL for trying to determine innocence.

You are very confused as to the responsibilies of the police. Their job is to protect public safety first. If there is a potential threat, their first duty is to remove it. Jail is not prison. They then did an investigation, and the results of that investigation are what the jury used to determine innocence. That is the jury's responsibility.

Also, if the school decides to fire him for it, that is the school's call, not the legal system. I do think it is wrongful as he was proven innocent.

Snips

No, its a case of the legal system taking something out of context and people overreacting. At any point he could have explained that both him and the student talking about a game and common sense should have kicked in making people think "hang on, this guy was using humour and getting along with his students!".

You say he shouldn't have been talking about this sort of thing with his students. I say he should on the grounds that getting along and connecting with your students is key to being able to actually teach them. The teachers I learned the most from were the ones who i could talk to about skateboarding, tv, and more recently, gaming.

And hell, putting someone in jail for just saying something? For a month? That in itself is over the top. I mean, seriously? Every day i'm talking about killing americans (COD) or marines (halo wars). Occasionally i talk about planting a bomb (The saboteur). I get weird looks, but most people tend to either stick around and listen to the rest of the conversation to see what the hell i'm talking about or ignore it. Even the policeman that overheard me (and subsequently joined in).

But of course, you can act like we're outraged because its a case of video games and not nothing else. Because that's not asking to be flamed at all.

To prove a point, is anyone else here annoyed that the dude who got into sarah palins email was found guilty of unlawful access to a computer?

I'm done repeating myself. Read above.

As to your final question, however, he was found guilty of hacking, after... hacking. Nope, I'm not annoyed, that's pretty straightforward to me.

 

[Dogstile]

Snip

As to your final question, however, he was found guilty of hacking, after... hacking. Nope, I'm not annoyed, that's pretty straightforward to me.

Screw it, you're not gonna answer my points personally theres no point in talking to you at all.

Also, the hacking i'm fine with, the unlawful access to a computer was bull though as he never accessed her computer.. I was still annoyed. (He was charged on two things)

 

[Mr. Grey]

Hey, I never said it happened all of the time. I said it's stupid to push your luck, especially with something like this in a public school.

I agree that it was stupid (which is perhaps something I should have clarified; oh well), the point that others are making is that the reaction was more stupid by several magnitudes, performed by supposed professionals and had far more lasting damage than a mistaken comment made in passing. He shouldn't have said it though, so I won't argue with you on that point.

And decreasing the availability of firearms changes nothing. If they're that determined, they'll find a way to get it regardless or try a different method entirely, such as pipe bombs. Or makeshift flamethrowers. Hell, you can make mustard gas at home if you wanted to.

They can find a way. They most definitely can. But they won't, because people are stupid and lazy, and we are far more likely to simply acquire a ready-made weapon than manufacture one ourselves. There are those that would be determined enough to do what you suggest, but they are negligible in comparison to the mass of idiots that would just get a gun and be done with it. Hell, I know that if I had access to a gun, I would have killed plenty of people a long time ago, myself included. But I don't, and so I haven't, because I'm lazy and stupid, just like the people that shoot their unarmed classmates for the lulz. It's about not giving idiots the opportunity.

But all of this is irrelevant. I'm not going to change your mind, you're not going to change mine, and I've just wasted thirty minutes of my life typing something no-one is going to read. Move along, nothing to see here.

I agree that what they did was stupid as well, even more so -- which is something I should have clarified earlier on... however, people were saying he should sue, he has the ability to do so, etc. When he doesn't have a leg to stand on.

He can't sue anyone, the best he can do is draw attention to his wrongful conviction and lay blame on the bills/acts that allowed it to happen while also criticizing that city's - maybe it was the county's - particular police department for being thickheaded. However, as far as everyone is concerned currently, they did everything they could and there's nothing that's going to change that. Until he succeeds in drawing attention and actually manages to make some change, then he could have the grounds to sue.

I agree, it would deter the lazier... except these people got their guns from their parents. People who weren't paying attention to the signs and decided to leave their gun around for them to use. I'm sure they hid it, but let's be honest... these kids will find it. That's how they did it. The process to get one can be a ***** depending upon the state and even county, I have no idea the regulations in the particular county of Mr. Davis, but some of the ones that offenders have used were guns that were very difficult to get yet they worked to get it anyways. Like some inherent need to be something out of an action flick.

A .22 is a pathetic rifle and a pistol of the same caliber is only effective at point blank range from which it'll shred the insides of the brain as it ricochets in the skull because there isn't enough force to break through the other side of the skull. ... Why do I know these things? Regardless, it isn't a very effective weapon to bring to a school... or at least they won't get the "high score" they want. Then again there is that factor of "I have a gun, shut up and sit down!"

And I don't think you wasted it. I appreciated the intelligent retort, mine is more stubborn.

People take schools seriously, they don't sit on their asses when someone talks about killing people - be it even in a video game, sometimes especially depending upon the IQ of said person overhearing the conversation - they go and report it to prevent the next Columbine or Virginia Tech.

This is just plain hilarious. Firstly, if everyone who said they were going to kill someone was arrested, there wouldn't be a single person remaining. Humans after all do have a propensity for hyperbole. Secondly, the USA seems to be the only nation on the planet to not realise that decreasing the availability of firearms decreases shootings, not arresting people for singular remarks.

You'll be sorry when you take away our Second Amendment and thus our capability to apply pressure to our own government. When that is gone they can effectively declare themselves a military state and move on to the rest of the world! [/tinfoilhatmoment]

Hey, I never said it happened all of the time. I said it's stupid to push your luck, especially with something like this in a public school.

And decreasing the availability of firearms changes nothing. If they're that determined, they'll find a way to get it regardless or try a different method entirely, such as pipe bombs. Or makeshift flamethrowers. Hell, you can make mustard gas at home if you wanted to.

He's right in the sense that less guns = less gun crime (duh)

Look at UK where even coppers are unarmed. Better yet, look INSIDE A PRISON where guards and inmates are unarmed save for those in the watchtowers. That's not to say it is "safe" in UK or inside a prison walls. I don't like the "prison island" strategy of a disarmed populace, it strikes me as bad as the worst parts of the patriot act, trading individual liberty for collective safety.

The way I see it in USA the govt only has the power (if any) to restrict law-abiding citizens' access to guns. They cannot stop criminals being armed and disarming the average law abiding citizen in the time being - I agree - will only increase suffering and injustice.

American Criminals have also shown to be EXTREMELY resourceful. Just look at the incredibly productive "cottage industries" of crack cocaine cookers and crystal meth brewers. A similar level of technical expertise and resource input could be used in mass production of submachine guns (see WWII partisans) if the supply of black market pistols ever dries up.

USA has a huge border to police and virtually no real internal borders, which makes smuggling (as seen with drugs) a HUGE problem, that means any gun ban would never be that effective.

Are you in support of my statement? Or am I not conveying my points clearly enough...? Which I rarely do... why is that a problem with me? I'm probably just too tired to realise the points I'm actually making. I'll try to stay more focused.

 

[Nuke_em_05]

Snip

As to your final question, however, he was found guilty of hacking, after... hacking. Nope, I'm not annoyed, that's pretty straightforward to me.

Screw it, you're not gonna answer my points personally theres no point in talking to you at all.

Also, the hacking i'm fine with, the unlawful access to a computer was bull though as he never accessed her computer.. I was still annoyed. (He was charged on two things)

I could quote you at the top and say; "I'm responding to all of you". But since you seem to value a personal response; or are just looking for an easy opt-out; very well.

Snips

No, its a case of the legal system taking something out of context and people overreacting. At any point he could have explained that both him and the student talking about a game and common sense should have kicked in making people think "hang on, this guy was using humour and getting along with his students!".

You say he shouldn't have been talking about this sort of thing with his students. I say he should on the grounds that getting along and connecting with your students is key to being able to actually teach them. The teachers I learned the most from were the ones who i could talk to about skateboarding, tv, and more recently, gaming.

And hell, putting someone in jail for just saying something? For a month? That in itself is over the top. I mean, seriously? Every day i'm talking about killing americans (COD) or marines (halo wars). Occasionally i talk about planting a bomb (The saboteur). I get weird looks, but most people tend to either stick around and listen to the rest of the conversation to see what the hell i'm talking about or ignore it. Even the policeman that overheard me (and subsequently joined in).

But of course, you can act like we're outraged because its a case of video games and not nothing else. Because that's not asking to be flamed at all.

To prove a point, is anyone else here annoyed that the dude who got into sarah palins email was found guilty of unlawful access to a computer?

Guy shouldn't speak that way on the job anyway. Teachers are supposed to be role models.

And you're more likely to follow a role model that you can relate too.

we most probably couldn't care less if there weren't video games involved.

That's not the point. Sure it wouldn't have been brought to attention if games wern't involved, this is a gaming website after all, but i'd have been just as annoyed if he was talking about art and his drawing, or a media project.

As I said before, this is a case of public safety. In that situation, you remove a potential threat and then determine the accuracy. Hindsight; "because he was proven innocent, the arrest was wrong". Yes, he was proven innocent. If they had taken the time to determine that before arresting him and he had been a legitimate threat, it would have given him time to go through with it. If what the reporting party had heard was an actual threat, people would be praising them and the police right now. If the police hadn't responded as they did, innocent or no, people would be calling them "lazy police".

So, now that the repeating myself bit is done;

As for him relating to his students, that's great. However, he was venting about the stress of work to a student, which I would deem inappropriate. To be a role model is not to be a peer, and to be a true peer is impossible as a teacher; they are still an authority figure. Yes, you can play videogames with students; yes, you can talk about videogames with students. That's great. Venting about your job to students? I'm going to say that crosses the line. Specifically saying "I need to kill 500 people" as a teacher, in a school, to a student, within earshot of other students in any context, is just a dumb move.

Just because you, the student he was talking with, or I would understand what he was talking about; it isn't unreasonable for someone to overhear a teacher talking about needing to kill 500 people and feel a threat. For someone else, maybe they thought asking someone to clarify if they really intend to kill 500 actual people, might prompt the person if it is true to start with the one asking all the questions.

Yes, you talk about killing people in videogames all the time. You are not a teacher.

As for the Palin matter, you do realize that an e-mail server is a computer, yes?

 

[InvisibleMilk]

It is time...

And I just said that America has surprised me with the FBI stupidity.

Oh sir, you won hard. Real hard.