Jagex Busts Teen for School Shooting Comment

[chiefohara]

bloody idiot is after ruining his life because he wanted to be a 'hardman' on the internet.

If he's lucky the judge will recognise him for what he is... an idiot.

 

[Qizx]

That's odd, i always thought we'd first see thought crime prosecution in the UK.
Huh.

So if i say 'im going to blow up the white house', that line right there means a navy seal team can bust through my door and shoot me in the head? It's a credible threat, because my dad has petrol cans in the garage.

What the fuck, America? Apparently we have more rights here in Australia, a nanny state that even makes it a crime for young people to drive powerful cars.
I would not get my bail set at $50k if i drove my goddamn car into a school bus.

If you say "I'm going to blow up the white house tomorrow" and you are found to have large quantities of explosives and the ability to blow up the white house, then yes, you can be arrested. No you won't be shot in your head, unless you fight.
So many people are missing the point if I say "God I'm so mad I could kill someone." That's not illegal, I won't be prosecuted. If I say "God I'm so mad I could kill Tom Johnson in accounting tomorrow at lunch." and I have weapon clearly capable of doing it then YES I can be arrested and SHOULD be. It's all about what you say/intent/specificity. Just like saying I could eat a horse, won't make people think you're about to actually eat a horse, unless you have a stable and a grill fired up with a horse looking mighty sad next to it.

 

[Xarathox]

If we're going to start sentencing people with crimes they might commit, then we're gonna be here a long time.

Who has been sentenced so far exactly? He made a credible threat, and had the means and opportunity to carry out that threat, so he has been arrested while the investigation is underway.

With a bail of 50 grand.

That's ludicrous when dealing with a case where no actual crime has been committed.

And get off the means opportunity shite, that virtually applies to anyone who could make that threat in the US. If he owned weapons in a country where they are controlled, you might have a point. But his father owning a gun in the US is hardly damning evidence.

I'm sorry, but can you point to where it says that the First amendment protects your right to threaten someone? Serious question, because I am pretty sure it doesn't protect your right to threaten someone's life.

I didn't say anything about the first amendment.

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

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

Well that's just fucking silly.

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

 

[Childe]

They pretty much have him over a barrel

They had the intent, and by collecting the weapons from his home they found his means. All they had left was opportunity, which he said he was going to shoot the school up TOMORROW.

I suppose some retard in the justice system could drool on himself when they have a person with means and opportunity making threats and go "derrr well we ought to wait till he does somem I suppose..." and then let a few people die before arresting him...

I think this guy is an asshole, but the only thing keeping him under surveillance is the fear that he might do it. Not the actual evidence. They have no motive. Which just goes to show how fucked up American society had become. It runs on scaremongering. These are the things that American government will use as an excuse to spy on their citizens via internet. They're not even trying to solve the real problems behind mass shootings. This is what they do instead. CISPA just passed a few days ago by the way. And the proposed gun control regulations are a joke with a loophole large enough you could fit entire North American continent through it. The more scared the people are, the easier it is for them to give up their freedoms to feel a bit safer, instead of focusing their efforts on fixing the actual problems.

This case only managed to show people that joking online can get you in a serious trouble. Which just means that people who actually want to commit crimes like that are now less likely to talk about it online. It doesn't actually stop anyone from doing anything. My god, America is becoming a bigger shithole with each passing day.

I agree but you can't really call threatening to kill people a joke. Its not funny in any way. True he might not have meant it but there is no reason that anyone should ever say anything like this no matter how serious they are. Especially now after 3 or 4 mass shootings in the past what two years?

 

[rodneyy]

the thing is how do they tell if he is taking the piss or not?

he gave a time and a location meaning there was a short ammount of time to act.

they either act on the information or not. the line alone does not paint the picture of a nutter but the other things taken together make it a lot darker. if they had a longer time frame then maybe they could have gone slower or been less direct but seeing as he was probally posting after school so there was all of what 12-16 hours till it might start.

i dont know how many of you have seen the case of a couple of nutters who wanted to go abduct, rob and then kill a singer called Joss Stone. now they never managed to pull it off they were spotted by her neighbours and the police were called. they had all the stuff they would need to carry it out but they never managed to.
the only difference between these two cases imo is that they were caught just before they could commit the crime with wepons in hand, this guy was one stage earlier and had not picked up the guns he needed yet. it would take very little to move from one to the other.

p.s. i call those guys nutters as they assumed that as a singer who had been at a few partys and preformed for the royals she was somehow a close friend of the prices as opposed to one step up from a court jester.

 

[rob_simple]

The transcript provided to the local police reveal that Frongillo also made anti-Semitic comments and drew a "Nazi symbol" in-game.

Oh snap, I hope no one ever takes a look at my old Farmville farm...

Spoiler

OT: I know lawyers are generally regarded as a slimy bunch, but I don't know how anyone can dismiss 'I'm going to shoot my school up tomorrow' as just a 'harmless jest'.

 

[uchytjes]

You see this? This is why whenever I go out argue with people in "harmless" places (eg. 4chan and the youtube comments section (more the latter than the former)) I always avoid stuff such as what this kid was doing. I always keep the stuff on topics other than stuff like this and never refer to myself doing anything.

 

[Agayek]

Not really. You know those scumbags who threatened South Park over muhammad, they structured their threat in vague enough language such that it was legal. Peace of mind be damned

Except that it's explicitly illegal to threaten someone with violence.

That doesn't necessarily mean one can't find a loophole to wiggle around the law, but the spirit of the law most definitely is as I said.

 

[MrMixelPixel]

I'll keep an eye out on this. At the moment this seems completely ridiculous to me. I guess he forgot to preface that with... "I'm shooting up my school tomorrow. Jk."

 

[The Tibballs]

If we're going to start sentencing people with crimes they might commit, then we're gonna be here a long time.

Who has been sentenced so far exactly? He made a credible threat, and had the means and opportunity to carry out that threat, so he has been arrested while the investigation is underway.

With a bail of 50 grand.

That's ludicrous when dealing with a case where no actual crime has been committed.

And get off the means opportunity shite, that virtually applies to anyone who could make that threat in the US. If he owned weapons in a country where they are controlled, you might have a point. But his father owning a gun in the US is hardly damning evidence.

Also, I just looked at the article again. This happened in ENGLAND. Where you know...guns are 'controlled' ect?

So uh...what was that about me not having a point?

I'm not to sure how to feel about this, because who hasn't said "I would love to burn this school down" or "I'll fucking kill you"??
saying you're going to do something or even claiming you've done something is not/should not be a crime... Up to a point that is, if he had actual plans and/or had done other preparations to commit the crime then fine, lock him up, but if it was just him blowing off steam or even wishing/thinking about doing it then they should maybe give him a psychological test and send him on his way.

And to those advocating locking him up for thinking something, I didn't know thinking something was a crime.

A) He said "I'm shooting up my school tomorrow" that is a bit beyond idle fantasising. That is telling people you are planning on doing something.

B) He didnt think it. He was telling people what he was going to do. Telling people your plans to commit a crime is...surprise... a crime!

Ok then, watch this then.
I'm going on a killing spree tomorrow at my local maternity ward, I'll swim in the blood of new born babies and eat their faces off.

Now I have both the means and the opportunity to do these things, but without actual evidence of me planning to or committing an actual crime, I should not be arrested nor charged with a crime, because wishing something or wanting something to be in a free and civilised country is not and should never be a crime.

 

[IanDavis]

If we're going to start sentencing people with crimes they might commit, then we're gonna be here a long time.

Who has been sentenced so far exactly? He made a credible threat, and had the means and opportunity to carry out that threat, so he has been arrested while the investigation is underway.

With a bail of 50 grand.

That's ludicrous when dealing with a case where no actual crime has been committed.

And get off the means opportunity shite, that virtually applies to anyone who could make that threat in the US. If he owned weapons in a country where they are controlled, you might have a point. But his father owning a gun in the US is hardly damning evidence.

Also, I just looked at the article again. This happened in ENGLAND. Where you know...guns are 'controlled' ect?

Then how did his father legally own guns? And how was the bail 50,000 Dollars?

Either some information has been bungled up here or the entire story is bullshit.

New England is a weird place, where everything seems to be named identical to English locations. I was pretty confused myself, but if you look at the [a href=http://www.telegram.com/article/20130411/NEWS/130419919/1116]original story[/a], it's actually in North Oxford, Massachusetts. They even mention his [a href=https://maps.google.com/maps?q=44+Ennis+Road,+North+Oxford,&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x89e41cfa9063ff47:0xc894680f1cb68da4,44+Ennis+Rd,+North+Oxford,+MA+01537&gl=us&ei=_LJpUcKVGeLpygG8ooCgCg&ved=0CDMQ8gEwAA]home address[/a], which is totally legal but still really creepy.

 

[Compatriot Block]

So what exactly is the proper response to someone threatening to shoot up a school? Christ people, he wasn't charged with murder, he was charged with threatening to commit a crime, which he DID.

If nobody reported him, or the police didn't do anything, what if he was serious?

 

[StriderShinryu]

Personally, I'm quite glad this was taken as seriously as it was, by the players, the company and the police. In the examination of many massacres or attempted massacres, post event, it seems evidence is found of admissions being made through various online sources. While not everyone who makes such comments online is going to go out and follow up on their threats or comments, there is pretty clear evidence out there that some people who do make these comments do actually follow through. Also, given that an actual arrest was performed and charges laid, it's pretty likely that the police felt they had enough evidence to proceed.

 

[knight steel]

I don't know how to feel,on one hand this could have prevented a tragedy and the guys sounds horrible..........but on the other hand being arrested for an online comment and brought to trial,sounds really-really-really invasive I mean does that mean that someone who say's "I'm so angry I could kill someone" in the spur of the moment between friends can be arrested?

Difference is your example is a cliche at this point and would hardly be taken seriously.

Saying "I'm going to shoot up my school tomorrow" is an entirely different matter. It is supposed to invoke fear into people, and saying that he is going to do it tomorrow hints that he is actually planning it.

Also the fact that his household even has guns justifies the lawful action taken in my opinion. If he had no immediate access to firearms he probably would have gotten off a little lighter. Maybe a mark on his record and a fine or something.

If it was (let's not forget the Nazi symbols and anti Jew comments) they were off handed comments to make himself 'look cool' or whatever, then in my opinion he needs to be taught a lesson for it anyway. I'm pretty sure freedom of speech doesn't protect someone against racist abuse.

But what comment are enough to consider "serious" and by what standard do we measure them?
As I said I'm torn mostly over how far the action should go-keep an eye on the person and confiscate weapons-sounds fine,but a permanent mark on his record/house arrest?
I'm just asking for some guidelines is all.

 

[Rariow]

I for one am glad that he was at the very least reported. Even if the chances of him actually meaning to do it are slim, is it honestly worth risking the lives of innocents for it? Just look at it this way: What's worse, this douchebag being arrested for a crime he wasn't actually planning (This being the worst case scenario) to commit or another shooting? The response from the law doesn't seem that overblown either. What I'm getting from the article is they're investigating whether it was a credible threat (I.E. if he could've done it if he meant to) and whether it was an actual threat (I.E. if he actually meant to). As long as he isn't put in jail for a crime he didn't even mean to commit, I think this is reasonable. Plus, this way people may finally realize: No, the internet is NOT in fact anonymous. Everything you say on the internet can, with enough effort, be tracked back to you, and in some cases, used against you. The internet was a joke ten, fifteen years ago. Now it's a serious communication network, and is to be taken as seriously as other communication networks.

 

[Eri]

If we're going to start sentencing people with crimes they might commit, then we're gonna be here a long time.

Who has been sentenced so far exactly? He made a credible threat, and had the means and opportunity to carry out that threat, so he has been arrested while the investigation is underway.

With a bail of 50 grand.

That's ludicrous when dealing with a case where no actual crime has been committed.

And get off the means opportunity shite, that virtually applies to anyone who could make that threat in the US. If he owned weapons in a country where they are controlled, you might have a point. But his father owning a gun in the US is hardly damning evidence.

Whoawhoawhoawhoawhoa.
Wait, he was arrested for not actually doing anything?
I've now read this article slowly about 4 times and if someone could correct me that would be wonderful but it doesnt seem to me he actually did anything, yet was arrested.

I mean, not the most savory character, yeah okay.
But saying you are going to do something, and actually doing it are still two different things nowadays aren't they?

"Conspiracy to commit a crime" has been an arresting offense for quite a while.

More importantly, 50 grand bail? And it was paid?

Shit, his parents must be rolling in it.

Uh, you realize you only pay 10% of a bond price to get out right?