Siri Gives Teen a List of Schools after Saying He'd Shoot One Up

Grimlaking

2[H]4U
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
3,250
Because generally unless there's a public record like an arrest, anything else would be considered protected due to the person being a minor. The information that generally comes out after the fact is usually when the kid is either dead or people have leaked it while he's sitting in jail after having killed someone. Most of the time, you don't even get names when kids are involved in a lot of incidents.

edit: Have you ever even watched or read the news? "because the offender is a minor their name has not been released to the public" is pretty common, and usually when a child is a victim names get redacted without even making that statement.
So EVEN IF THERE IS NO CORROBORATING EVIDENCE. The lack of disclosed evidence (in this case we will call it Schrodinger's evidence because it both exists and doesn't exist until we see it.) means he is guilty.

If that is the case why is the president not in jail? His Schrodinger's evidence seems to be even MORE damning.

Why are you Not in jail? I could easily have Schrodinger's evidence against you.

or why am I not in jail for some Schrodinger's Evidence.

This reaction is either Knee Jerk or the police/agencies in question have credible evidence. Right now it seems very knee jerk and this kid is going to have to legally change his name to not be tied to this bullshit any more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kju1
like this

primetime

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
6,522
So EVEN IF THERE IS NO CORROBORATING EVIDENCE. The lack of disclosed evidence (in this case we will call it Schrodinger's evidence because it both exists and doesn't exist until we see it.) means he is guilty.

If that is the case why is the president not in jail? His Schrodinger's evidence seems to be even MORE damning.

Why are you Not in jail? I could easily have Schrodinger's evidence against you.

or why am I not in jail for some Schrodinger's Evidence.

This reaction is either Knee Jerk or the police/agencies in question have credible evidence. Right now it seems very knee jerk and this kid is going to have to legally change his name to not be tied to this bullshit any more.
to fucking bad! little brat and his dumbass parents.....better this than more gun control!!!!! :)
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
10,663
The job of a digital vocalized search engine is not to pass moral judgement. I think it worked within its parameters. Would you rather it called the police on you ala 1984 for wrongthink?
 

Grimlaking

2[H]4U
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
3,250
to fucking bad! little brat and his dumbass parents.....better this than more gun control!!!!! :)
Yes of course thought control is more important than gun control. Which is the slope that leads into a despotic regime leading our country I wonder.
 

kju1

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 27, 2002
Messages
3,124
Yes of course thought control is more important than gun control. Which is the slope that leads into a despotic regime leading our country I wonder.
When I went to HS (not all that long ago, well ok a little over a decade...) it was not uncommon for us to bring rifles to school property. We werent allowed to bring them in but we were allowed to go out and clean them and get them ready for our after school activities (hunting if you have to ask...).
 

Merc1138

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 25, 2010
Messages
2,123
So EVEN IF THERE IS NO CORROBORATING EVIDENCE. The lack of disclosed evidence (in this case we will call it Schrodinger's evidence because it both exists and doesn't exist until we see it.) means he is guilty.

If that is the case why is the president not in jail? His Schrodinger's evidence seems to be even MORE damning.

Why are you Not in jail? I could easily have Schrodinger's evidence against you.

or why am I not in jail for some Schrodinger's Evidence.

This reaction is either Knee Jerk or the police/agencies in question have credible evidence. Right now it seems very knee jerk and this kid is going to have to legally change his name to not be tied to this bullshit any more.
You don't understand how arrests work, do you?

Kid does dumb thing, gets arrested and charges are filed. The judge and/or jury are presented evidence and give a verdict. As far as whether or not he's in jail, that would depend on whether or not he gets released, can bond out, or gets held due to being a flight risk(which I doubt).

No matter how much you use caps, it doesn't change how our legal system works and to go through the courts. Being arrested or even having charges pressed is NOT equal to receiving a guilty verdict in court. The fact that such simple concepts regarding how the justice system works are somehow apparently missing from our education system is amazing. It's like you don't even understand what the hell a trial is. Police do not sentence people to jail.
 

HAL_404

Gawd
Joined
Dec 16, 2018
Messages
910
just imagine what AI, etc they have come up with at Lawrence Livermore National Labs, Los Alamos, etc
 

Exavior

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 13, 2005
Messages
9,683
You don't understand how arrests work, do you?

Kid does dumb thing, gets arrested and charges are filed. The judge and/or jury are presented evidence and give a verdict. As far as whether or not he's in jail, that would depend on whether or not he gets released, can bond out, or gets held due to being a flight risk(which I doubt).

No matter how much you use caps, it doesn't change how our legal system works and to go through the courts. Being arrested or even having charges pressed is NOT equal to receiving a guilty verdict in court. The fact that such simple concepts regarding how the justice system works are somehow apparently missing from our education system is amazing. It's like you don't even understand what the hell a trial is. Police do not sentence people to jail.
You didn't know, you can't arrest somebody until they already went to trail and were found guilty. It is just like collecting evidence. The police and judge can't collect any evidence from anyone that hasn't already been found guilty. Otherwise trying to collect said evidence is a violation of your rights. In fact you can't bring up the name of the person or anything about them in the court of law until a jury finds them guilty as again that is a violation of their rights also as if they aren't guilty you are going to ruin their lives. Wouldn't be surprised if these people you are trying to talk too weren't the same idiots that tried to argue these points a few months back on another case.
 

Merc1138

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 25, 2010
Messages
2,123
You didn't know, you can't arrest somebody until they already went to trail and were found guilty. It is just like collecting evidence. The police and judge can't collect any evidence from anyone that hasn't already been found guilty. Otherwise trying to collect said evidence is a violation of your rights. In fact you can't bring up the name of the person or anything about them in the court of law until a jury finds them guilty as again that is a violation of their rights also as if they aren't guilty you are going to ruin their lives. Wouldn't be surprised if these people you are trying to talk too weren't the same idiots that tried to argue these points a few months back on another case.
My sarcasm detector failed for a moment when I started reading your post.
 

Exavior

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 13, 2005
Messages
9,683
My sarcasm detector failed for a moment when I started reading your post.
How much do I owe you to get it fixed?

It is amazing how stupid some people could be. As you tried to point out people seem to get confused on being arrested and being sentenced. Although I am not 100% sure that it is the education system that is the issue. Some people are just 100% against police or any actions being illegal.
 

kju1

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 27, 2002
Messages
3,124
How much do I owe you to get it fixed?

It is amazing how stupid some people could be. As you tried to point out people seem to get confused on being arrested and being sentenced. Although I am not 100% sure that it is the education system that is the issue. Some people are just 100% against police or any actions being illegal.
And some of us just believe there should be a little common sense instead of knee jerk reactions. Posting in bad taste by the kid...sure. Illegal? Nope. It should have just resulted in a friendly visit asking him wtf not an arrest or a charge. Way overkill. Also worth noting the friggen URL is click bait as hell "https://www.dailydot.com/debug/teen-siri-school-shooting/"

Whats next? Arresting a 5 year old for bring a fork to school because were afraid hes going to stab someone with it?
 

Exavior

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 13, 2005
Messages
9,683
And some of us just believe there should be a little common sense instead of knee jerk reactions. Posting in bad taste by the kid...sure. Illegal? Nope. It should have just resulted in a friendly visit asking him wtf not an arrest or a charge. Way overkill. Also worth noting the friggen URL is click bait as hell "https://www.dailydot.com/debug/teen-siri-school-shooting/"

Whats next? Arresting a 5 year old for bring a fork to school because were afraid hes going to stab someone with it?
But without taking the kid in and questioning them they have no idea how real the threat is. In the past 3 or 4 years this school system has been on lock down or outright cancelled school due to bomb threats, calls threating to shot up the school, somebody writing on the wall that they had placed explosives in the school and if you didn't want to be a statistic stay home over a two day period, hell back in December their last week before Christmas they put the school on lockdown as somebody threated to kill his classmates. So if somebody posts a picture of guns saying they are going to shot up a school, I think the police should question them. And should be doing it in a way that scares them about their actions. They have to make sure that the kid doesn't actually have guns or access to guns. We are talking about a semi rural area here, most people have guns as many people hunt, or they go a few towns closer to Chicago on a regular enough basis that they need protection. If they don't have guns themselves then most likely their friends or family have guns, or they have easy access to guns. There is a guy that walks around with a AK-47 because he can, I honestly don't know why and just shake my head seeing him walk around town while shopping with it as that is overkill for the area but since he can legally open carry he does so and that is his choice for open carry.
 

kju1

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 27, 2002
Messages
3,124
But without taking the kid in and questioning them they have no idea how real the threat is. In the past 3 or 4 years this school system has been on lock down or outright cancelled school due to bomb threats, calls threating to shot up the school, somebody writing on the wall that they had placed explosives in the school and if you didn't want to be a statistic stay home over a two day period, hell back in December their last week before Christmas they put the school on lockdown as somebody threated to kill his classmates. So if somebody posts a picture of guns saying they are going to shot up a school, I think the police should question them. And should be doing it in a way that scares them about their actions. They have to make sure that the kid doesn't actually have guns or access to guns. We are talking about a semi rural area here, most people have guns as many people hunt, or they go a few towns closer to Chicago on a regular enough basis that they need protection. If they don't have guns themselves then most likely their friends or family have guns, or they have easy access to guns. There is a guy that walks around with a AK-47 because he can, I honestly don't know why and just shake my head seeing him walk around town while shopping with it as that is overkill for the area but since he can legally open carry he does so and that is his choice for open carry.
No they did not have to pull him in for questioning. They could have done it in his house with his parents present. Also they didnt have to charge him with anything...and they did.
 

Merc1138

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 25, 2010
Messages
2,123
No they did not have to pull him in for questioning. They could have done it in his house with his parents present. Also they didnt have to charge him with anything...and they did.
So you're asking for the police to not investigate it? Just have a little sit down in the living room with his parents?
 

kju1

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 27, 2002
Messages
3,124
So you're asking for the police to not investigate it? Just have a little sit down in the living room with his parents?
That IS investigating. What exactly do you think they did besides ask him some questions in the station? Nothing that couldnt be done at his house except for the fact that some police seem to like to terrorize people these days.
 

Merc1138

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 25, 2010
Messages
2,123
That IS investigating. What exactly do you think they did besides ask him some questions in the station? Nothing that couldnt be done at his house except for the fact that some police seem to like to terrorize people these days.
Except the fact that you cannot get a deposition in someone's house, and assuming that's all they wanted and nothing else like access to accounts, they can't get to any of that without pressing charges. You're under the assumption that parents will just automatically cooperate. Newsflash: they don't always do that. Again, you can find incidents with parents of children who have done psychotic shit on the news with video claiming "my poor sweet baby angel couldn't hurt a fly".

It's also amazing how you as well seem to have no idea how the justice system works.

If there's no charge, then how are the police supposed to collect evidence? If there's no crime to investigate, then what would the police be investigating? They need warrants for that. If the police do not collect evidence when possible, or the chain of custody of that evidence is broken, and the kid eventually does do something, then you run the risk of a bunch of it being in-admissable in court or end up having to charge somebody with tampering assuming that can even be proven. This isn't a matter of evil police putting boots on the back of some kid's neck before tossing him in cuffs into the back of a squad car. There are strict procedures for how our court system works, and this crap is covered in highschool.

How are you guys so unaware of this? It's not a secret, and the basic concepts aren't even that complex.
 

kju1

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 27, 2002
Messages
3,124
Except the fact that you cannot get a deposition in someone's house, and assuming that's all they wanted and nothing else like access to accounts, they can't get to any of that without pressing charges. You're under the assumption that parents will just automatically cooperate. Newsflash: they don't always do that. Again, you can find incidents with parents of children who have done psychotic shit on the news with video claiming "my poor sweet baby angel couldn't hurt a fly".

It's also amazing how you as well seem to have no idea how the justice system works.

If there's no charge, then how are the police supposed to collect evidence? If there's no crime to investigate, then what would the police be investigating? They need warrants for that. If the police do not collect evidence when possible, or the chain of custody of that evidence is broken, and the kid eventually does do something, then you run the risk of a bunch of it being in-admissable in court or end up having to charge somebody with tampering assuming that can even be proven. This isn't a matter of evil police putting boots on the back of some kid's neck before tossing him in cuffs into the back of a squad car. There are strict procedures for how our court system works, and this crap is covered in highschool.

How are you guys so unaware of this? It's not a secret, and the basic concepts aren't even that complex.
Actually its you who are displaying a lack of understanding of the American judicial system. Its also amazing how you think they need to jump right to a deposition and charges rather than asking simple questions first. A deposition isnt part of an initial investigation to determine if a crime was being committed. A deposition is a sworn statement that is admissible in court - definitions and procedures vary by jurisdiction. Statements given to police are not inadmissible in court in and of themselves. Thats what your Miranda rights are for or dont you understand that? Remember anything you say may be used against you in a court of law? Here let me link you to it so you understand them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning Depositions are usually for when witnesses cannot appear in court.

Oh and the fact that the police are investigating doesn't automatically mean that a crime has been committed...you clearly don't understand how the system works if you think that's the case. Sometimes it can be but the whole point of investigating is to determine if what appears to be a crime is indeed what it looks like. The police investigate SUSPICIONS of crimes and collect evidence before they file charges (actually I believe the DA is typically the one agreeing to file..but varies by jurisdiction I think ). Filing charges is an official government record WITH supporting evidence stating they believe a crime has occurred and heres the potential proof. Its not like I can call the police up and say Merc1138 sexually assaulted and me they jump straight to charging you with sexual assault so they can investigate. Nope they open a case and start asking questions. First of me and then if they are satisfied theres enough to go on maybe of you and other people etc etc. They do not just haul your ass in and charge you with a crime.

Also a defendant in a criminal case, which this would be, CANNOT be deposed (that is to give a deposition) without his or her consent due to the 5th amendment. Or didnt you know that?

You're right in one part - there are strict procedures for how our systems work but you're putting the cart way before the horse here. So once again: The police didnt have to arrest him and then file papers to charge him when this all could have been resolved with a simple visit and talking with the kid and his parents. If they refused to cooperate then *maybe* but they didnt have much to go on. A single post is so insubstantial I am shocked any sane person would think it constitutes an actual threat by itself without any other supporting evidence or patterns.

I will grant we dont know if the police tried to ask the parents to talk to the child but I would also bet money they didnt. I would bet they just grabbed him under the usual we can hold anyone for 24 hours under reasonable suspicion. Then they worked on scaring the shit out of the kid to get a confession. It happens ALL the time and its lazy police work for which there is NO EXCUSE. This is not how the system is supposed to work. They quite possibly just created a new criminal instead of handling it better and maybe even seeing why the kid was saying something like that. Maybe the kid just wanted attention (cry for help etc).
 

Merc1138

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 25, 2010
Messages
2,123
Actually its you who are displaying a lack of understanding of the American judicial system. Its also amazing how you think they need to jump right to a deposition and charges rather than asking simple questions first. A deposition isnt part of an initial investigation to determine if a crime was being committed. A deposition is a sworn statement that is admissible in court - definitions and procedures vary by jurisdiction. Statements given to police are not inadmissible in court in and of themselves. Thats what your Miranda rights are for or dont you understand that? Remember anything you say may be used against you in a court of law? Here let me link you to it so you understand them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning Depositions are usually for when witnesses cannot appear in court.

Oh and the fact that the police are investigating doesn't automatically mean that a crime has been committed...you clearly don't understand how the system works if you think that's the case. Sometimes it can be but the whole point of investigating is to determine if what appears to be a crime is indeed what it looks like. The police investigate SUSPICIONS of crimes and collect evidence before they file charges (actually I believe the DA is typically the one agreeing to file..but varies by jurisdiction I think ). Filing charges is an official government record WITH supporting evidence stating they believe a crime has occurred and heres the potential proof. Its not like I can call the police up and say Merc1138 sexually assaulted and me they jump straight to charging you with sexual assault so they can investigate. Nope they open a case and start asking questions. First of me and then if they are satisfied theres enough to go on maybe of you and other people etc etc. They do not just haul your ass in and charge you with a crime.

Also a defendant in a criminal case, which this would be, CANNOT be deposed (that is to give a deposition) without his or her consent due to the 5th amendment. Or didnt you know that?

You're right in one part - there are strict procedures for how our systems work but you're putting the cart way before the horse here. So once again: The police didnt have to arrest him and then file papers to charge him when this all could have been resolved with a simple visit and talking with the kid and his parents. If they refused to cooperate then *maybe* but they didnt have much to go on. A single post is so insubstantial I am shocked any sane person would think it constitutes an actual threat by itself without any other supporting evidence or patterns.

I will grant we dont know if the police tried to ask the parents to talk to the child but I would also bet money they didnt. I would bet they just grabbed him under the usual we can hold anyone for 24 hours under reasonable suspicion. Then they worked on scaring the shit out of the kid to get a confession. It happens ALL the time and its lazy police work for which there is NO EXCUSE. This is not how the system is supposed to work. They quite possibly just created a new criminal instead of handling it better and maybe even seeing why the kid was saying something like that. Maybe the kid just wanted attention (cry for help etc).
Claims to be an expert in the judicial system after showing anything but, yet continues to claiming the cops just "grab" people for 24 hours.

We have a system in this country, it works when utilized. You want it ignored, and you'll likely be one of the first screaming next time something happens "WHY DIDN'T THEY DO SOMETHING" or "Well, everyone else gets to lose rights because of children".
 

kju1

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 27, 2002
Messages
3,124
Claims to be an expert in the judicial system after showing anything but, yet continues to claiming the cops just "grab" people for 24 hours.

We have a system in this country, it works when utilized. You want it ignored, and you'll likely be one of the first screaming next time something happens "WHY DIDN'T THEY DO SOMETHING" or "Well, everyone else gets to lose rights because of children".
No you are putting words in my mouth (err post). Nowhere in my post did I claim to be an expert. I simply took your incorrect statements and proved you wrong. I am sorry if that hurt your feelings.

Oh and since I am all for being correct...I will point out one error I did make. Its not 24 hours its 48 per County of Riverside v. McLaughlin (89-1817), 500 U.S. 44 (1991). https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/89-1817.ZO.html Its actually quite common for the police to arrest someone and hold them while they sort out if they can charge you with a crime or not. There hare been lots of court cases about this all you need to do is understand the system to see how this works, you dont even need to be an expert.

Yes we do have a system. One you clearly dont understand and didnt even try to address the points in my post which actually do point out rights you have under said system. I am not a take away rights person (far from it). If I was I would be saying slap the kids ass in jail for life because we cant risk the kids oh noes! No I am saying there has to be a reasonable balance between the kids rights and protecting our schools. One which I clearly think has gone far too much in the direction of react first and ask questions later. Charging that kid with a crime has just created a potential life long criminal or at the very least someone with a good dose of trauma.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nenu
like this

mope54

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 2, 2004
Messages
7,437
And the alternative is to ignore when stuff like this happens and then when some kid actually shoots up their school all of sudden parents, the media, politicians, jackasses on the internet, are all screaming about the police ignoring threats and allowing the shooting to happen. Then police lose jobs, chiefs need to resign, and people push for even more worthless "solutions". There are no good options in these situations but the best option is for police to treat all of these cases as real, potential, threats.
No, the alternative is not, "do nothing." The alternative is all kinds of things other than the failed policy of "educating" juveniles in juvie alongside actual criminals.

They could, and should, have involuntarily committed him, evaluated his mental health, and then released him to community resources. It's not rocket science and we've had data for what works and what doesn't when it comes to kids for a very long time...whether we have the political will to do those strategies is another matter.

The worst part of this is the police stating that they already assessed this as *not* a credible threat so it's pointless and overly punitive to treat it as a real threat.
 

YeuEmMaiMai

Death Incarnate
Joined
Jun 11, 2004
Messages
17,463
so, did they arrest Siri (Apple) for being an accomplice since they provided said list?
 

Exavior

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 13, 2005
Messages
9,683
No, the alternative is not, "do nothing." The alternative is all kinds of things other than the failed policy of "educating" juveniles in juvie alongside actual criminals.

They could, and should, have involuntarily committed him, evaluated his mental health, and then released him to community resources. It's not rocket science and we've had data for what works and what doesn't when it comes to kids for a very long time...whether we have the political will to do those strategies is another matter.

The worst part of this is the police stating that they already assessed this as *not* a credible threat so it's pointless and overly punitive to treat it as a real threat.
While the 5 kids here talking about shooting up schools might not have had any real intent to shoot up the schools. They were all still engaging in an act that could cause people to become scared as they have no idea at the time how serious these 5 boys were being.

Do me a favor, tonight when you get off work stop by your local bank branch. Go inside and yell for everyone to get on the ground and for the tellers to give you all the money as you have a bomb and will blow everyone up if your demands aren't meet. After everyone starts to follow your demand, laugh and tell them that you are just joking around and just with drawl $20 from your checking account. See if you are allowed to just go upon your day without a visit from the police. Even though your threat might not have been real, you still made a threatening statement in public that caused people to think it was real. Just like how you can't yell fire in a public location when there is no fire because again you are causing panic. That is the part where these boys are getting in trouble here. Are they going to serve 20 years in juvie then prison? No. Most likely if found guilty of any crimes they will get a stern talking to by a judge, do some community service and maybe spend a little bit of time in juvie (days not months or years). All of these boys are probably already back home with their families.
 

c3k

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 8, 2007
Messages
2,141
While the 5 kids here talking about shooting up schools might not have had any real intent to shoot up the schools. They were all still engaging in an act that could cause people to become scared as they have no idea at the time how serious these 5 boys were being.

Do me a favor, tonight when you get off work stop by your local bank branch. Go inside and yell for everyone to get on the ground and for the tellers to give you all the money as you have a bomb and will blow everyone up if your demands aren't meet. After everyone starts to follow your demand, laugh and tell them that you are just joking around and just with drawl $20 from your checking account. See if you are allowed to just go upon your day without a visit from the police. Even though your threat might not have been real, you still made a threatening statement in public that caused people to think it was real. Just like how you can't yell fire in a public location when there is no fire because again you are causing panic. That is the part where these boys are getting in trouble here. Are they going to serve 20 years in juvie then prison? No. Most likely if found guilty of any crimes they will get a stern talking to by a judge, do some community service and maybe spend a little bit of time in juvie (days not months or years). All of these boys are probably already back home with their families.
Your analogy is deeply flawed.

The kid did not make a direct threat. Running into a bank and performing the acts you specify does constitute a direct threat.

If I asked Siri, "I want to rob a bank" and it put out a list of nearby banks, and I then "Lolled" and screenshotted that exchange, should I be arrested for "trying to rob a bank?"

If I see a tall, strongly built guy walking towards me, and his presence "makes me scared", should he be arrested?
 

YeuEmMaiMai

Death Incarnate
Joined
Jun 11, 2004
Messages
17,463
Your analogy is deeply flawed.

The kid did not make a direct threat. Running into a bank and performing the acts you specify does constitute a direct threat.

If I asked Siri, "I want to rob a bank" and it put out a list of nearby banks, and I then "Lolled" and screenshotted that exchange, should I be arrested for "trying to rob a bank?"

If I see a tall, strongly built guy walking towards me, and his presence "makes me scared", should he be arrested?
in today's world, absolutely :p
 
  • Like
Reactions: c3k
like this

Exavior

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 13, 2005
Messages
9,683
Your analogy is deeply flawed.

The kid did not make a direct threat. Running into a bank and performing the acts you specify does constitute a direct threat.

If I asked Siri, "I want to rob a bank" and it put out a list of nearby banks, and I then "Lolled" and screenshotted that exchange, should I be arrested for "trying to rob a bank?"

If I see a tall, strongly built guy walking towards me, and his presence "makes me scared", should he be arrested?
But you ignore that he made the post with a picture of some guns and then it turned into a longer discussion. THAT is the issue here. The fact that he made it appear that he had his guns ready to go and do this. The boys then joked about shooting up a school. There is a different between a meme and a joke "fake" planning of a school shooting.

To fix this to your example then, you asked Siri for a list of banks to rob, then post that along with a picture of a kitchen table covered with bullet proof armor, a ski mask, c4 and guns. Your friend then post a picture of guns and a mask also and said "I am ready, which one are we going to hit first?". All the while a 3rd friend post that he will drive the get away vehicle for you for a 10% share of the money. You then continue this exchange planning a fake bank robbery, when it will happen, what you will do, how you will get away...
 

mope54

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 2, 2004
Messages
7,437
None of your analogy matters because, for whatever reasons, you can't distinguish between police questioning a suspect rather than immediately arresting the suspect. In addition, I provided an alternative pathway to incapacitate a minor without an immediate result of a criminal charge.

You clearly have no idea how the criminal justice system works (or its dysfunctions) so I'm not sure debating the merits of what did or didn't happen is going to prove a fruitful discussion. My experience so far is that you'd be a reluctant student of the facts, so instead I'll just move past that and express that incapacitating someone under a mental health hold does exactly the same thing as incapacitating someone in a jail setting--without the trauma or life-altering consequences of a criminal record.

There isn't a single justification for what you are arguing other than utter disregard of the life-course impacts this reaction will have on a 13 year old child. A sane policy would seek the least harmful way to restrict one's ability to do the thing we're worried about them doing. This is in fact the policy of courts across the nation and jail/prison administrators because we (legal professionals) know the literal consequences of over-punishment. If you'd like a 200 year old perspective on it, read Beccaria's On Crimes and Punishments. I've even dug a free link up for you to read through it in case I'm wrong about that assessment that you'd be a reluctant student:
https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/beccaria-an-essay-on-crimes-and-punishments

Lastly, in order for your analogy to even have a chance at working you'd also need to include the police officers' assessment that what I did or didn't do was in fact a joke but that they were going to take me into custody anyway because jokes like that aren't funny--because that's what their official statement was in this case.
 

kju1

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 27, 2002
Messages
3,124
But you ignore that he made the post with a picture of some guns and then it turned into a longer discussion. THAT is the issue here. The fact that he made it appear that he had his guns ready to go and do this. The boys then joked about shooting up a school. There is a different between a meme and a joke "fake" planning of a school shooting.

To fix this to your example then, you asked Siri for a list of banks to rob, then post that along with a picture of a kitchen table covered with bullet proof armor, a ski mask, c4 and guns. Your friend then post a picture of guns and a mask also and said "I am ready, which one are we going to hit first?". All the while a 3rd friend post that he will drive the get away vehicle for you for a 10% share of the money. You then continue this exchange planning a fake bank robbery, when it will happen, what you will do, how you will get away...
Your analogy is still way overkill compared to what this kid did. Youd have to stop at asking siri for a list of banks to rob and posting that on social media. Because thats ALL he did.
 
D

Deleted member 222586

Guest
And the alternative is to ignore when stuff like this happens and then when some kid actually shoots up their school all of sudden parents, the media, politicians, jackasses on the internet, are all screaming about the police ignoring threats and allowing the shooting to happen. Then police lose jobs, chiefs need to resign, and people push for even more worthless "solutions". There are no good options in these situations but the best option is for police to treat all of these cases as real, potential, threats.
The alternative is to check WTF is going on first.

Also, why should he be charged? Do you get charged for what the authorities thought it happend or for what it actually happened? Either this kid wanted to go for a school or not. And because he wasn't, why should he have any records now? It makes 0 sense. A stupid tweet has possibly ruined his life, when no harm was done nor intended.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kju1
like this
Top