PDA

View Full Version : Thought Criminals, Be careful what you write


ckerian
April 18th, 2007, 11:26 PM
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/12388027/detail.html

The pussification of america continues...

BOULDER, Colo. -- A University of Colorado junior has been arrested, and suspended from school, after allegedly making comments that sounded sympathetic to the Virginia Tech gunman.

Mixerpuppet
April 19th, 2007, 03:55 AM
Yes..

make sure you give your victims no warning of the impending massacre...

A new twist on probable cause perhaps?

Technically if your write it, say it or film it the police have probably cause to at least investigate.

Our society is broken and laws can't fix that.

Fulcrum
April 19th, 2007, 01:18 PM
Welcome to "Minority Report", a few years early.

E. Shaun
April 19th, 2007, 02:25 PM
What a lot of people don't seem to realize is that these things ARE going to happen. They always have, and always will...they've just had different forms in the past. Some people will always boil over and paint their hatred in the blood of innocents.

Seeing some young guy arrested for mere questionable comments is a major affront to freedom of speech...a far more worth case than the Imus one in the other thread, in my opinion.

It's entirely possible that the guy who said these comments is a murderer-to-be...but there is no more slippery slope than punishing someone for stating an opinion...and that's all this really was. It's not like he said, "I'm going to go kill some people." THAT would be probable cause.

Johnny
April 19th, 2007, 03:04 PM
Arresting him: outrageous violation of liberty.
Investigating him: perfectly reasonable, had his comments warranted it. But they didn't.

This raises an interesting question about the treatment of criminals. If the rehabilitation of the criminal is the state's function, mediated by psychologists, it makes sense to rehabilitate him before he actually harms anyone.

sqkychair
April 19th, 2007, 03:22 PM
Here's a Darwin award candidate for you.

Some little genius brought a toy gun to my kid's high school yesterday.

Aardvark
April 19th, 2007, 03:28 PM
...If the rehabilitation of the criminal is the state's function, mediated by psychologists, it makes sense to rehabilitate him before he actually harms anyone.

:Uh oh::Uh oh::Uh oh::Roll eyes:

Read that out loud to yourself. It makes no sense from either a linguistic, common sense or moral point of view.

Prevention is not rehabilitation and supposition of potential criminal culpability is both unfair and untenable.


Cheers,
Aardvark

:Confused:

sqkychair
April 19th, 2007, 03:45 PM
I know there are certain topics I am reluctant to Google.

I am pretty sure nothing would happen, but who knows what wierd little list you could end up on?

Sad state of affairs, actually.

Kenny Gioia
April 19th, 2007, 03:50 PM
Seeing some young guy arrested for mere questionable comments is a major affront to freedom of speech...a far more worth case than the Imus one in the other thread, in my opinion.



But you missed my point.

I attest that this kid was arrested because of the Imus incident.

If you fire Imus, you have to do even worse to this kid. Right?

Precedent.

Slippery Slope defined!!

Johnny
April 19th, 2007, 04:00 PM
Prevention is not rehabilitation and supposition of potential criminal culpability is both unfair and untenable.

I agree with you. My point is that the presuppositions upon which
we are trying to operate open the door for this sort of thing. Why not rehabilitate those who have been identified as having criminal tendencies before they commit a crime? Especially since we now judge a man's intentions as well as his actions? The people who arrested this kid think that his thinking is as criminal as the action he described.

ckerian
April 19th, 2007, 04:43 PM
This kid arrested is out on his own recogniscence (why cant I spell?). He's a good kid. real sharp, questions authority, an engaging conversationalist, has friends.

It's the reactionary world we live in I guess.

This psycho in VA was pretty rare. BUT, they'll use this as an excuse to pigeon hole and identify troublesd and mentally unstable kids everywhere. Which scares me because who the fck is anyone to say who is and who isnt mentally fit.

The kid was on anti-depressents.

As were kleybold and harris as well as any other mass murderer. Thats the common thread in all these child drowning or mass murder cases... Meds.

Mixerpuppet
April 19th, 2007, 06:02 PM
Seeing some young guy arrested for mere questionable comments is a major affront to freedom of speech...a far more worth case than the Imus one in the other thread, in my opinion.


This goes back to your "We have the right to offend you" thread...

I think in the context of Columbine, Virgina Tech, 9-11, etc...

that were on a slippery slope.

Slippery because we keep changing the standards...

What exactly do we expect the goverment agencies to do?

We berate them for infringing on our rights of privacy and free speech and then grab a rope for lynching government officials because they didn't act upon the warning signs?

Should the schools defense against the impending lawsuits about not acting BEFORE the massacre be "we were protecting Cho Seung-Hui's free speech and right to privacy"?

What about finding a diary where someone like Hitler wrote about his thoughts? "I'd like to kill all the jews in horrible ways"

What about trying to prevent another 9-11?

Should we even both trying to stop terrorism or just sit back and wait since researching and investigating plots to mass murder are protected by both freedom of speech and right to privacy?

What about pedophiles who are plotting to kidnap children and rape them on video? If you hear or read about somebody wanting to do that, is it to be ignored or not investigated because it infringes upon the freedom of speech and right to privacy for the pedophile?

The NBC's series to catch a predator looks alarmingly like entrapment but as long as were catching bad guys were all ok with it right? Arrested and registered as a sex offender because laws written to target "intent" rather than "committed".

The First and Fourth Amendments are pretty plain until you try to define what is unreasonable and what constitutes probable cause.

A criminals definition is different mind you...

Larry Flynt vs Ohio etc...


The Student in Denver.... said:
fluorescent light bulbs to the unpainted walls, and it made him angry enough to kill people

If light bulbs make you want to kill people and you talk about it openly then there are issues...

It's well known fact that too many people die because the system in place to handle mentally unstable people is underfunded and in many cases broken.

Cho Seung-Hui needed help and he and the people at VT were let down.


After the second stalking complaint and a suitemate's reports he might be suicidal, the campus police obtained a temporary detention order, and Cho was evaluated at a mental health facility in December 2005.

Following the evaluation, a magistrate determined that Cho was "an imminent danger to himself because of mental illness" and ordered outpatient treatment for the disturbed young man, according to court documents filed at the time.

A medical examination found that Cho "denies suicidal ideations. He does not acknowledge symptoms of a thought disorder. His insight and judgment are normal," according to the court papers.

On the court order, Paul M. Barnett, a special justice, checked a box that said Cho "presents an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness" but did not check the box that would indicate he was a danger to others.

Sending a suicidal person to an outpatient treatment is as stupid as stupid gets. Then you add the other indicators and its clearly a broken an monumentally screwed up system.





So the basic question I ask is this:

Are threats to commit crimes protected under the first Amendment?




The cases hold that government may not punish profane, vulgar, or opprobrious words simply because they are offensive, but only if they are ''fighting words'' that do have a direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the person to whom they are directed. Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U.S. 518 (1972); Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105 (1973); Lewis v. City of New Orleans, 415 U.S. 130 (1974); Lucas v. Arkansas, 416 U.S. 919 (1974); Kelly v. Ohio, 416 U.S. 923 (1974); Karlan v. City of Cincinnati, 416 U.S. 924 (1974); Rosen v. California, 416 U.S. 924 (1974); and see Eaton v. City of Tulsa, 416 U.S. 697 (1974).



But in the case of Imus... (which I believe is a completely different issue)

Where is the ALCU?

http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12808pub19941231.html

The ALCU agree's with you Kenny :)

Freedom is a two edged sword.

But I see our freedom of speech slowly being erroded by special rights groups. Even the internet is moderated, censored and policed by enemies of the first amendment.

Can companies make rules that violate your constitutional rights?

The Supreme Court once used a litmus test to determine whether something was protected or not. It was whether or not the speech or art had any socially redeeming value. But then again that is a completely subjective thing...

For a 15 year old boy... porn is definitely socially redeeming!

Johnny,
I think Ardie is saying that "Rehab" is the wrong word tense wise...

try another word :)



Ironically I do not allow freedom of expression in my house...

rockdart
April 19th, 2007, 06:10 PM
if a dieter looks at a donut, wants to eat it, but doesn't, has the dieter failed in his diet?

if a man looks at another woman who isn't his spouse and has an impulse but doesn't act upon it, is he an adulterer?

If a person thinks about driving 100mph on a freeway, but doesn't, should he get a speeding ticket?

If a person thinks about which lottery numbers he'd like to play, but doesn't, and those numbers win, should he get paid?

Could Don Imus be the biggest freaking straw man ever in the world?

Kenny Gioia
April 19th, 2007, 07:05 PM
Great points Mixerpuppet.

We live in a society that survives on the belief that most people will not lose their fucking mind and take out 2 dozen people with them.

You can't prevent any of this.

This incident will cause millions of dollars to be spent but will never prevent this from happening again.

Not giving this guy publicity and feeding the next guy with ideas would have been a hell of a lot more useful. But what fun is that?

All hail NBC for waiting a full 8 hours before releasing the videos. That must have been some really tough soul searching for those executives. :Roll eyes:

Any one of us could commit atrocities 10X as bad as this tomorrow. The only thing that keeps us safe and helps us sleep at night is knowing that most people have no desire to do it. That's all.

Peace.

Kenny Gioia
April 19th, 2007, 07:08 PM
This psycho in VA was pretty rare. BUT, they'll use this as an excuse to pigeon hole and identify troublesd and mentally unstable kids everywhere. Which scares me because who the fck is anyone to say who is and who isnt mentally fit.



Exactly. I remember one paranoid member of the MARSH that used to get so involved in conspiracy theories that he had his own forum.

That guy should worry. :lol:

Kenny Gioia
April 19th, 2007, 07:21 PM
The NBC's series to catch a predator looks alarmingly like entrapment but as long as were catching bad guys were all ok with it right? Arrested and registered as a sex offender because laws written to target "intent" rather than "committed".



I have to disagree with you here.

The "Perverted Justice" website takes great care to not initiate conversation. They merely enter chatrooms disguised as young children and wait for Pedophiles to contact them.

I do see your point but the law defines Entrapment as going after people who had no plans of otherwise commiting that crime.

Any of us could possibly be entrapped to being with a hooker for sexual relief or selling drugs for quick easy cash.

Who could argue that you went to a child's home for the purpose of having sex just because the child asked you too?

Unless a gun was put to your head, only a pedophile would show up.

No?

weedywet
April 19th, 2007, 08:37 PM
on a purely civil-liberties level, I must admit I have a problem with arresting someone for INTENT to have sex with a child when all he really DID was chat online or show up to meet a police officer ACTING like a child.

chatting with an undercover officer is NOT a crime.
(although it's tedious beyond belief)

DaveC
April 19th, 2007, 11:00 PM
.

ckerian
April 19th, 2007, 11:31 PM
Come on Dooooooddddddd...

They arent compiracy theories if they actually are tapping phones without warrants, reading our emails, listening in on turned off cell phones, detaining and torturing americans (think the mexican taco bell worker from seattle... jose medina), letting the UAE guard our ports, opening the borders to mexicans for slave labor, and telling me to get ready for a drought after the wetetst fall, winter, and spring on record.

I know you like to MIX ITB but that doesnt mean you have to THINK ITB.

You can quote me on that for a sig.


Exactly. I remember one paranoid member of the MARSH that used to get so involved in conspiracy theories that he had his own forum.

That guy should worry. :lol:

Mixerpuppet
April 20th, 2007, 02:08 AM
I have to disagree with you here.

The "Perverted Justice" website takes great care to not initiate conversation. They merely enter chatrooms disguised as young children and wait for Pedophiles to contact them.

I do see your point but the law defines Entrapment as going after people who had no plans of otherwise commiting that crime.

Any of us could possibly be entrapped to being with a hooker for sexual relief or selling drugs for quick easy cash.

Who could argue that you went to a child's home for the purpose of having sex just because the child asked you too?

Unless a gun was put to your head, only a pedophile would show up.

No?

I wasn't saying what I think on the subject, but was only throwing out an issues that can complicate how we try to apply a broad brush can mess up other parts of a more detailed picture... The Interesting thing about this subject is that exceptions to the first amendment have been made when children are endangered. I spent alot of time today at findlaw.com reading. Wow!

AFAIK, the pedophiles are entering chatrooms where kids hang out using a incorrect age to decieve the teens or whoever. The stings are pretty well thought out to prevent "Entrapment" being a technicality...


If you've ever seen a Seattle hooker you'd know why Entrapment is impossible up here...

dwoz
April 20th, 2007, 03:44 AM
back on topic, the only thing that really annoyed me about the story was this:


Police arrested CU-Boulder student Max Karson Tuesday on suspicion of interfering with staff, faculty or students of an educational institution.


Now I have to ask...how long has that law been on the books? Exactly what purpose would such a law have?

Now, if he had been charged with "being stupid enough to act like a copycat perp immediately after a national-level tragedy" I would say, yes. good. give that boy a little taste of reality tough-love before he gets his lights punched out by the girl's lacrosse team.

but, "interfering with an educational institution?" c'mon...I know that law enforcement doesn't pay enough to attract smart people, but JEEEEEZZZZ.

dwoz

ggunn
April 20th, 2007, 11:22 PM
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/12388027/detail.html

The pussification of america continues...

If he was angry before, I'll bet he's really pissed off now...