• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Protecting America from Justin Carter

Charlie Wilkes

Illuminator
Charlie Wilkes
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Messages
4,177
References to this case have popped up here and there on JREF, but I think it warrants a closer look and a dedicated thread.

This 18-y-o kid in Texas made a sick joke on Facebook about shooting up a school. Somebody in Canada reported it to the cops in Texas, who arrested him and held him in jail for months until an anonymous stranger bailed him out to the tune of $50k.

Now he's facing trial for "terroristic threats," with the possibility of a lengthy prison sentence. The DA is taking a hard line, but not saying anything publicly.

Nobody has tried to suggest the comment represented a credible or specific threat, or that any evidence surfaced to suggest the kid had any intention of harming anyone.

Here are some links:

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/08/13/pre-trial-hearings-in-facebook-threat-case-begin/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/07/08/texas_teen_jailed_for_facebook_comment/

http://www.globalresearch.ca/justin...ee-speech-facebook-terrorism-in-texas/5342614

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/352432/free-justin-carter-now-charles-c-w-cooke
 
Kept meaning to start a thread about this. I think the whole thing is terrible, and I'm astounded and disturbed by it. Can't believe that the prosecutor thinks this should go forward, and I'm bothered that there isn't more public outrage about it.
 
This is just a guess as I do not do social media- beyond here and e-mail contacts - but I suspect some people are tired of doofusses pretending they have any significance at all in this world by pulling silly crap like that, spreading stupid rumors, trying/vying to be first with pointless celebrity stuff, wanting to be famous. Hell with 'em.
 
Doghouse Reilly said:
Kept meaning to start a thread about this. I think the whole thing is terrible, and I'm astounded and disturbed by it. Can't believe that the prosecutor thinks this should go forward, and I'm bothered that there isn't more public outrage about it.
Click to expand...

They got an indictment past a grand jury, and the judge doubled the kid's bail while he was in jail, which tells me the local system is fully invested in this case.

I'm guessing they will pillory this kid in the trial and manage to convince the jury he is just the type who really would shoot up a school. The spin outside the courthouse will be that liberal agitators are trying to discredit local authorities. I won't be at all surprised if they get a conviction.
 
fuelair said:
This is just a guess as I do not do social media- beyond here and e-mail contacts - but I suspect some people are tired of doofusses pretending they have any significance at all in this world by pulling silly crap like that, spreading stupid rumors, trying/vying to be first with pointless celebrity stuff, wanting to be famous. Hell with 'em.
Click to expand...

I don't really understand what you're saying in the context of this case. Can you clarify? What you've described doesn't really seem to match this situation. He wasn't trying to spread rumors or be significant. He was just bantering back and forth with someone he was playing a video game with.
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
They got an indictment past a grand jury, and the judge doubled the kid's bail while he was in jail, which tells me the local system is fully invested in this case.

I'm guessing they will pillory this kid in the trial and manage to convince the jury he is just the type who really would shoot up a school. The spin outside the courthouse will be that liberal agitators are trying to discredit local authorities. I won't be at all surprised if they get a conviction.
Click to expand...

That's crazy. If he's convicted, won't it be overturned on appeal? It's a clear violation of free speech, IMO. It's very clear that he wasn't making threats toward anyone.
 
Doghouse Reilly said:
That's crazy. If he's convicted, won't it be overturned on appeal? It's a clear violation of free speech, IMO. It's very clear that he wasn't making threats toward anyone.
Click to expand...

I think a conviction would be overturned on appeal for that reason. And it's possible he'll get a jury who will acquit him. But I see every possibility it will play out as a referendum on the local prosecutor. Jurors can show their support for her and the police, or they can side with troublemakers from outside the community.
 
GT/CS said:
Is everything in your world a battle between groups?
Click to expand...

No, I also have a cat.

I'm considering models that might explain how and why this case is moving forward in the court system. The kid made a sick joke on Facebook... I'm so screwed up I'm gonna shoot up a school LOL. The local authorities investigated him and didn't find anything to suggest he was serious. But, they kept him locked up until a good Samaritan paid the exorbitant bail. Now they're gearing up for a trial that will expose them to ridicule and may well send him to prison if he is convicted.

What gives?
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
No, I also have a cat.

I'm considering models that might explain how and why this case is moving forward in the court system. The kid made a sick joke on Facebook... I'm so screwed up I'm gonna shoot up a school LOL. The local authorities investigated him and didn't find anything to suggest he was serious. But, they kept him locked up until a good Samaritan paid the exorbitant bail. Now they're gearing up for a trial that will expose them to ridicule and may well send him to prison if he is convicted.

What gives?
Click to expand...

They are going to make an example of him and it is such a poor case to use to make an example of that it will probably end up backfiring on them. In the meantime the kid is being prosecuted for a stupid remark, something that most kids are guilty of. There is no evidence that it was anything more than this.
 
RoseMontague said:
They are going to make an example of him and it is such a poor case to use to make an example of that it will probably end up backfiring on them. In the meantime the kid is being prosecuted for a stupid remark, something that most kids are guilty of. There is no evidence that it was anything more than this.
Click to expand...

He's 18 years old who hasn't learned that you don't make death threats where other people can see them. Say 100 hours community service might make him get the hint. Unless he was a flight risk I don't see the point in such a high bail. That said using pre-trial detention as a method of punishment is hardly new.
 
geni said:
He's 18 years old who hasn't learned that you don't make death threats where other people can see them. Say 100 hours community service might make him get the hint. Unless he was a flight risk I don't see the point in such a high bail. That said using pre-trial detention as a method of punishment is hardly new.
Click to expand...

He added LOL and JK on to the end. JK meaning just kidding. Come on, this is a conversation over a video game not something he posted on the school website or anything like that.
 
From what I can find this is the legislation that he is being charged under: http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/22.07.00.html

Think this will be the relevant bit:

§ 22.07. TERRORISTIC THREAT. (a) A person commits an
offense if he threatens to commit any offense involving violence to
any person or property with intent to:
(1) cause a reaction of any type to his threat by an
official or volunteer agency organized to deal with emergencies;
(2) place any person in fear of imminent serious
bodily injury;
(3) prevent or interrupt the occupation or use of a
building, room, place of assembly, place to which the public has
access, place of employment or occupation, aircraft, automobile, or
other form of conveyance, or other public place;
(4) cause impairment or interruption of public
communications, public transportation, public water, gas, or power
supply or other public service;
(5) place the public or a substantial group of the
public in fear of serious bodily injury; or
(6) influence the conduct or activities of a branch or
agency of the federal government, the state, or a political
subdivision of the state.
Click to expand...

I really can't see how his post would fit any of those definitions?
 
Darat said:
From what I can find this is the legislation that he is being charged under: http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/22.07.00.html

Think this will be the relevant bit:



I really can't see how his post would fit any of those definitions?
Click to expand...

I don't either. A facebook poster in Canada noticed the conversation and reported it. Seems to be pretty obvious that it was sarcasm as well.
 
A person commits an offence if he says he intends to commit an offence?
What kind of doublethink is that?
 
RoseMontague said:
They are going to make an example of him and it is such a poor case to use to make an example of that it will probably end up backfiring on them. In the meantime the kid is being prosecuted for a stupid remark, something that most kids are guilty of. There is no evidence that it was anything more than this.
Click to expand...

I suppose this town is run by law-and-order types who bristled with rage when they saw the comment he posted. They decided to wipe the smirk right off his face. Now they are committed to something they didn't really think through, involving issues with more fundamental weight than their righteous indignation. And of course they will follow through on that commitment. You and I both know the sacred oath of the prosecutor: never back down or admit a mistake.
 
Darat said:
From what I can find this is the legislation that he is being charged under: http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/22.07.00.html

Think this will be the relevant bit:



I really can't see how his post would fit any of those definitions?
Click to expand...

I'm trying to imagine how they will present the case. If I were arguing it, I might focus on:

(1) cause a reaction of any type to his threat by an
official or volunteer agency organized to deal with emergencies;

and

(5) place the public or a substantial group of the
public in fear of serious bodily injury;

The cop will get up on the stand, and he will say, "when we get a complaint about something like this, we have to take it seriously. We can't read the defendant's mind to know whether he really meant it or not, and we spent countless hours investigating it, paid for by the taxpayers. Given the real problems we have to address with our limited resources, that is not acceptable."

The DA will close by saying, "the threat made by the defendant was credible because we all know that people really do this kind of thing. Free speech does not mean the right to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater, and it does not mean the right to make criminal threats in a public forum."

The defense will focus on the difference between a credible threat versus satire and irreverence, which is protected speech no matter how offensive, and which was obviously the intended nature of the defendant's comment.

The jury may think, if the cops found this threat credible and acted on it, then it was credible. They know best. Plus they are the ones we have to call if someone breaks into our house or steals our car.

Or, they may think, this is nonsense, the kid was obviously joking, and this makes the whole town look bad.

We'll see.
 
geni said:
He's 18 years old who hasn't learned that you don't make death threats where other people can see them. Say 100 hours community service might make him get the hint. Unless he was a flight risk I don't see the point in such a high bail. That said using pre-trial detention as a method of punishment is hardly new.
Click to expand...

I am not seeing the threat part. The lol and J/K communicate that the comments are no threat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom