Terrorist threatening?

[Tezcatlipoca]

http://www.lex18.com/global/story.as...Type=Printable


An 18 year old high school student in the US state of Kentucky has been arrested for "terrorist threatening", & faces a second degree felony charge.


His alleged crime?


Writing a fictional short story about a high school being over run by zombies.

[Richard M]

Anyone seen the two Michael Moore films - Bowling for Columbine and 9/11?

This is exactly the stupid, paranoid atmosphere of fear that idiots like Bush create.

[punky]

Originally Posted by Matt D

http://www.lex18.com/global/story.as...Type=Printable


An 18 year old high school student in the US state of Kentucky has been arrested for "terrorist threatening", & faces a second degree felony charge.


His alleged crime?


Writing a fictional short story about a high school being over run by zombies.

To be fair though, his grandparents found it and were so disturbed they turned it over to the police. Surely if it sounded so innocent, wouldn't they have dismissed it?

The only reason this was taken seriously is because of Columbine. For months (and years?) they wrote things like this in their diaries - but everyone was accused of not caring and under-estimating, when people found out that some had read what they wrote, those kinds of things, and dismissed them.

Originally Posted by punky

To be fair though, his grandparents found it and were so disturbed they turned it over to the police. Surely if it sounded so innocent, wouldn't they have dismissed it?

The only reason this was taken seriously is because of Columbine. For months (and years?) they wrote things like this in their diaries - but everyone was accused of not caring and under-estimating, when people found out that some had read what they wrote, those kinds of things, and dismissed them.

With grandparents like that I think I would ask to be taken into care...

IF,IF, I went searching through my son's diary in the first place and found something like that my first reaction would not be to call the police...I would at least talk to him about it..

[Flubflow]

Originally Posted by punky

To be fair though, his grandparents found it and were so disturbed they turned it over to the police. Surely if it sounded so innocent, wouldn't they have dismissed it?

The only reason this was taken seriously is because of Columbine. For months (and years?) they wrote things like this in their diaries - but everyone was accused of not caring and under-estimating, when people found out that some had read what they wrote, those kinds of things, and dismissed them.

Quote:
"It didn't mention nobody who lives in Clark County, didn't mention (George Rogers Clark High School), didn't mention no principal or cops, nothing,"
said Poole.

Oh what a lovely pair of totally thick and stupid grandparents.
This is the kind of fallout you get when a government creates a state of fear amongst the gullible majority in order to further its dubious policies.

[punky]

Originally Posted by Flubflow

Quote:
"It didn't mention nobody who lives in Clark County, didn't mention (George Rogers Clark High School), didn't mention no principal or cops, nothing,"
said Poole.

Oh what a lovely pair of totally thick and stupid grandparents.
This is the kind of fallout you get when a government creates a state of fear amongst the gullible majority in order to further its dubious policies.

The fear everyone goes on about is supposedly directed at muslims, is it not? This isn't about fear, it is about apathy and it coming back to bite you when you ignore signs that someone could seriously do some wrong.

All that Trenchcoat Mafia stuff, AFAIK never mentioned any names or places, which is why noone did anything.

Incog: The police shouldn't be the first place to take it, logically, the psyciatrist would be, but how do you know the grandparents didn't try and get the kid help? If the kid refused to go, then the police would be the next thing to do.

Also, if memory serves, Columbine was in 1998, 3 years before Bush took office, and if memory serves me again, in the year or so after columbine kids complained that parents were too eager in reporting them, because of coumbine. The seeds were sown long before Bush came along.

Still it is fruitless discussing it as noone knows what was said (apart from the kid himself, and I wouldn't call that impartial). Besides, even if the grandparents were so consumed by fear, the police wouldn't be.

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by punky

Incog: The police shouldn't be the first place to take it, logically, the psyciatrist would be, but how do you know the grandparents didn't try and get the kid help? If the kid refused to go, then the police would be the next thing to do.

Wasn't it just a fictional story? There's no indication the boy needed help.

Granted a psyciatrist should have been considered first.

Originally Posted by article

Anytime you make any threat or possess matter involving a school or function it's a felony in the state of Kentucky

How can you be prosecuted for writing a story? I thought free publications was an american "right"

[me283]

Originally Posted by Richard M

Anyone seen the two Michael Moore films - Bowling for Columbine and 9/11?

This is exactly the stupid, paranoid atmosphere of fear that idiots like Bush create.

Why blame Bush? And why say it's stupid, unless you know a lot more detail? It's easy to say it was a short story about a school being overrun by zombies, but you could also say that Romeo and Juliet was a play about a boy and a girl in love. There may well be more to it than has been outlined.

[punky]

Originally Posted by downquark1

Wasn't it just a fictional story? There's no indication the boy needed help.

Granted a psyciatrist should have been considered first.

Well, that's what he says but as we will never hear the other side, its hard to say.

How can you be prosecuted for writing a story? I thought free publications was an american "right"

Its all about that saying... "with rights comes responsibility" I could say to you that i'll rip your eyes out. Even if I was joking, and never intended to carry it through, it is still a threat, and it is still ABH.

The 1st amendment doesn't give people the right to defame character, incite hatred, plagurize, or threaten.

There's something that just doesn't seem right here. How can 2 grandparents AND the police force be exaggerating and "paranoid"? If it was one or the other, maybe... but both?

[Ramrod]

Does anyone know the kids personality and past behaviour?
Perhaps he has a long history of torturing animals and a penchant for wearing black and sharpening knives a lot.........

...............does seem a bit of an overreaction though

Originally Posted by Matt D

Writing a fictional short story about a high school being over run by zombies.

Oh ye gods! What next, episodes of Buffy the Vampire Slayer (how many times did Sunnydale High get attacked by supernatural beings?!) being deemed illegal...???


__________________

Originally Posted by punky

To be fair though, his grandparents found it and were so disturbed they turned it over to the police. Surely if it sounded so innocent, wouldn't they have dismissed it?

It depends.

There's no other information, but what if his grandparents were "concerned Christians" of the type who think that D&D and Heavy Metal lead to Devil Worship and simply over-reacted?

The only reason this was taken seriously is because of Columbine. For months (and years?) they wrote things like this in their diaries - but everyone was accused of not caring and under-estimating, when people found out that some had read what they wrote, those kinds of things, and dismissed them.

But *how many* young teens write stuff like that? Yet somehow 99.999% of them manage not to go on to commit Columbine style massacres, so to assume that just because this guy wrote that story he was going to go on do such a thing would be like (oh, I'm sorry, I just *can't* resist this! ) assuming that all Muslims are potential terrorists...
__________________

Originally Posted by punky

Its all about that saying... "with rights comes responsibility" I could say to you that i'll rip your eyes out. Even if I was joking, and never intended to carry it through, it is still a threat, and it is still ABH.

ABH? I think not.

AIUI you could, possibly, be charged with Affray, if the other person actually considered that you were going to carry out the action, but ABH requires, well, *actual* bodily harm!

There's something that just doesn't seem right here. How can 2 grandparents AND the police force be exaggerating and "paranoid"? If it was one or the other, maybe... but both?

The Police are bound to act by the laws prevailing.

Even so, police say the nature of the story makes it a felony. "Anytime you make any threat or possess matter involving a school or function it's a felony in the state of Kentucky," said Winchester Police detective Steven Caudill.

The problem is that, once such an accusation is made, they are *forced* to follow it up, no matter what, they can't simply brush it off or say to the grandparents "don't be silly".

[punky]

Originally Posted by Graham

There's no other information, but what if his grandparents were "concerned Christians" of the type who think that D&D and Heavy Metal lead to Devil Worship and simply over-reacted?

And the police are as well I suppose?

But *how many* young teens write stuff like that? Yet somehow 99.999% of them manage not to go on to commit Columbine style massacres, so to assume that just because this guy wrote that story he was going to go on do such a thing would be like (oh, I'm sorry, I just *can't* resist this! ) assuming that all Muslims are potential terrorists...

Precisely my point. What he said he did was normal, and natural. So why did his grandparents AND police get so worked up about it? The police would have better things to do than riciculous arrests and charges that won't go anywhere. And over there things work a bit differently in the charging system. In cases where evidence is shaky, they have to go to the District Attorney for the area to debate wether they have a case, and the DA would say to proceed or drop it, whereas here the guy would get charged and the CPS (or DPP now?) decides wether the case has merit.

ABH? I think not. AIUI you could, possibly, be charged with Affray, if the other person actually considered that you were going to carry out the action, but ABH requires, well, *actual* bodily harm!

Well I know so. http://www.wardle61.fsnet.co.uk/nfoap.pdf

There is no statutory definition of assault as it is a common law offence. Assault is both a crime and a tort. 1. Actus Reus Any threat which makes a person fear that unlawful force is about to be used against him. The victim must usually fear the immediate infliction of force, but the courts have been flexible in their definition of †˜immediateâ ۉâ₠¬Ã…¾Ã‚¢. The threat can come from an act, a gesture or words.

...

ACTUAL BODILY HARM (section 47) The Offences Against the Person Act 1861 section 47 provides that it is an offence to commit †˜any assault occasioning actual bodily harmââ‚ ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢. The offence is triable either way. 1. Actus Reus There must first be an assault or battery. It is then necessary to show that the assault or battery caused ABH. The word †˜actualÃƒÆ’Ã†â€™Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¢ÃƒÆ ’¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€Å ¾Ã‚¢ indicates that the injury (although there is no need for it to be permanent) should not be so trivial as to be wholly insignificant, and must be calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim. Recently it has been accepted that ABH may consist of not only physical, but also psychological harm.

I.E. threating to kill someone without touching them constitutes ABH. Pyschological harm, such as fear for your life, does consitite actual bodily harm. Anyway, I thought affray had to consitiute an actual fight, and it had to be in public, else it would just be assault?

The Police are bound to act by the laws prevailing.

So you are now saying he did break the law?

The problem is that, once such an accusation is made, they are *forced* to follow it up, no matter what, they can't simply brush it off or say to the grandparents "don't be silly".

"Following it up" does not include charging a suspect. The police must always have some clear evidence to charge someone with a crime. And the police would be well within their rights to say don't be silly to the grandparents unless they are the named threat, and supposedly noone was named in the stories. It doesn't add up. There is something else to which we are not being told.

Originally Posted by punky

And the police are as well I suppose?

No, see below.

Well I know so

Fair enough, as mentioned elsewhere, I'm not a lawyer.

So you are now saying he did break the law?

No, but as I already said:

The problem is that, once such an accusation is made, they are *forced* to follow it up, no matter what, they can't simply brush it off or say to the grandparents "don't be silly".

"Following it up" does not include charging a suspect.

Please don't pick nits with my phraseology.

As far as I am aware, if someone in the USA is accused of a felony offence, the procedure is pre-set and cannot be varied.

Originally Posted by punky

The only reason this was taken seriously is because of Columbine. For months (and years?) they wrote things like this in their diaries - but everyone was accused of not caring and under-estimating, when people found out that some had read what they wrote, those kinds of things, and dismissed them.

But there's a world of difference here. The kids at Columbine could get hold of guns. Now, I`ll admit I don`t know all the details in this case, but I'm pretty much willing to bet any body part you name that this kid isn`t a necromancer.

[punky]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

But there's a world of difference here. The kids at Columbine could get hold of guns. Now, I`ll admit I don`t know all the details in this case, but I'm pretty much willing to bet any body part you name that this kid isn`t a necromancer.

Isn't a necromancer like a spiritual-styled medium? Do you mean he is talking to the Columbine kids? What did you mean by that?

And this kid could still get guns if he wanted to, regardless of where he lived. And before people turn this into a gun control debate, if I went to Tottenham and waved a bit of money round, i'd be able to get a gun too.