
The Facebook Comment That Ruined a Life - jborden13
http://www.dallasobserver.com/2014-02-13/news/the-facebook-comment-that-ruined-a-life/full/
======
D9u

      The Comal County District Attorney's Office did not intend for Carter to suffer what happened next, 
      Flanary says, but it was reasonably foreseeable: He was sexually assaulted.
    

The fact that prisoners are commonly subject to sexual assault, and that this
consequence is trotted out as an acceptable deterrent to crime, illustrates
just how uncivilized the US prison-industrial-complex is in this, the year
2014. Failure to protect vulnerable and, or, weaker inmates from other inmates
shows negligence on the part of the government. This is completely
unacceptable as it constitutes cruel & unusual punishment, and is yet another
blatant disregard for the rights of _We the People._

Then there's the fact that the context of the offensive speech was excluded
from evidence.

Disgusting!

~~~
Xdes
Prison in the US isn't about rehabilitation it's about punishment. No one goes
to prison thinking they're going to come out as a better person with a new
outlook on life. They're going to come out war-torn and barely above
functional with little to no prospects.

~~~
r00fus
And why are we paying tax dollars for this? Especially when some of these
prisons are run by for-profit corporations?

If there's a single way to spur the economy it would be to close down many of
these prisons, and reprogram the law enforcement goal of populating them.

~~~
madaxe_again
Because that would hurt the interests of powerful lobbyists, and therefore
congressmen and senators.

The government of the US does not even remotely work for her people. They
serve themselves.

------
nopassrecover
> Until that point, his only brush with the law was a temporary restraining
> order two years earlier.

> "He started threatening me, saying that he would kill me. ... I told the
> school officers, [and] they started watching him really closely. He would
> say that he would shoot up the school."

So I'll start by playing Devil's Advocate very briefly. It's interesting how
facts can be shaped with different language ("his only brush with the law"):
it appears the restraining order from two years prior related to similar
threats to those alleged in the Facebook comments (although in a remarkably
different context).

Now that notwithstanding, it seems there are many glaring issues, both ethical
and legal, with the way this has been handled.

Based on a screenshot of a Facebook comment without context or verification
from Facebook an 18 year-old was detained for months without trial, including
his 19th birthday, and offered a plea bargain of 8 years jail (!). An
unaffordable bail of $500k was set, and if not for media attention, pro bono
counsel, and a generous anonymous donor he would still be detained. During his
detention he was repeatedly sexually assaulted, withheld legal counsel, and
coerced to confess with false promises of freedom. After media focus an offer
of 10 years (!) probation was put forward.

On a technical note, the original warrant included false testimony (matching
of the Facebook profile picture to a driver's licence when the accused did not
have a licence) and the indictment misquoted the original Facebook comment.

How does anyone think this is reasonable?

~~~
smrtinsert
Well, people have children. The protection they feel must be absolute, and
here is someone who threatening them.

If someone came up to me on the street and screamed I'm going to fucking kill
you, I wouldn't argue for his freedom of speech.

~~~
will_brown
I am probably instigating a flame ware...but I strongly disagree.

>here is someone who threatening them.

 _Threatening them_ , who is them? As deplorable as his speech was, it was not
an identifiable threat of some imminent danger to some specific victim. (ie. I
would have a different opinion if he identified a school by name). A counter-
argument to my opinion is that we could have people making very real, but
vague threats and police could not take action until after it is to late.
However, there must be a balance between right to free speech and police
powers, I just tend to err on the side of rights over government power.

>If someone came up to me on the street and screamed I'm going to fucking kill
you, I wouldn't argue for his freedom of speech.

Your example is good because it can highlights where the law can strike a fair
balance better rights and powers. First, I agree in your example I would not
argue for right to free speech, but the declarant in the story is more akin to
someone on the street screaming "I want to fucking kill _someone_ " not
directed at anyone and otherwise not posing an immanent threat.

If this kind of speech is to be punished with 8 years prison or 10 years
probation, police just need to log onto Xbox Live and have a field day with
all the threats...in fact one of the statements from the thread in this story
"go drink bleach", I have only heard before on Xbox Live and I have heard it
many times from various players - though this example is not a threat there
are plenty to be found...mostly involving mothers.

~~~
watty
I don't follow your first remark. Are you trying to say that because he said
"kindergarten" instead of naming a specific kindergarten that it's no longer
threatening or a threat?

~~~
alexeisadeski3
Yes exactly.

It's the difference between "I'm so angry I could kill someone right now!" and
"I'm so angry I could kill so-and-so neighbor right now!"

~~~
watty
Not exactly. He didn't say he "could" shoot up a kindergarten, he said he was
going to. Is there a difference between naming a specific kindergarten?
Absolutely. But that doesn't mean only one of them is a threat.

~~~
alexeisadeski3
In my example, both use the 'could.'

I really don't think that someone should be charged with 'making terroristic
threats' \- nor any kind of threats - with just a vague statement of intent.

------
spacemanmatt
WIDELY MISREPORTED.

Austin resident here. There is very little right about this case.

He was joking, and his original post included indications of this. Prosecutors
intentionally misrepresented and truncated his comments to mislead the Grand
Jury.

The arrest warrant issued claimed they found him by driver's license records
but he has never had a Texas driver's license.

They failed to protect him, an 18 year old kid, in jail. He has been sexually
assaulted.

The state maintains their case against him at this point only to blunt his
eventual lawsuit against them.

~~~
tbastos
I hope the kid wins a shitload of money in a lawsuit against the state... and
the cops get punished. Now what's the chance of this happening?

~~~
rmc
I don't get it, I thought the USA was a massive litigation centre and you
could sue people for millions left right and centre? Are you saying that you
can't sue people like that?

~~~
beachstartup
i'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but suing people takes time and
money, something most people don't have a lot of.

~~~
dm2
Many lawyers will work for a contingency fee if they feel you have a strong
case.

------
billyjobob
Wow, I didn't realise US police were that bad. After reading this I don't
think I could ever feel safe enough to visit the US. Sounds like you'd have a
better chance of getting justice in an African dictatorship where at least the
dont-rape-me bribe would be affordable. Tourists really should be warned about
this, because it's not the image the US tourist boards present to us at all.

~~~
zacinbusiness
Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida,
North and South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia - fear these places.

~~~
spacehome
I was hoping to live in some of these places in the future. Would you mind
clarifying why the states on this list are especially bad rather than others?

~~~
zacinbusiness
Most of it comes down to the fact that you have extremely geographically
isolated people. Communities in the mountains of the Carolina's for instance
may not even have a bank or a post office. These people are extremely paranoid
and fearful of change, and thus they elect politicians that share their views
and that, worse, feed into them with religious and political rhetoric about
how the bad man with dark skin is going to take away all the things they care
for most.

~~~
throwaway344
Not a criticism but how much time have you spent in the South?

~~~
zacinbusiness
My entire life. I've met some of the most viciously racist people that exist.
And not just poor and uneducated people. Wealthy, educated people as well.
There is an institutionalized racism that permeates most of the south. Not all
southerners are that way. Some of us try to lift the south up into the 21st
century. But it's a hard fight. And the resistance to change is strong.

~~~
throwaway344
Thanks.

------
girvo
Every single person who is complicit in the mental and physical (he was raped
in prison, people -- and the fact that some believe that prison rape is part
of the punishment need their effing head checked) trauma should be fired.
Disgusting.

The fact that they don't even have the context of what was said, and yet
they're still trying to hit him with a felony is beyond ludicrous. I'm
honestly awestruck that a prosecutor could think that this is a trophy they
want to earn.

Funnily enough, situations like this (and the various ethical issues) are the
reason I decided to leave my law degree. I can't reconcile my own morals and
ethics with the reality of the justice system.

~~~
dTal
And yet, if no one with ethics had the stomach for law, how could we expect an
ethical justice system? It's same problem as with politics.

------
MojoJolo
This is disturbing. They arrest the guy and sentenced to ten years in jail
with just a screenshot of a Facebook comment as a starting evidence. It's
kinda puzzling to me why didn't they manage to check the whole thread? I think
it's simple enough and contacting Facebook for it is not needed.

What's the topic of the thread? We don't know.

Edit: Let's also not disregard the fact that the screenshot can be all made
up. They can't find the thread. Maybe it was edited, or created through
Photoshop. I think it's fairly easy.

~~~
corresation
_They arrest the guy and sentenced to ten years in jail with just a screenshot
of a Facebook comment as a starting evidence._

I don't believe he has been sentenced to anything. He was given an offer of 10
years probation, which his lawyer _bizarrely_ spouts off against as if deals
are not the common actions in the justice system.

In any case, he confessed to what was stated, and despite the spin now that it
was a false confession, in earlier versions of reports about this he freely
admitted that he said what he said...but that he purportedly followed it up
later by an lol that made it all okay.

It is actually interesting seeing how people sway in opinion about things. In
the whole Flappy Bird fiasco, many were calling for the heads of those who
"threatened the life" of the author, even though the threats were almost
universally clearly absurd or satirical. Yet in this case it is an outrage
that the police followed up on threats against children (shortly after Sandy
Hook), and then when they discovered a confluence of concerning behaviors
(suicide threats, restraining orders, bizarre behavior) they pursued actual
charges.

Should people be raped in jail? Of course they shouldn't. No criminal should.
Though it's interesting that many on here believe that he is not like those
other criminals, when the jails are stuffed with non-violent offenders who
likewise shouldn't face sexual assaults.

Should people face absurd sentences about thought crimes? Of course not.

But what you say matters. Words have consequences. This whole fallback on some
rote "Freedom of Speech!" thing is devolving from a civilized behavior.

EDIT: I see that we're not looking for a rational, mature discussions. More of
a rah rah rah mass outrage.

~~~
chc
Oh, don't be such a martyr. Sometimes the fault is your own. In this case,
your description of the course of events displays a good understanding of what
happened, and yet you present it in a way that is quite deceptive. If you want
a better response, try being more even-handed.

> _In any case, he confessed to what was stated, and despite the spin now that
> it was a false confession, in earlier versions of reports about this he
> freely admitted that he said what he said...but that he purportedly followed
> it up later by an lol that made it all okay._

This reminds me of a courtroom scene in _My Cousin Vinny_. Upon being told
that he was being charged for the murder of the sheriff, one of the main
characters exclaims in disbelief, "What?! I shot the sheriff?!" And then in
trial, the prosecutor asks him, "Did you not tell police, 'I shot the
sheriff'?" That movie was a comedy, but you're seriously trying to make this
argument. You're acting like a silly parody of a prosecutor. Agreeing upon the
words used does not mean this guy "confessed."

And yes, the fact that it wasn't actually a threat _does make it OK_. Why
wouldn't it? What interest does the law have in punishing people who aren't
actually issuing threats? Should Alan Rickman be afraid of punishment for all
the villainous lines he's delivered on camera?

~~~
corresation
Your analogy adds nothing but noise to the conversation.

The lawyer for the accused never recants either the confession, or that his
client said what he is reported to have said. In typical defense lawyer
posturing, instead he tries to draw doubt about the metadata around it. And
for good reason given that the accused has repeatedly admitted, to the police,
prosecutors, and even the media, having written exactly what was reported, but
now we're to pretend that maybe it was a different person, or that Facebook
messages were doctored?

Note that the prosecutor almost certainly has the messages from Facebook, and
the fact that the police went on the early variant is utterly irrelevant.

 _What interest does the law have in punishing people who aren 't actually
issuing threats?_

Since you like anecdotes, imagine that someone walks around pretending to
punch random bystanders, but he pulls up at the last second. Hilarious, right?
Now they have no intention of actually hitting, and can even point at a
history of being the sort of person that pretends to hit people.

Is it assault?

Yes, of course it is. The recipients of the threat reasonably believed in its
validity, so what the perpetrator thought is irrelevant. This is the same
reason why bomb threats, threats against persons, etc, are prosecuted, despite
this contrived notion throughout this thread that they need to prove that one
has the means and intention of carrying it out.

Freedom of speech is _one_ freedom. But as with most freedoms that need to be
balanced between people, your freedoms end where my nose begins. Your freedoms
to express violent threats ends where there are people who might reasonably
assume them to be legitimate, for instance. This is the case in the US and
almost all Western countries, so it's odd seeing so many seemingly thinking
this is protected speech. It isn't.

~~~
chc
> _The lawyer for the accused never recants either the confession, or that his
> client said what he is reported to have said. In typical defense lawyer
> posturing, instead he criticizes the metadata around it. For good reason
> given that the accused has repeatedly admitted, to the police, prosecutors,
> and even the media, having written exactly what was reported, but now we 're
> to pretend that maybe it was a different person, or that Facebook messages
> were doctored?_

Again I ask: Should actors be liable for threats they've delivered in a movie?
Surely not. Why? Because of what you call "metadata," which is commonly called
"context." We know that these actors were not sincere because they said the
words in the context of a movie. The idea that context doesn't matter is
positively absurd. Human communication is _hugely_ reliant on context for
meaning, and humor even more so.

> _Since you like anecdotes, imagine that someone walks around pretending to
> punch random bystanders, but he pulls up at the last second. Hilarious,
> right? Now they have no intention of actually hitting, and can even point at
> a history of being the sort of person that pretends to hit people._

> _Is it assault?_

> _Yes, of course it is. The recipients of the threat reasonably believed in
> its validity, so what the perpetrator thought is irrelevant._

Precisely — it is normal to assume that you are being punched when somebody
swings his fist at you. But when somebody in the middle of a lighthearted
conversation responds to the statement "You're crazy" with "I'm totally CRAZY
— in fact, I'm so crazy I'm going to $CRAZY_THING," it is not necessarily the
case that they are actually going to do $CRAZY_THING. If he had said "fling
poop," would you have actually assumed he was going to fling poop?

The objection here is that there is no reasonable belief in the validity of
this so-called terrorist threat. The mere fact that somebody said the words "I
am going to shoot up a kindergarten" doesn't mean he is actually declaring an
intention to do so. I just said them right now. Are you going to report me?
The rest of this comment is, after all, just metadata.

------
janj
This country has its fair share of over zealous prosecutors and out of control
cops. We need a way to track these events to the individual to make it easier
to identify patterns. When deputy Erik Gelhaus shot and killed an innocent 13
year old boy here in Santa Rosa I tried to find out if he had a history of
violent interactions with the public. That's when I realized no one seemed to
be tracking these events. There should be a service where I can look up the
prosecutors in this case and see if they have a history of this type of
behavior. I should be able to look up any cop and find their history of
violent interactions with the public if there is one. How can we trust these
people with power if we can't hold them accountable?

~~~
sixothree
Agreed. And that is where I believe our country has gone so wrong. There are
few checks and balances against a run amok justice system. There is little
transparency to people who destroy lives as a part of their daily job.

------
sheetjs
Out of curiosity: if someone hacked this kid's account and posted those
comments, and if the legal system is considering the Facebook comments to be
his words, what recourse does he have? How does he demonstrate that the speech
wasn't his?

~~~
zacinbusiness
He doesn't. And proving hacking would be nearly impossible. A gifted hacker
wouldn't leave evidence. Or at least no evidence that a normal investigator
will find. And simply saying its a possibility doesn't matter without
evidence. Thus, it's too expensive and time consuming to even consider.

Interesting point, though.

~~~
gcb0
Why even hack? They went with a screenshot. A second hand screenshot!

Note to 4chan. Create screenshots of terrorsm acts from DA and judge and send
to other states PD

------
dirktheman
I think anyone agrees that this whole situation has been blown out of
proportion on a massive scale. But threatening to shoot up a school, in the
light of recent events... really? What if he actually DID shoot up a school,
and afterwards people discovered that authorities WERE warned?

People need to realize that what you post on the internet can be interpreted
different than what you actually meant. Besides, threatening with an act of
terrorism is never funny, and always a bad idea. My El Al (Israeli airline)
flight was delayed once because some prankster thought it was funny to say 'I
have a bomb' to the flight attendant while boarding. He was thrown in jail and
had to pay for delaying the flight.

In this case, the punishment doesn't fit the crime. I do wish people would
think twice before making threats as a joke, though.

~~~
zacinbusiness
The problem is that it's not a crime to be an idiot.

A lonely teenager who's already angsty gets into a flame war with an internet
troll. That happens every day. And much worse things are said between people.

What happened here is a dumb kid was dumb, and either the troll or some busy-
body made the call to the cops. And, more importantly, an over-achieving DA
with aspirations of being a district court judge thought this case could make
her career - "Stopped a terrorist threat" would be a great line in her
website, and she will get a whole bunch of publicity down in not-shit-ever-
really-happensville Texas. Meaning she will be able to use this to campaign on
later if she prevails.

None of this is about the idiot kid. It's all about political ambition and
cops doing what they do best - terrorize the weak and the innocent.

~~~
jessedhillon
Actually it is often a crime to be an idiot, and it's quite appropriate. For
example, in OP's case of the delayed El Al flight, yes it's a crime to declare
to someone who might reasonably believe you that you're bringing a bomb on
board. And so yeah, also, only months after Newtown and Aurora to declare that
you're going to shoot up a school can be a crime -- although 8-10 years is
beyond all proportion and reasonableness. But, especially if you have a
history of expressing suicidal and other violent sentiments online, that's a
quite reasonable thing for someone to think.

~~~
zacinbusiness
I'd agree that his timing was a bit off, and he didn't land his punchline. But
being a failed comedian and telling off-color jokes is, luckily, not a crime.
Look at all of those dead baby jokes.

So yeah, making a joke about a bomb or something might ruffle some feathers.
But how many terrorists tell a plane full of people that they have a bomb
BEFORE the people actually get on the plane? None of them. Because that's a
stupid thing to do.

~~~
jessedhillon
I don't even know how to respond if you don't understand the difference
between making a joking threat while on stage at a comedy club, and making one
when stepping onto a plane. Again given his previous comments and the picture
of his personality given from his profile, it sounds like it might have been
believable. It's at least not as clear cut as you're making it seem.

I mean, otherwise we can extend this just joking defense to anything. Mail
baking powder to your congress man in an envelope with a note saying "this is
antrax" \-- what will you tell the FBI when they come for you? "What kind of
idiot thinks I'd really be sending anthrax? Can't you guys take a joke?"

At what point can people make reasoned, defensive assumptions about the
intentions of people who express threats?

~~~
zacinbusiness
There's a difference between a guy who went through a body scanner and a fleet
of sniffer dogs and a guy who sends a package that goes through essentially no
security (though you would think these guys would employ better security
simply as they are higher profile people who get lots of threats).

And I'm not saying that threats shouldn't be investigated, or even that
exercising your freedom of speech doesn't have consequences (it does and
should).

But after they looked into his home life. Spoke to his friends. Tossed his
room and spoke with teachers. And still found no actual evidence of a plan to
commit a crime. The next step is get into contact with Facebook and get that
thread. It wouldn't be hard and I'd assume FB gets this sort of request all
the time. They probably have a protocol in place.

I'm saying that just saying that you're going to commit a crime is not the
same as doing it. And that an idiot kid who says something on Facebook is not
and should not be considered, the same as a billionaire-backed, militarily
trained terrorist.

Do some disturbed people make threats on Facebook and then carry them out? Yes
they do. And so yes, these things should be investigated thoroughly. But the
case here was not investigated, it was rushed and sloppy.

Did the police go get the thread themselves? No. Did the police get the kid a
psych eval? Not that I've seen here anyway. Did the police do any real
investigation? No.

Innocent until proven guilty. That's the way it's supposed to be.

------
hmsimha
While they're at it why not arrest every musician, poet, and writer who ever
penned dark or violent writing.

~~~
Cthulhu_
There's a notable difference between writing a book and publishing an
announcement that you're going to go on a killing spree. The former is
relatively benign, the latter has far too often been done right before a
killing spree. The former is done over time, in relative peace; the latter is
done in the spur of the moment.

It's like writing the Anarchist's Cookbook about how to make a bomb, and
writing a tweet about how you're going to plant a bomb in Boston in a couple
minutes. The latter is a direct threat and requires immediate action. Most of
the time, it's too late even for that.

Personally, this dude should've known better and restrain his impulsive
internet lulz behavior.

~~~
vdaniuk
>the latter has far too often been done right before a killing spree.

Basic Bayesian approach to probability tells us that this metric of predicting
violent events is counter-productive due to a great number of false positives.

------
StavrosK
Is he charged with anything? I only saw a reference to a "terrorist threat",
what kind of fucked up country is one that gets you ten years in jail for
joking about committing a crime? Don't you _actually have to commit the crime_
to go to prison, usually?

~~~
kevingadd
Outside the internet, death threats are serious business and usually a crime,
regardless of whether you have the actual intent or ability to kill someone.

Likewise there's that tired old example of yelling fire in a crowded theater
(though i don't think that applies here)

~~~
spacemanmatt
On or off the internet, an alleged death threat is subject to considerations
of actual intent. Following up a comment with "lol/jk" as he ACTUALLY DID
pretty much deflates all the billowy claims of his death threat.

But that is conveniently omitted in popular reporting.

------
ryanatkn
Not sure why this article doesn't include a seemingly important detail, but it
was widely reported that Justin ended his comments with "LOL" and "JK". Mens
rea indeed.

------
JeffL
They tricked him into admitting that he wrote the FB post by telling him that
they'd let him go if he just admitted it. Another example of "Don't talk to
cops!"

------
nebulous1
> Carter's comments were part of a duel between dorks, and may have had
> something to do with a game with strong dork appeal called League of
> Legends.

I actually laughed out loud at this. Is the Dallas Observer a rag or does the
word 'dork' seem less ridiculous to people from Texas or the US?

~~~
ChrisClark
It might be? One of the quotes has a lawyer saying 'bonkers'. I just assumed
the language used there is a bit different.

------
pgsandstrom
> When a person writing under the profile name "Hannah Love" responded with "i
> hope you [burn] in hell you fucking prick,"

Actually the comment was "i hope you fucking bring in hell you fucking prick".
That is a pretty significant difference.

~~~
darklajid
English as a second language. The former makes sense, i.e. I can parse that.
The latter causes me to stutter and look confused when I read that.

Explain? Difference and meaning of the latter version?

I ignore the whole 'went to jail for a random FB comment' crap. That's just
sad but not surprising any more.

~~~
pgsandstrom
"i hope you fucking bring in hell" is meant as "I hope you give them hell".

~~~
rosser
You have no definitive proof of that, and I think your assertion is as
laughably specious as the prosecution's in this case.

~~~
adventured
And I think that's exactly the point being made.

------
wavesounds
So let me get this straight. You can anonymously send police a picture of text
next to someone's name and have that person arrested?!

~~~
angrybits
yes. look up the term "swatting" if you want to see how far it can go.

------
sdegutis
I think I get it.

The city was worried about a real possibility of shooting. So they searched
his house and found nothing. They realized he wasn't a real threat. Just a
jerk.

But they also wanted to send a message, loud and clear, to society: if you
make jokes like this, you will suffer the consequences.

So they left him in jail. They set an illegally high bond. They manipulated
this gullible boy into giving them a reason to move him to a worse jail, where
they knew he would be raped. When it happened, they feigned surprise.

Sure, there were good intentions. They wanted to discourage the kind of joking
that puts people into a state of panic.

But they went about it extremely unethically, immorally, and most likely
illegally. I've gone to jail, I've been through the US court system, they're
very manipulative and this is how they work. It's not right.

------
bromagosa

      «Flanary believes it's paramount that if someone is
      criminally charged on the basis of his words, a jury needs
      to see all the words.»
    

Wait, but shouldn't the case be that noone can be charged on the basis of his
words?

~~~
chilldream
Actual threats, stalking, and intimidation do exist. The problem here isn't
that threats don't happen, it's that anyone with half a brain can see that
this conversation wasn't a serious threat.

------
cgdangelo
>Prosecutors say they don't have the entire thread — instead, they have three
comments on a cell-phone screenshot.

There's so many things that make this situation _ridiculous_, but this takes
the cake. I would have thought that in a case dealing with a few sentences,
the full context of those sentences would be important.

I've been aware of this story for a while now and it always boggled my mind.
But after reading this, there's some very troubling things going on that I
didn't even know about.

Hope he can get out from under all this, recover, and move on with his life.

------
blueskin_
Welcome to the police state.

------
chris-martin
This headline is sickening. Comal County criminal prosecutors ruined this
man's life.

~~~
therobot24
Facebook in the headline gets readers, usually i would agree that using the
name to spread the words is heinous, but the crimes against this kid are worse

------
Pxtl
Penny Arcade comic on the subject

[http://penny-arcade.com/comic/2013/07/08](http://penny-
arcade.com/comic/2013/07/08)

~~~
benched
This may seem like exaggeration, but you exist in a shared open space with 7
billion talking wild animals. You really can get anything, for anything.

------
Fizzadar
Although he's an idiot for posting such comments, the way the US police and
district attorney's have behaved is unbelievable. This guy is clearly innocent
but they seem hellbent on getting a prosecution. I see cases such as this much
more often on HN recently and it feels as if the entire US justice system is
totally fucked up and completely missing the real targets: the criminals.

------
DanBC
For the people who think that this kind of direct threat needs a punishment:
what would be suitable?

~~~
zimpenfish
I'd rate "being a dumbass insensitive asshat" as "about 20 hours of community
service".

~~~
dopamean
Couldn't agree more. Community service is great for young first time non-
violent offenders. It lets people know that what they did was taken seriously
without screwing up their lives.

------
basicallydan
I'm almost afraid to _have_ a Facebook account if they are taken this
seriously by authorities. If someone got a hold of my account and posted
horrible things, I'd be devastated.

------
sliverstorm
_When officers searched Carter 's home, Flanary says, they did not find the
hallmarks of a lunatic.

"They found no guns in his house,"_

Huh. Guns = hallmark of a lunatic?

~~~
jff
That was my response too, but at least you'd assume a real lunatic who planned
to shoot up a school would, you know, have a gun.

That's why I don't joke about shooting people.

------
cinskiy
Well nobody today thinks twice about posting something on the internet,
especially youth, and while they should, it's still OK, because it's the way
social messaging and posting works, and everybody else should be more or less
OK with that too.

10 years for trolling is way over the top, just fine him already and let him
go.

~~~
girvo
He's already been raped in prison. The case should be thrown out, and he
should be awarded compensation. No fines.

~~~
yungether
[http://youtu.be/Ypcs4c7ihSo?t=1m27s](http://youtu.be/Ypcs4c7ihSo?t=1m27s)

------
jcutrell
A few years ago, I spent a night in in Fulton County jail.

The purpose, in my opinion, was fairly ridiculous. I'll tell a reasonably
brief version of the story.

I moved to Atlanta to attend Georgia Tech for my masters. One late night, I
was driving and took a right on a red light that had a "no right on red sign"
accidentally.

Don't forget to check for no right on red signs.

No traffic was around and luckily no one was endangered, but I did receive a
ticket (clearly the Atl police had set up a trap of sorts). Should have paid
attention, but no big deal.

So the court date is approaching, and so is my first day of classes. In the
rush of getting ready for the start of the semester, I forgot my court date.

Don't forget your court date.

The next day, in a panic, I call the courthouse to pay my ticket and any
applicable late fees. I assumed that a late fee would cover the infraction and
we'd all be on our way.

I paid the ticket. I paid the late fee. I forgot about the incident
altogether.

Fast forward a few months, I was driving on campus on my way to class, early
enough to get a coffee (yes!). I get pulled over for not having my seatbelt
on.

Don't forget your seatbelt.

The officer took a few minutes and came back to ask me if I had anyone who
could pick up my car. Of course I'm thinking, "Do I have a flat tire or
something?", and he lets me know he's going to have to arrest me and take me
to jail.

So I was put in handcuffs, on campus, and taken to Fulton County Jail, where I
was fully booked into a holding cell. I could not call anyone to come post
bail, because your "one call" was only allowed to be a local call, and you had
to know the number by heart. I couldn't post the bail myself via card, of
course. So, I spent 36 hours there. My parents even paid my bail, but somehow
the bail didn't take effect (even though others arrested after me got out on
bail).

Strangest 36 hours of my life, by far.

All of my clothes and belongings were taken, as is protocol. Not a single
guard seemed to have any sense of regard for me (or any other person being
held), uniformly ignoring simple requests like "can I have some water?" and
"what time is it?". I was in a common holding room with about 10 others for
most of the first day, until they did our physicals and booked us all into
overnight cells. I was woken up to a yelling guard at 3AM to eat "breakfast."
Everyone who had been arrested the day before was chained together (as in,
chains around my waist) and taken to a prison court to see a judge via a
camera mounted on a TV. The judge essentially looked at my case and released
me, and a few hours later I was finally let out.

Turns out, when you forget a court date, your license gets suspended. For me,
that meant I had to have someone take me to Alabama to have it unsuspended.

tl;dr; The crazy part of the justice system is, once the ball gets rolling and
protocol is instantiated, your lost time is chalked up to collateral damage
and "due process." Your sense of safety, clarity, and rights are removed, even
in minuscule clerical cases like mine. I can't even begin to imagine the
ridiculous feeling of being in jail and sexually assaulted for months, much
less years, over something slightly more egregious than a suspended license.

P.S. My arrest was completely expunged from my record, but you can still find
my mugshot online. My dad laughs at it every time he sees it.

~~~
mynameishere
Are you using your mugshot for your linkedin account?

~~~
jcutrell
Haha. Not currently. Although I think my dad uses it as my contact photo in
his phone.

------
tool
And people still seriously think that taking anonymity away from the internet
is a good thing.

I don't know what sickens me more, the american legal system or modern
internet filled with people that have absolutely no understand of privacy
because of their sheltered lives.

------
wisienkas
I Think it is frightening how illogical and incompetent USA work for justice,
instead they ruin lives of innocent people, even robbing them of the freedom
to speak. They just turned down their own culture once again, like all the
censure they apparently love.

------
jheriko
is there any evidence in this case which should be admissable in a court of
law? i might eb exaggerating - i mean i think they got the right guy, but i
see nothing here which is a good enough quality of 'evidence' for legal
purposes, and i am not even a lawyer...

day to day knowledge of law suffices to throw this out. :/

------
pawelkomarnicki
He acted like moron and got rightfully punished, this should happen to all
trolls over the Internet :)

------
31reasons
Moral of the story: Not using Facebook is worth at least 10 years of your life
and $500k.

~~~
therobot24
only if you plan on making sarcastic death threats

------
w_t_payne
The law has to be applied uniformly. If we prosecute one individual for a
particular act, we have to prosecute all individuals who perform such acts. We
clearly have, as a society, the means to make this happen, so then, why don't
we? It seems that we are abandoning the principles that guide the rule of law
here.

------
Ryel
I'm actually kind of surprised by the reaction here on HN.

I thought most of you would come to conclusion that this kid did have serious
problems and did make a big mistake.

He needed a slap on the wrist (that's an idiom, don't report me to the police)
and a lot of community service.

------
auggierose
Let's just say the US is a really fucked up place.

------
vonnik
classic overprosecution a la aaron schwartz. when the wheels of justice start
to grind, someone inevitably gets crushed. i think hugo said that...

------
izzydata
Good old fashion thought crimes.

------
hisabness
what if one of his buddies had hijacked his account as a joke?

------
richardlblair
tl;dr Don't say really fucked up shit on the internet...

------
stefantalpalaru
All this because of an image that looks like a screenshot? Wait 'till 4chan
gets a wind of this...

------
johnny635
Time to ban Facebook.

------
mcv
Don't make threats if you don't intend to follow up on them.

Also, from his lawyer: "They didn't find pentagrams and candles. He wasn't
listening to Judas Priest."

WTF does that have to do with anything? Do only Judas Priest fans shoot up
kindergartens? Is there something wrong with liking pentagrams and candles? I
think that lawyer is the real creep here, and that kind of defense deserves to
be ineffective.

In any case, if you threaten to shoot up a kindergarten, of course the police
is going to look into you. Imagine the outrage if they got a tip like that,
ignored it, and then the guy shot up a kindergarten? They have no option but
to detain him, and the lack of candles in his home is utterly irrelevant to
that.

And of course they then need to gather complete evidence, which includes the
facebook conversation, details of his past, his mental health, etc. And maybe
they messed up there. They clearly messed up some other stuff, in particular
the jail where someone can get sexually molested, and the fact that they
conned him out of a lawyer. The article does list a number of worrying aspects
of US law enforcement injustice that seems way too common lately. But that
doesn't change the fact that if you make a death threat, you should expect to
get arrested.

~~~
oskarth
> Don't make threats if you don't intend to follow up on them.

Hello, Thought Police.

It wasn't a threat. It was a series of tasteless jokes.

The consequences aren't even remotely proportional. You know what would be
proportional? Someone calling him out for being tasteless, or perhaps even
unfriend him, or report the abuse to Facebook so he had to tone it down.

It's scary that people think this kind of "justice" is remotely ok. It's not.
This is on par of a witch burning for someone not adapting to social norms.

~~~
mcv
> It wasn't a threat. It was a series of tasteless jokes.

It's a joke that looks a lot like a threat. And threats aren't funny.

The arrest was not disproportional. The corruption that happened after the
arrest was of course totally crazy and wrong, but the police investigating
threats is not wrong. The problem here is that they didn't really investigate
it; they just tried to get him convicted by any means possible. But when
someone says he's going to shoot up a kindergarten, the police absolutely
should investigate.

~~~
oskarth
By your logic, all of the following statements should lead to an arrest:

 _I 'm gonna have to kill someone if I don't get to sleep soon._

 _You make me so mad I want to kill you!_

 _If these kids don 't calm down you'll have to restrain me so I don't kill
one._

 _A: If they don 't budge on this soon we'll have to consider some other
options. B: What about kidnapping?_

Plus a bunch of comedian, talk-show hosts and other free-spoken people. A joke
is a joke; it's not an action and it's not a plan to action. It's irrelevant
whether you personally find it funny or not.

 _If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I
would find something in them to have him hanged._ \- Cardinal Richelieu

Please reconsider the consequences of what you are proposing.

