What law did this 15 yr old break?
- Thread starter MacEntyre
- Start date
- Replies 41
- Views 1,836
TripleO7
Well-Known Member
Location and having anything to do with a firearm.
I’m sure this was interpreted as a threat against the school.
They will likely have an assembly to talk about social media bullying.
If the pictures were discovered by another student, he will be given a medal at said assembly.
They will likely have an assembly to talk about social media bullying.
If the pictures were discovered by another student, he will be given a medal at said assembly.
I hate to say it but you're probably right in this instance.
NC disorderly conduct is defined a bit more specifically though.
https://www.ncga.state.nc.us/enactedlegislation/statutes/html/bysection/chapter_14/gs_14-288.4.html
Slosolo2
Here to be happy
With Obstruction of Justice a close second place.
Whoa
Did anyone else feel that?
I hope nobody takes pictures of practice on Sunday. A dozen armed kids on a school outing. I had my AR out testing some reloads with a parent and a student hanging out waiting for everyone to get there last Sunday. Parent mentioned he wanted to get a suppressor himself soon.
And to be honest, this is why I don't take pics of practice and post them. Somebody, somewhere would be stupid about it.
And to be honest, this is why I don't take pics of practice and post them. Somebody, somewhere would be stupid about it.
Last edited:
We make positive strides with 10-15 kids a year, plus their parents. I'm not going to change an anti gunners mind. But if I can send 10 kids a year out with confidence in guns being useful and not the issue, I win far more than some FB argument. Plus the parental/privacy aspect of posting other kids pics. I've posted some pics here, and have no issue talking about it. And I mention it on FB occasionally. But I don't toss stuff out there to be controversial with it. If someone has a problem with it, I'd defend it to the bitter end though.
Although one of the guys on FB I've had my most vehement gun arguments with has a daughter that is shooting archery for her school this year. So that's a step forward, just not with my school.
Long_Hunter
Sufficient Speed, Acceptable Drag
2A Bourbon Hound 2024
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Charter Life Member
Benefactor
Supporting Member
And another one in South Carolina...charged with "disturbing schools"
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/02/1...d-florida-round-2-tells-cops-it-was-joke.html
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/02/1...d-florida-round-2-tells-cops-it-was-joke.html
Oh, this is just a breath away from being “illegal” to be insensitive to the feelz of the libtards. Disturbing schools. Schools are an inanimate building. They don’t have feelz and can’t get disturbed. Doh!
OP
MacEntyre
Shoot on Sight!
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Charter Member
Benefactor
Life Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
That one looks more like a threat. But it seems like they would charge him with making a threat, not "disturbing schools" so I bet they didn't have enough, so they made up something.
Hundreds of pics with Grandma and Grandpa and their kids and Grandkids with all kinds of guns, including black ones. Pics of 10 yr old little Joey with the 15-22.
And they're not just holding them, they're shooting them. Plus, these kids are all over the facebook scene and all that. The pics are confusing to an anti though, as there's adult supervision along with eye and ear protection.
If anyone were to ever ask them "what are you doing with that gun!?" their answer would be "keeping my finger off the trigger until I'm ready to shoot and keeping the gun pointed in a safe direction! Mr. Friday will lay into you for breaking those rules!"
And they're not just holding them, they're shooting them. Plus, these kids are all over the facebook scene and all that. The pics are confusing to an anti though, as there's adult supervision along with eye and ear protection.
If anyone were to ever ask them "what are you doing with that gun!?" their answer would be "keeping my finger off the trigger until I'm ready to shoot and keeping the gun pointed in a safe direction! Mr. Friday will lay into you for breaking those rules!"
This is the real danger, not the shooters. It's cops and others over reacting. This could break a family financially.
Ikarus1
Avtomat Krishna-kov
So this is disorderly conduct, but the FL school shooter claiming he was gonna shoot up a school wasn't worth the FBI pulling the Youtube account info and having a nice chat with him. Gotcha!
Stupidity has consequences. And that was really stupid.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I call BS on the free speech part. What part of free speech allows you to threaten other people? Not some veiled made up threat. This was clear what he intended to say. What part of that is protected? And do you really think he'll do time for it? Seriously? Speech you don't like is one thing. Speech that conveys a physical threat to life and limb is in no way protected. Matter of fact, under the right circumstances I'm sure someone could react to it in self defense and be OK as long as the SD measure was of an appropriate level of force. No one gets to make threats as protected speech.
Ikarus1
Avtomat Krishna-kov
was it a threat? how public was that threat? Last I checked, snapchat is a personal communication service nearly exactly like a 'party line' phone conversation where when you send it out, it disappears.
So the person 'reporting the threat' had to screenshot or capture it and 'see something say something'. A threat wasn't called into the school, wasn't on display, it amounts to a conversation between what this kid probably thought was his closer friends.
I recently dealt with a similar situation where someone screenshot a conversation my son made in a gaming chatroom, and had to deal with the school and authorities. Damn near ruined his life, so I'm a little sensitive to
the thought police having knee jerk reactions to the media blitz over a non-local event.
Last edited:
Just making sure we are talking about the same one. The SC kid with the gun and "Round 2 of Florida tomorrow."? Because if you are defending that, yeah not much of a conversation we can have. I've got no sympathy for someone that does something that stupid and draws this kind of reaction.
The Chicago kid, since there is no mention of text or context we are left to assume it's just a picture of him with a gun. Way over reaction IMO.
Context is key. You throw a threat in the mix the evening of a school shooting, with all the concern over copy cat violence, it will draw a reaction.
So a question. Most of us are scratching our heads because the FBI didn't take what looks like Cruz's comment on youtube seriously. Are we just concerned and upset with the FBI after the fact? Because if we are concerned with that statement, we damn sure ought to be concerned with this snap chat pic too. I see no difference in "I wanna be a professional school shooter" and "Round 2 of Florida tomorrow." If LE is going to try to catch some of these issues before they take action, they are going to have to take these kind of statements seriously. Or seriously enough to be sure it was just a kid being stupid. If they are convinced the SC is just an idiot, then I'm not one to ruin his life for it. But neither am I willing to assume it's just a stupid comment anymore. Lets face it, the stakes are way too high here.
Reminds me of the old IPSC rule strictly enforced by Cooper himself.......Failure to do right. At least that didn't require a family to engage an attorney and go broke to defend Jr. from taking a picture.
A threat made to a third party is still a threat and still illegal.
The question is, does someone who doesn't have the balls enough to make their threats to the intended victims have the balls enough to be a threat.
I can't count the number of times I've been threatened soto voce only to be told "I didn't say nothing" when challenged.
Ikarus1
Avtomat Krishna-kov
The difference is the medium of communication. It's the difference between yelling "Fire!" in your own home and scaring your friends and family as a prank, or yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre, causing people to be trampled and injured. Or calling in a fake fire to a school or a bomb threat to one.
BIG difference.
Youtube comments = public theater.
Last edited:
Internet = public. Nothing there is private. Big difference between making a stupid comment at home and blasting it out on the webs for lots of people to see, including folks you may not intend to see. How many of these idiots made comments to their friend that only came to light AFTER the shooting? It was several. And none of their friends thought they were capable of it. Guess they were wrong. But boy are we glad their right to threaten people wasn't infringed upon. WTH?
You do understand that several potential shootings have been interrupted by intervention of friends and family right? I though we pushed responsibility of those closest to the situation to get involved? Or are we talking out of both sides of our mouth now? If this was a friend that reported this, good for them. Apparently they were fearful enough to get involved. Would you prefer this come to light after the fact to protect the kid sending the pic?
Going to be brutally honest, this kind of mindless grasping at "freedom" and "infringement" is also why we can't have reasonable conversations about these things. I'm a bit stunned we are having this conversation. I kind of hoped we were talking about 2 different issues. The idea that making a threat is protected speech is nuts, it's even clearly classified as illegal in NC. And yes, I think this fits the description.
14-277.1. Communicating threats.
(a) A person is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor if without lawful authority:
(1) He willfully threatens to physically injure the person or that person's child, sibling, spouse, or dependent or willfully threatens to damage the property of another;
(2) The threat is communicated to the other person, orally, in writing, or by any other means;
(3) The threat is made in a manner and under circumstances which would cause a reasonable person to believe that the threat is likely to be carried out; and
(4) The person threatened believes that the threat will be carried out.
(b) A violation of this section is a Class 1 misdemeanor.
@chiefjason please go back and look at post #1 again. This isn't the Florida 2.0 poster. I see no mention of threat in what was posted. Taking a selfie with s bunch of guns and posting it may have been insensitive or even in poor taste, but I don't see Sony threats.
Our conversation is, and it was brought up in this thread which is where my initial comment came from. I made sure we were on the SC shooting, post 21 and 22 is where it started. Thread drift, probably. But that's par for the course here.
I could care less about the kid with a simple pic, and stated it was an over reaction here too.
Ikarus1
Avtomat Krishna-kov
to my knowledge, snapchat isn't the internet. it's the modern equivalent of a misson impossible message.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrym...ids-love-it-and-parents-fear-it/#78ce24b04fce
Also last I heard, there wasn't a shooting in SC, just a kid that snapchatted his friends a stupid pic of him holding an air rifle, and is now being held in juvenile detention.
A 9th grader ie: 14 year old stupid kid, not a 17/18/19 year old (adult in the court system) that's been kicked out of school for making credible threats (ROTC members have access to firearms, etc)
It's no different to me than the kid eating a pop tart into a shape of a gun. Also, this see something say something bullshit has become the online equivalent of swatting someone.
And outside the family, most see something say something reportings haven't prevented ANY of these so-called previously known threats. More security theatre.
No different than frisking old ladies and children at the airport to prevent the next 9-11.
You want security, do it but don't become the ******* thought police.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrym...ids-love-it-and-parents-fear-it/#78ce24b04fce
Also last I heard, there wasn't a shooting in SC, just a kid that snapchatted his friends a stupid pic of him holding an air rifle, and is now being held in juvenile detention.
A 9th grader ie: 14 year old stupid kid, not a 17/18/19 year old (adult in the court system) that's been kicked out of school for making credible threats (ROTC members have access to firearms, etc)
It's no different to me than the kid eating a pop tart into a shape of a gun. Also, this see something say something bullshit has become the online equivalent of swatting someone.
And outside the family, most see something say something reportings haven't prevented ANY of these so-called previously known threats. More security theatre.
No different than frisking old ladies and children at the airport to prevent the next 9-11.
You want security, do it but don't become the ******* thought police.
Last edited:
Ikarus1
Avtomat Krishna-kov
yeah he learned not to post stupid jokes in writing because there's always a snitch itching to turn it into a public posting. He was in 9th grade, he's gonna be fine.
I got a giggle at the principle saying he may have to search his home computer. I told him get a warrant and he could search my underwear if he wants to eat a D. He was wearing the ugliest UNC CH sweater that you could possibly imagine so when he wanted to talk about his access to firearms I told him I left mine locked up in the car but I'd be happy to show him how to shoot off campus anytime. The resource officer got a giggle.
Last edited:
Should grandma have kept her mouth shut and respected her grandsons rights? Get a grip. You’ve gone a bit blind to common sense because of something that happened to your kid.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nb...ed-grandson-s-alleged-school-shooting-n848426
Snapchat is temporary but it is neither private or non reproducible. Once you put it out there, it belongs to anyone that wants to save it. And this kid is learning that the hard way. This isn’t thought police. He made a threat and appeared to have the means to carry out that threat.
You’re doubling down that not only are threats protected speech, they should summarily be ignored. Yeah, that’s bordering on crazy imo. If one of my daughters friends posted that I’d be on the phone with someone too. I prefer to not live with the consequences of seeing a threat and not making it known.
Edit to add- Cruz was reported twice by non family members to the FBI. They dropped the ball on that one.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited:
Ikarus1
Avtomat Krishna-kov
My thoughts on what is protected speech are as clear as glass.
Is Snapchat communication considered public or private? Thats the key issue.
Common sense is handling it without calling on the nanny state to do the job of parents. Which includes checking phones and communication.
The OP was talking merely pics of guns on snapchat, you included the 9th grader with his "veiled threat" joke. He didnt put it on a public posting, someone screenshot it and tattled because they were being good little citizen-subjects.
Sheepdog120
Well-Known Member
I'm not saying that the arrest wasn't a stretch, but below is the rest of the story........
http://www.arlingtoncardinal.com/20...illinois-after-gun-images-posted-on-snapchat/
"At least three photos were allegedly shared by the student on Snapchat …
one image showing a gun,
one image of the suspect holding the gun, and
one image of the suspect holding the gun with a caption that specifically mentioned Shepard High School."
I can see where they could at least argue that there was some intent to intimidate when taken in the totality of the circumstances.
http://www.arlingtoncardinal.com/20...illinois-after-gun-images-posted-on-snapchat/
"At least three photos were allegedly shared by the student on Snapchat …
one image showing a gun,
one image of the suspect holding the gun, and
one image of the suspect holding the gun with a caption that specifically mentioned Shepard High School."
I can see where they could at least argue that there was some intent to intimidate when taken in the totality of the circumstances.
Ikarus1
Avtomat Krishna-kov
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/09/18...ages-have-first-fourth-amendment-protections/
"Citing precedents such as Tinker v. Des Moines, the District Court held that out-of-school statements “are protected under the First Amendment and not punishable by school authorities unless they are true threats or are reasonably calculated to reach the school environment and are so egregious as to pose a serious safety risk or other substantial disruption in that environment.”
"The school defendants in the case claimed qualified immunity because the protected status of the out-of-school speech wasn’t sufficiently clear at the time of the alleged violation, but the court dismissed that notion, saying the general rule that schools may not regulate inappropriate out-of-school speech has been well established for decades."
Take from that what you will
Also I take issue with the notion of this
"Snapchat is temporary but it is neither private or non reproducible. Once you put it out there, it belongs to anyone that wants to save it"
Does that work for private telephone or in person conversation as well? If I recorded someone making a "veiled threat" joke, edited all the context out and submittes it to authorities as a threat report?
"Citing precedents such as Tinker v. Des Moines, the District Court held that out-of-school statements “are protected under the First Amendment and not punishable by school authorities unless they are true threats or are reasonably calculated to reach the school environment and are so egregious as to pose a serious safety risk or other substantial disruption in that environment.”
"The school defendants in the case claimed qualified immunity because the protected status of the out-of-school speech wasn’t sufficiently clear at the time of the alleged violation, but the court dismissed that notion, saying the general rule that schools may not regulate inappropriate out-of-school speech has been well established for decades."
Take from that what you will
Also I take issue with the notion of this
"Snapchat is temporary but it is neither private or non reproducible. Once you put it out there, it belongs to anyone that wants to save it"
Does that work for private telephone or in person conversation as well? If I recorded someone making a "veiled threat" joke, edited all the context out and submittes it to authorities as a threat report?
Last edited:
OP
MacEntyre
Shoot on Sight!
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Charter Member
Benefactor
Life Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
I wonder if these FB posts will result in a "disturbing schools" charge, or will it be "disorderly conduct"?
Which one o' dese? ???
Which one o' dese? ???
Last edited: