I don't see how merely saying that you are going to do something bad at some indefinite point in the future can get you behind bars. It would require extra evidence to bring a case to court, i.e. being actually in possession of a gun, being sighted outside school areas, etc. All that is just nonsense, the guy can very well claim he was "joking" before court.
How is this different than someone calling a school with a bomb threat? That person would be arrested as well. Just because they did it online rather than over the phone shouldn't really matter.
It's not the same. In the example you give actually threatening someone and mobilizing security forces warrants penal punishment. If they catch you with a bomb, you are screwed. But even if they don't catch you with a bomb, you will be sent to court for mobilizing the police and causing emotional anguish to the kids/parents, there is a law against that. But expressing a vague threat in a chat which is not directed against anyone participating in the same chat... I;m not saying not to raise an eyebrow, but it would definitely require much more evidence to bring this case to justice. Stupid people say stupid things all the time, alas if we call the police every time this happens.
But this threat did mobilize the police, and thus they were arrested. Why is calling someone and saying you are going to do something different than saying on the internet that you are going to do something?
Typical good old fashioned American hypocrisy. Instead of addressing the real issue requiring effort and hard decisions which ofc is gun control we just pick a big mouthed internet idiot the likes of him count in six or seven figure numbers and throw him to the dogs. That'll teach the real potential shooters a lesson.
Idiots.
Gun control is not the answer, and anyone that thinks it is, is ignorant of the actual issue. But please, keep making asinine assumptions it serves you well.
I don't see how merely saying that you are going to do something bad at some indefinite point in the future can get you behind bars. It would require extra evidence to bring a case to court, i.e. being actually in possession of a gun, being sighted outside school areas, etc. All that is just nonsense, the guy can very well claim he was "joking" before court.
How is this different than someone calling a school with a bomb threat? That person would be arrested as well. Just because they did it online rather than over the phone shouldn't really matter.
It's not the same. In the example you give actually threatening someone and mobilizing security forces warrants penal punishment. If they catch you with a bomb, you are screwed. But even if they don't catch you with a bomb, you will be sent to court for mobilizing the police and causing emotional anguish to the kids/parents, there is a law against that. But expressing a vague threat in a chat which is not directed against anyone participating in the same chat... I;m not saying not to raise an eyebrow, but it would definitely require much more evidence to bring this case to justice. Stupid people say stupid things all the time, alas if we call the police every time this happens.
It is exactly the same, the guy was premeditating a crime, a terrorist act. You are one of those people that had he pulled this off and it was found out that he had said something in a game that would have bitched about not sending someone to arrest him early.
This was handled appropriately, and I assure you all of the parents with children in those two schools feel the same.
But you are right about one thing, stupid people do, in fact, say stupid things all the time.
If you want a new idea, go read an old book.
In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.
FYI what you are talking about is censor of speech and with time, actions as well. I hope you understand that. Surprised that someone who works for information site would click "awesome" on that.
And before people try to BS their way that "hey I'm talking about threats and not actual censor of speech"... it's already happening... people can't even tell other people to F'off cause they will hurt their feelings. In few years that will be penalized by the law with a fine and in few more years after that you will be spending few years in jail for telling someone to F'off.
Heck the fact that someone clicked "WTF" on my post which just pretty much just says that taking the pitchforks straight away isn't really appropriate, at least in this case just goes to show. In few years my comment would probably be labelled as "support" for terrorism and basically to avoid that I'll have to just shut up and not express my view which is what?Censor is the word in case you wonder.
And I know now a lot of people will get their feelings hurt from what I said for who knows what reason(it's not like I'm actually blaming someone or something but oh well) and there will be people who will try to make it out as if I'm the bad guy... you know the guy that doesn't want someone sent in jail straight away without a proper proof.
FYI did 2 ARAM in LoL few minutes ago and guess what. There were people telling other people that they will rape and kill their mothers. I guess it's time to involve the police? Or wait it doesn't sound as severe as claiming others lives.
If you want to make a difference you might want to express your views on weapons being so readily available rather than this. In my country I'm more afraid of someone running at me with zweihander while wearing a plate armor/chain mail over being shot. It's not like it's hard to get a weapon in fact it's quite easy, BUT the fact that it's not shoved in people's face as if it's something so amazing that you just have to have it makes it that people don't have any interest in weapons.
Intent was already implied and action was taken. Guns alone wouldn't solve problems if the victims are taken by surprise, especially not if the staff is busy evacuating or instructing kids to take shelter.
As someone said earlier, better to be safe than sorry. Would you stay on a plane if someone threatening to bomb or kill passengers is not apprehended?
Typical good old fashioned American hypocrisy. Instead of addressing the real issue requiring effort and hard decisions which ofc is gun control we just pick a big mouthed internet idiot the likes of him count in six or seven figure numbers and throw him to the dogs. That'll teach the real potential shooters a lesson.
Idiots.
Gun control is not the answer, and anyone that thinks it is, is ignorant of the actual issue. But please, keep making asinine assumptions it serves you well.
Idiot.
It's not in this case, because the guy didn't have history. But no one impulsive with history of mental health issues should have access.
Typical good old fashioned American hypocrisy. Instead of addressing the real issue requiring effort and hard decisions which ofc is gun control we just pick a big mouthed internet idiot the likes of him count in six or seven figure numbers and throw him to the dogs. That'll teach the real potential shooters a lesson.
Idiots.
Gun control is not the answer, and anyone that thinks it is, is ignorant of the actual issue. But please, keep making asinine assumptions it serves you well.
Idiot.
It's not in this case, because the guy didn't have history. But no one impulsive with history of mental health issues should have access.
For the record I am pro 2nd amendment. I think people tend to get a little edgy when the words "gun control" are thrown around. They're so broad and everyone uses them differently so it's understandable why. In my opinion, yes there is no reason whey we can't tighten the laws to help prevent those that are a risk from getting their hands on guns, but that raises a bigger question and in my opinion something that is far more dangerous and really needs much more attention. How do you figure out those who are mentally ill? Figure out how to identify them and, more importantly, treat them and a lot more problems than shootings will be on their way to being resolved.
Absolute twat, knew before clicking the link he'd be a gimp. Little prick saying he's gonna shoot up kids, I truly hope he gets absolutely battered during his stay inside.
Typical good old fashioned American hypocrisy. Instead of addressing the real issue requiring effort and hard decisions which ofc is gun control we just pick a big mouthed internet idiot the likes of him count in six or seven figure numbers and throw him to the dogs. That'll teach the real potential shooters a lesson.
Idiots.
Gun control is not the answer, and anyone that thinks it is, is ignorant of the actual issue. But please, keep making asinine assumptions it serves you well.
Idiot.
It's not in this case, because the guy didn't have history. But no one impulsive with history of mental health issues should have access.
For the record I am pro 2nd amendment. I think people tend to get a little edgy when the words "gun control" are thrown around. They're so broad and everyone uses them differently so it's understandable why. In my opinion, yes there is no reason whey we can't tighten the laws to help prevent those that are a risk from getting their hands on guns, but that raises a bigger question and in my opinion something that is far more dangerous and really needs much more attention. How do you figure out those who are mentally ill? Figure out how to identify them and, more importantly, treat them and a lot more problems than shootings will be on their way to being resolved.
Having a robust criteria that says who can or cannot own a gun is more a case of enforcing laws and procedures that already exist but aren't carried out or enforced correctly, mental stability should be an absolute requirement but something that is likely hard to prove one way or another, the irony of 'gun free' zones being frequently targetted by mass shooters is not lost either, they don't work and never have which is why the whole gun control topic is so controversial as the FBI's gun crime statistics frequently bear out, while some people might be afraid of guns to the extent that they want them all to go away, its an unrealistic measure that won't work, as someone who lives in the UK i can assure you that the murder rates didn't go down just because people didn't have access to guns, if anything its steadily rising here, particularly in London. Having armed guards at schools and religious buildings is likely the only real credible response, not banning guns which doesn't help and if anything likely puts those most vulnerable more at risk. I do think Blizzard did the right thing, all such threats should be investigated by law enforcement, chances are they turn out to be nothing more than adolescent pique, but on the remote chance that is not the case, you can't really take the risk of not doing something.
Typical good old fashioned American hypocrisy. Instead of addressing the real issue requiring effort and hard decisions which ofc is gun control we just pick a big mouthed internet idiot the likes of him count in six or seven figure numbers and throw him to the dogs. That'll teach the real potential shooters a lesson.
Idiots.
Gun control is not the answer, and anyone that thinks it is, is ignorant of the actual issue. But please, keep making asinine assumptions it serves you well.
Gun control would be part of the answer. You'll just have to look at some country that has enacted strong gun control, like Australia, to see that it reduces the number of people killed by other people.
Its unfortunate how programmed people are these days, the internet is the last bastion of freedom, if its governed you are what THEY want you to be, expendable. Wake up people this unconstitutional, Blizzard is a trash company on so many levels.
Typical good old fashioned American hypocrisy. Instead of addressing the real issue requiring effort and hard decisions which ofc is gun control we just pick a big mouthed internet idiot the likes of him count in six or seven figure numbers and throw him to the dogs. That'll teach the real potential shooters a lesson.
Idiots.
Gun control is not the answer, and anyone that thinks it is, is ignorant of the actual issue. But please, keep making asinine assumptions it serves you well.
As a matter of fact, gun control IS the answer and all these hypocritical reactions are trying to hide the real issue. A mass murderer will act not because he announces it on the internet, but because he can easily get hold of firearms. And for that reason, he would probably NOT announce it on the internet.
On the internet you have the gift to meet wonderful people and learn about their wonderful places and culture... yet people chose to do this kind of stuff. It makes me lose faith in humanity - and a spark of disgust since I know many wonderful people who can't afford such luxuries.
I don't want to sound like a old man waving his cane, but some people really don't value the things and opportunity they have.
When Youtube started to enforce account linking to google account with identity verification it got me by surprise that I was the only person to think that was cool. I don't fear what I say on the internet because I don't wear a persona when I'm writting or talking... And I think it pretty sums up people like this fella: Cowards. They are just cowards.
You are playing a game and chose to disrupt it by saying those things, no wonder most people play HoTs with the "hide the chat" options enable by default.
this is an easy solution for a mentally stable person, but what about the unstable, whereas they might not be the most brilliant and enjoyable person they still have means to contribute, people say horrible things when not thinking clearly and we are all guilty of it even you im certain.
Been here for years, never really post, but I felt I had to put my 2 cents in on this. It's unfortunate that we now live in a society that looks at things way out of proportion. I think it is completely justified that the person was arrested for making threats. Also, you have to look at the bigger picture. Say this happened and the police did nothing... then a shooting occurred. Everyone would be criticizing the police for doing nothing and innocents were hurt. It's easy to say things when you are not directly involved, but if you were put in a life threatening situation, the first thing you would want is help from the police. I have 2 young children, and am an ex-teacher from Vegas. This hits home to me and there is not a day that goes by that I worry about my children going to school. Sadly, I more concerned about the violence then getting bad grades/in trouble.
CPU-HP Omen 17.3" Laptop i7 12 GB AMD Radeon RX580 1 TB Hard Drive
I think the actual number of schools in a two mile radius is not the point of this story. The points are that: there was a potentially dangerous person making threats in game; the company learned of it and acted on it quickly; and the police were able to take the individual into custody before anyone was harmed. It shows people are doing better at taking these matters seriously and reporting them. Which is a good thing.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
What the hell!! Did you see the guns they have in Destiny? Destiny 2? Look at Division 2, it is all filled with guns and murder and wanton violence runs rampant in video games. It must end.
If there was gun control in GTA V, you wouldn't be able to cause mayhem (like I do). If there was gun control in Entropia, i'd only pay all that money for a knife, instead of my laser gun. Look at my beloved Path of Exile, they don't have guns.
GUN CONTROL IN VIDEO GAMES!!!!!!!!!!! WE WANT IT NOW!!!!!!!!!!!
Catch me streaming at twitch.tv/cryomatrix You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations.
I understand a scare tactic, but this man did nothing wrong, talk is cheap, anger is real, I can see watching him the entirety of his life, but to arrest him......unconstitutional.
Yes, it is wrong in every sense of the word to threaten to buy a gun and shoot school kids (or anyone else for that matter), but where is the political motivation?
Are we at a point now where anyone who threatens someone with violence is a terrorist?
It is a funny world we live in. We had Empires run by Emperors, we had Kingdoms run by Kings, now we have Countries...
Yes, it is wrong in every sense of the word to threaten to buy a gun and shoot school kids (or anyone else for that matter), but where is the political motivation?
Are we at a point now where anyone who threatens someone with violence is a terrorist?
No, the writer that titled the article made a mistake. However, they would be completely correct if they said "Domestic Terrorism."
involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B)appear to be intended—
(i)
to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii)
to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii)
to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C)
occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States; and
You were likely so terrible at looking up terrorism on Google that you simply took the definition from the first link you found. B(i) probably wasn't there. More embarrassingly, you then took that definition and decided to attack... what... society as a whole for calling something "terrorist" that you personally feel doesn't fall under the definition?
I guess the best question for you is, are we now at a point when someone threatens a school shooting, someone starts arguing about the definition of terrorism?
Typical good old fashioned American hypocrisy. Instead of addressing the real issue requiring effort and hard decisions which ofc is gun control we just pick a big mouthed internet idiot the likes of him count in six or seven figure numbers and throw him to the dogs. That'll teach the real potential shooters a lesson.
Idiots.
Gun control is not the answer, and anyone that thinks it is, is ignorant of the actual issue. But please, keep making asinine assumptions it serves you well.
Gun control would be part of the answer. You'll just have to look at some country that has enacted strong gun control, like Australia, to see that it reduces the number of people killed by other people.
Yeah, Australia pulled it off. Easy to do when you do not share borders. It will not work here, if you disarm Americans, only the law-abiding will be unarmed, the criminals will still be armed.
If you want real proof, look at Chicago, some of the harshest gun control laws in the country and yet, they still have double-digit murders there on a weekly basis.
It is extreme folly to compare one country to another on this topic. There is no way, taking guns out of mentally healthy, law-abiding citizens, in this country is a good idea. It is naive in the extreme to think it is.
If you want a new idea, go read an old book.
In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.
Yes, it is wrong in every sense of the word to threaten to buy a gun and shoot school kids (or anyone else for that matter), but where is the political motivation?
Are we at a point now where anyone who threatens someone with violence is a terrorist?
No, the writer that titled the article made a mistake. However, they would be completely correct if they said "Domestic Terrorism."
involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B)appear to be intended—
(i)
to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii)
to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii)
to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C)
occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States; and
You were likely so terrible at looking up terrorism on Google that you simply took the definition from the first link you found. B(i) probably wasn't there. More embarrassingly, you then took that definition and decided to attack... what... society as a whole for calling something "terrorist" that you personally feel doesn't fall under the definition?
I guess the best question for you is, are we now at a point when someone threatens a school shooting, someone starts arguing about the definition of terrorism?
Nice try, but no, did not use any google-fu at all. Terrorism is generally held to be politically motivated, and as I said, I fail to see how what he said is political. Since the writer of the article is mistaken, it makes it a moot point.
It is a funny world we live in. We had Empires run by Emperors, we had Kingdoms run by Kings, now we have Countries...
Yes, it is wrong in every sense of the word to threaten to buy a gun and shoot school kids (or anyone else for that matter), but where is the political motivation?
Are we at a point now where anyone who threatens someone with violence is a terrorist?
No, the writer that titled the article made a mistake. However, they would be completely correct if they said "Domestic Terrorism."
involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B)appear to be intended—
(i)
to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii)
to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii)
to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C)
occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States; and
You were likely so terrible at looking up terrorism on Google that you simply took the definition from the first link you found. B(i) probably wasn't there. More embarrassingly, you then took that definition and decided to attack... what... society as a whole for calling something "terrorist" that you personally feel doesn't fall under the definition?
I guess the best question for you is, are we now at a point when someone threatens a school shooting, someone starts arguing about the definition of terrorism?
Nice try, but no, did not use any google-fu at all. Terrorism is generally held to be politically motivated, and as I said, I fail to see how what he said is political. Since the writer of the article is mistaken, it makes it a moot point.
Comments
Let's party like it is 1863!
Idiot.
It is exactly the same, the guy was premeditating a crime, a terrorist act. You are one of those people that had he pulled this off and it was found out that he had said something in a game that would have bitched about not sending someone to arrest him early.
This was handled appropriately, and I assure you all of the parents with children in those two schools feel the same.
But you are right about one thing, stupid people do, in fact, say stupid things all the time.
If you want a new idea, go read an old book.
In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.
This isn't a signature, you just think it is.
Having armed guards at schools and religious buildings is likely the only real credible response, not banning guns which doesn't help and if anything likely puts those most vulnerable more at risk.
I do think Blizzard did the right thing, all such threats should be investigated by law enforcement, chances are they turn out to be nothing more than adolescent pique, but on the remote chance that is not the case, you can't really take the risk of not doing something.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Message deleted. Sorry SBFord I only saw your message after I'd posted this
/EDIT
CPU-HP Omen 17.3" Laptop i7 12 GB AMD Radeon RX580 1 TB Hard Drive
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
What the hell!! Did you see the guns they have in Destiny? Destiny 2? Look at Division 2, it is all filled with guns and murder and wanton violence runs rampant in video games. It must end.
If there was gun control in GTA V, you wouldn't be able to cause mayhem (like I do). If there was gun control in Entropia, i'd only pay all that money for a knife, instead of my laser gun. Look at my beloved Path of Exile, they don't have guns.
GUN CONTROL IN VIDEO GAMES!!!!!!!!!!! WE WANT IT NOW!!!!!!!!!!!
You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations.
Yes, it is wrong in every sense of the word to threaten to buy a gun and shoot school kids (or anyone else for that matter), but where is the political motivation?
Are we at a point now where anyone who threatens someone with violence is a terrorist?
We had Empires run by Emperors, we had Kingdoms run by Kings, now we have Countries...
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2331
You were likely so terrible at looking up terrorism on Google that you simply took the definition from the first link you found. B(i) probably wasn't there. More embarrassingly, you then took that definition and decided to attack... what... society as a whole for calling something "terrorist" that you personally feel doesn't fall under the definition?
I guess the best question for you is, are we now at a point when someone threatens a school shooting, someone starts arguing about the definition of terrorism?
If you want real proof, look at Chicago, some of the harshest gun control laws in the country and yet, they still have double-digit murders there on a weekly basis.
It is extreme folly to compare one country to another on this topic. There is no way, taking guns out of mentally healthy, law-abiding citizens, in this country is a good idea. It is naive in the extreme to think it is.
If you want a new idea, go read an old book.
In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.
Terrorism is generally held to be politically motivated, and as I said, I fail to see how what he said is political.
Since the writer of the article is mistaken, it makes it a moot point.
We had Empires run by Emperors, we had Kingdoms run by Kings, now we have Countries...
What has the world come to indeed?