So now thoughts are criminal? - Page 3

johncmcleod · August 31, 2003, 12:41

Quote:

but the 2nd amendment's a bit archaic, isn't it?

No, it isn't. If we couldn't have guns, and the government destroyed democracy we couldn't rebel.

The kid maybe should get in trouble with the school for what he did but not with the law.

Kuciwalker · August 31, 2003, 12:47

Do you really think the American citizenry could fight off the Army? The weapons available to civilians are simply incomparable to those available to the military. Revolt in a country such as the US is simply not possible without the support of the military, in which case the citizens don't need guns.

Elok · August 31, 2003, 13:18

Yeah...I always thought the NRA paranoia routine was rather interesting that way. Sure, the government has tanks, bombers, and armored attack helicopters with miniguns capable of firing thousands of rounds per minute from a stationary position in the air while at the same time possessing greater mobility than ground troops, and yeah, they have navy seals and all that junk, but they're not gonna push us around as long as we have .22 rifles, right?

st_swithin · August 31, 2003, 14:12

I have a PMC 9mm Luger.

Elok · August 31, 2003, 14:22

Well, those too. My point is that they all make a scary noise when they bounce off of tank armor, and that's about it.

st_swithin · August 31, 2003, 14:25

Actually, a .22 is a great way to cause mayhem and havoc - the bullets are usually travelling at a very high velocity and have a strong tendency to ricochet off solid objects, particularly metal.

ajbera · August 31, 2003, 14:27

Until you can absolutely guarantee that the police will be at my door instantly if someone breaks into my house, and until you can guarantee that I will never need to defend myself and my wife (and dog) in my own home, I will keep my weapons. I can understand that conventional small arms can't match military might, and are thus largely unsuitable for preventing the gov't from taking control, but they are very useful for personal defense from miscreants and other criminal scum.

And remember - if someone breaks into your house and you have to shoot, shoot to kill, because the scumbag will sue you if you just injure him. Sadly, it seems (in many cases) that a criminal sh!thead has a greater right to break into your house than you do to defend your life and property.

st_swithin · August 31, 2003, 14:34

I'd aim the gun at his balls, then ask him why he was breaking into my house in the first place. I mean, at least you'd get a good story out of him before you have to kill him.

I'd shoot at least twice, and blame it on my nervous fingers for pulling the trigger more than once. Stupid hairtrigger.

ajbera · August 31, 2003, 14:38

Quote:

Originally posted by st_swithin
I'd aim the gun at his balls, then ask him why he was breaking into my house in the first place. I mean, at least you'd get a good story out of him before you have to kill him.

I'd shoot at least twice, and blame it on my nervous fingers for pulling the trigger more than once. Stupid hairtrigger.

I like you st_swithin. You're really neat.

st_swithin · August 31, 2003, 14:40

Yep, no mixers with me - just straight up.

Elok · August 31, 2003, 14:49

I never said guns should be eliminated, I just think that the story about the government being scared into good behavior by our shotguns is ridiculous. The main thing that keeps any military from wiping out urban resistance factions is a reluctance to fight really dirty. If the government was bent on oppressing the people and blahblahblah they wouldn't object to bombing an apartment building every day until the restistors cut the crap. In such circumstances, people would probably rat their own "saviors" out to avert future reprisals.

ajbera · August 31, 2003, 15:06

I do hope that if the sh!t comes down, though, that a big enough chunk of the military will refuse to kill civilians, and possibly even be willing to fight against the goverment.

Although I hope this would be the case, I don't think it would. The proportion of intra-military rebels would probably be too small to make much of a difference.

st_swithin · August 31, 2003, 15:17

It all starts with one.

chequita guevara · August 31, 2003, 15:35

Quote:

Originally posted by st_swithin
It all starts with one.

And if it's only one, it ends there too.

While this is a big hassel for this kid, I think the law is unlikely to stand up to Contstitutional challenge. The 1st Amendement clearly protects this kid.

Elok · August 31, 2003, 15:46

Quote:

Originally posted by ajbera
I do hope that if the sh!t comes down, though, that a big enough chunk of the military will refuse to kill civilians, and possibly even be willing to fight against the goverment.
Although I hope this would be the case, I don't think it would. The proportion of intra-military rebels would probably be too small to make much of a difference.

In that case though, what saves the day is still not the military strength of the people, but their moral strength. Guns can't really protect our civil liberties from within, so I'd say that argument's pretty much null. Now, owning guns for self-defense is another issue entirely...

Panag · August 31, 2003, 16:04

Quote:

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

And if it's only one, it ends there too.

While this is a big hassel for this kid, I think the law is unlikely to stand up to Contstitutional challenge. The 1st Amendement clearly protects this kid.

hi ,

, and what about the new laws of terror , ahem , freedom , ......

have a nice week

Chemical Ollie · August 31, 2003, 16:37

Did he or his buddies have access to any of the weapons and explosives needed to carry out the plan?

Panag · August 31, 2003, 16:42

Quote:

Originally posted by st_swithin
I have a PMC 9mm Luger.

hi ,

get a .45 , way better in stopping someone , ......

have a nice day

Chemical Ollie · August 31, 2003, 16:50

Quote:

Originally posted by ajbera

And remember - if someone breaks into your house and you have to shoot, shoot to kill, because the scumbag will sue you if you just injure him. Sadly, it seems (in many cases) that a criminal sh!thead has a greater right to break into your house than you do to defend your life and property.

How many American teenagers are killed by their dad when they try to sneak in late at night and are mistaken for burglars?

st_swithin · August 31, 2003, 16:52

How the heck did David Hasselhoff get famous in America? He shoulda stayed in Germany - people like him there.

ajbera · August 31, 2003, 18:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
How many American teenagers are killed by their dad when they try to sneak in late at night and are mistaken for burglars?

That'll teach the survivors to bring a key.

And I'm willing to bet that far, far fewer teenagers get shot sneaking in at 3 am than do criminals intent on theft, assault, or worse. I don't buy that "if just one poor innocent teen gets capped sneaking in at night then it's just not worth it" argument. It's an imperfect world, and the needs of teens to not get a bullet in the brain when trying to sneak into the house have to be weighed against the needs of people to protect their lives and property from thugs and crackheads.

st_swithin · August 31, 2003, 18:38

How many dads are accidentally shot by their American teenagers, using their Dad's gun, mistaking Dad coming home late from banging his secretary for a burgler, due to having read too many crime reports in the local newspaper?

Jules · September 4, 2003, 09:39

Quote:

Teen's Felony Case Thrown Out
By Kim Zetter
02:00 AM Sep. 03, 2003 PT

The case of an Oklahoma teen who was charged with a felony for writing a violent short story about attacking his school has been dismissed by a judge who ruled that prosecutors failed to prove the teen actually intended to commit the act.

Citing a lack of evidence showing malicious intent, Judge William Hetherington issued his ruling Friday afternoon, bringing to close a case that has sparked controversy over its free speech implications.

Now, after tens of thousands of dollars spent fighting the charge, Brian Robertson is free, but the accusation that he broke the law will stay with him. Under Oklahoma law, if a case carries on for more than a year, a felony charge remains on the defendant's record, even if the case is dismissed. The felony gets expunged from the record only if the defendant is acquitted following a trial.

As reported on Wired News two weeks ago, Robertson was charged in April 2001 with a felony count of "planning to cause serious bodily harm or death" after a teacher at his Moore, Oklahoma, high school discovered a short story that Robertson had written on a classroom computer. Titled "Evacuation Orders," (PDF) the story described plans for an attack on the school that involved shooting a principal and blowing up the school.

Robertson, who plans to study journalism in college, called the writing a work of fiction. He said he found the first paragraph of the story on the school computer and simply began writing where the original writer had left off.

But despite a lack of evidence indicating the story was more than the product of his imagination, Robertson, then 18, was suspended from school for a year and arrested.

He and his family have spent the last year and a half fighting the felony charge with their defense attorney, Sara McFall, and lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union. Last December a judge dismissed the case, arguing that the Oklahoma statute used to prosecute Robertson was too vague and broad. But the prosecutor successfully appealed to reinstate it.

The statute was passed in 2001 in response to school shootings across the United States. McFall and lawyers from the ACLU argued that the law was unconstitutional since it criminalized violent forms of speech and thought regardless of intent.

Hetherington wrote in his ruling that to convict someone "for merely drafting a plan of violence and nothing more, would clearly violate First Amendment privileges."

"There must be some showing of malicious intent ... (but) the state offers nothing more than the written plan," he concluded.

McFall, Robertson's attorney, said the tipping point in the case came when Robertson's mother uncovered new evidence last week that proved he didn't write the story's initial paragraph. After searching for the first sentence in Google, Kathy Robertson discovered the paragraph was part of a template that came on a CD-ROM for an Adobe PageMaker textbook.

"If the judge ever felt threatened by Brian Robertson as a dangerous student, this made it obvious that the writing was just an exercise in creativity," she said.

Kathy Robertson, Brian's mother and a former teacher herself, said her son's case changed her views of zero tolerance, a policy many schools have adopted in recent years that encourages harsh treatment of kids who bring weapons to school or make violent threats.

"Before Brian's case I was middle of the road, but now I see how harmful it can be when kids are put through something like this for minimal infractions," she said.

Robertson, who launched a website to publicize her son's case in April, said she would not have become so involved in fighting the charge if it hadn't been reinstated last December.

"I was happy to sit back and let things happen, thinking that it would never get to the trial stage," she said. "But after the judge overturned the decision to throw out the case, that's when I got angry."

After the story was published on Wired News in August, traffic on Robertson's website spiked to more than 23,000 monthly visitors. Previously, the most visitors it received in a month was 1,200.

Readers from around the world posted comments on the site. Many were critical of the Oklahoma law. As one reader from New Zealand wrote, "Another failure for independence in 'the land of the free' ... I'm delighted to live in a country where normal sanity prevails."

Brian Robertson said he was grateful for the outpouring of support, especially after others had turned away from him because of the case. After local news stations broadcast his booking photo and likened him to a terrorist, Robertson said, people began to avoid him and he lost a job as a result of the negative publicity.

"The support showed me that people are out there who cared and who shared similar views," he said.

He added, "I can't believe I can finally get on with my life."

Eventually, Robertson hopes to find a way to expunge the felony charge from his record. He also would like to find a way to overturn the Oklahoma law itself.

But for now he's just happy to be thinking about other things for a change.

"A weight has been lifted off of my shoulders," he said.

http://www.wired.com/news/conflict/0...0267%2C00.html