UC student who threatened to kill 'white devils' released and allowed back to classes

Jabari Dean released to mother and allowed to attend classes at the school he threatened as long as he does not access weapons or the internet per a Federal Judge. Whaaaaaa? He is just misguided right? Go home to mommy....I just cannot believe this.

This is what he said...

"This is my only warning. At 10 a.m. on Monday mourning (sic) I am going to the campus quad of the University of Chicago. I will be armed with a M-4 Carbine and 2 Desert Eagles all fully loaded. I will execute aproximately (sic) 16 white male students and or staff, which is the same number of time (sic) Mcdonald (sic) was killed. I then will die killing any number of white policemen that I can in the process. This is not a joke. I am to do my part to rid the world of the white devils. I expect you to do the same….”

Link to article

I am done with the double standard. This is a city where almost that same amount of people have died from murder since 2001 as soldiers we have lost fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. A school was shut down? How about we make him pay for time lost of all of the employees and students. 30k people were affected.

Since the kids uncle says it was 'just fun and games' we release him? That is all we need these days? I don't care what color someone is. If they threaten to KILL others there is NO reason that they should be released.

In this case, it was released during the BLM protests of the shooting of Laquan McDonald.

a reply to: matafuchs

His mother expressed concern at Tuesday's hearing about her son's job prospects because of the arrest.

Yep, actions have consequences. Some of them last long after your moment of stupidity.

This is a place we call the "real world".

a reply to: matafuchs

If I were a betting man, I would wager this brat violates the judges order remarkably promptly and will with any luck end up back in his cage before he does actually hurt anyone.

get this guy locked up far away.


in this America, theres only room for one race to be psychopathic mass murdering terrorists; when its about just race, not religion or anything.

Threats of mass murder are hysterical.

Lulz.

The sad part is that this kid will be hailed a hero within the week.

a reply to: matafuchs

so he didn't even have to bond out? for threatening to kill a bunch of people? and this country wonders why mass shootings keep happening......if you let the idiots out of jail days after they say they want to kill 15 people dont be suprised when the come back shooting the second time ,hope he gets the max 5 years for this


www.abovetopsecret.com... wonder if this girl is gonna have to "bond" out for her terroristic threats and instigations

www.theblaze.com... acist-threats/ link from other OPs source

originally posted by: matafuchs
The sad part is that this kid will be hailed a hero within the week.

Most likely get an invitation to the White House soon.

They let this guy go with a warning too so what's the difference???

Arizona man who drove cross-country with a gun to confront Muslims gets off with a warning from cops

a reply to: mOjOm

He didn't say he was going to kill as many of them as he could. There's just a slight difference between "I'm going to confront them" and "I'm going to kill as many of them as I can".

originally posted by: mOjOm
They let this guy go with a warning too so what's the difference???

Arizona man who drove cross-country with a gun to confront Muslims gets off with a warning from cops

The difference is one guy seems to have made an effort to not make any threats and be vague about his intentions.

The other guy seems to have made an effort to be pretty specific about his intentions, to include making threats.

The American justice system.
Failing us daily.
Somebody will end up dead over this stupid decision.
Wager anyone?

a reply to: Zaphod58

Do you know this guys history???

His white supremacist background???

You don't think this is a threat???

originally posted by: Shamrock6
The difference is one guy seems to have made an effort to not make any threats and be vague about his intentions.

The other guy seems to have made an effort to be pretty specific about his intentions, to include making threats.

Which is fine and a clever court room defense but does someone really need to spell it out in every detail before a threat is understood to be a threat???

Well this makes me upset... Double standards have until this point been somewhat arguable.

You can't argue it anymore.

originally posted by: mOjOm
They let this guy go with a warning too so what's the difference???

Arizona man who drove cross-country with a gun to confront Muslims gets off with a warning from cops

Er, because he didn't threaten to kill anyone and he didn't violate any laws? Both of which Mr. Jabari Dean did.

Not comparable. Not even by a stretch.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: Shamrock6
The difference is one guy seems to have made an effort to not make any threats and be vague about his intentions.

The other guy seems to have made an effort to be pretty specific about his intentions, to include making threats.

Which is fine and a clever court room defense but does someone really need to spell it out in every detail before a threat is understood to be a threat???

Well the law is the law. Communicating threats typically requires a degree of specificity. Though your anti Muslim guy is certainly posting vitriolic commentary, he's not being specific. He's leaving it at "bring it on." "Bring it on" is a tad bit different, legally speaking, than "I'm going to go kill 16 white males and however many cops I can."

Your opinion notwithstanding.

a reply to: mOjOm

What I think doesn't matter, it's what can be proven. "I'm going to kill at many white people as I can" is a blatant threat. "I'm going to drive to New York and confront them" isn't. It's that simple.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: Shamrock6
The difference is one guy seems to have made an effort to not make any threats and be vague about his intentions.

The other guy seems to have made an effort to be pretty specific about his intentions, to include making threats.

Which is fine and a clever court room defense but does someone really need to spell it out in every detail before a threat is understood to be a threat???

Oh, so there is no problem then if I profile a Black Male, late at night in a tall red t-shirt and gold chain eyeballing houses in my neighborhood? He's wearing red, and he's black, both signifying he may very well be a Bloods gang member, he appears to be staring hard at houses and is constantly looking around him.

Should I call the cops? Report a suspicious black male in my neighborhood? Intercept a potential criminal before he carries out a crime?

Or should I wait until after he kicks in someone's door and then call?

Something tells me if I did the former and talked about it on this forum, you would be jumping down my throat. That I should have waited until he committed the crime.

By advocating them stopping him for no reason, by simple extension of logic, you support the calling of police on suspicious individuals, black males late at night wearing colors associated with black gangs for example, even if they haven't done anything wrong.

But wait, isn't that what BLM and SJWs are always crying their eyes out about?

Hypocrites, the lot of you.

Look, I'm not saying he's not a threat or not to keep an eye on him. But both these guys made a threat. One was more detailed but neither one actually did anything so why treat them so differently??