Well.....Told you so.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
...What amazes me is that anyone with more than two functioning neurons to rub together could ever think such a post on social media was a good idea...

TheRedneck

Couldn't agree more

a reply to: JinMI

So, if they did nothing knowing what they did about him and his post and he did go and shoot up a school, would you blame them in any way? Isn't ignoring things like this exactly what lead to the recent tragedy?

Freedom of speech yes, but taking it so far peoples lives are put at risk needlessly?

a reply to: TheRedneck

I hate/love when you respond to me. It's always means the bar has been raised which is great. It also means I have to actually dig deeper into thought and because I respect your opinion, I feel the need to address your posts properly, so here goes.

There never is in such a case. The proof comes later, in court. Outside the courtroom, the standard is "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause." At the scene of a crime, there is not usually a chance to both protect life and property and establish proof.

On the face, there is a photo and a quote. That quote is "I'm thinking of going back to school." Also according to the source is a picture of an AR-15. I don't know if he was holding it, or if he was in the picture. I havn't been able to find the photo that they are describing. Now, talking reasonable suspicion to probable cause, to me this seems like a very wide gap. Reasonable suspicion could put into play everything from bias to experience. Probable cause means that there is ether a piece of evidence OR a plethora of things to add up that make that cause probable.

One photo with an ambiguous phrase does not, again IMO, equal up to a warrant or arrest. As I've stated earlier, this does not also mean that I don't think he shouldn't have been investigated, and maybe he was. It stands to reason that they have much more that they are not showing the public.

I'm still awaiting a follow up story or something else from this.

a reply to: Blaine91555

I've addressed multiple times now that I don't think nothing should have been done. I'm merely questioning the veracity based on the article of the warrant and subsequent arrest.

It does stand to reason that there is more information not available publicly. However, if there is not, and this article is all inclusive and accurate this is a gross violation.

a reply to: pavil

Ricky Jared Rankin

Dude has 3 names.....he's a killer for sure.

I have four names, should I be worried? I'm putting myself under house arrest in a preemptive strike.

Jokes aside you are right, let the evidence do the talking.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: neo96

Well, the did get a warrant. Thus the disclaimer.

Other than that, I've no idea what they have on him other than the posting.

Google is your friend.

The Texarkana Police FB Page

We arrested Ricky Jared Rankin, 24, at his Texarkana Texas home early this afternoon for Terroristic Threats.

Rankin made a post Monday night on his Instagram account that included a picture of a rifle and the comment “I’m thinking about finally going back to school”. Upon seeing the post, people who know Rankin became concerned and notified us.

We immediately initiated an investigation and obtained an arrest warrant for Rankin this morning. As a precautionary step, we notified local school districts of the threats and the ongoing investigation. Officers and FBI agents arrested Rankin outside his home on Park Lane without incident and then served a search warrant of the property. The weapon in the post has not been located, but weapons belonging to other family members in the home have been secured.

Chief Dan Shiner said, “We don’t know if this post was meant as a joke or if he really planned to go to a school with a gun. However, our department takes comments like this very seriously and will take swift action to protect the children in our schools. No one wants the tragic events that we’ve all seen in other places to be repeated here.”
Rankin is currently being held in the Bi-State Jail. No bond has been set at this point.

www.facebook.com...

If his friends and/or family (People who know him) told the police that he was a legitimate threat, that would be enough combined with the images and comment he posted suggesting he was going to shoot up a school to obtain a warrant.

That said he will have his day in court.

a reply to: soberbacchus

If his friends and/or family

Thanks, but I'll stick with the original quote:

people who know Rankin became concerned and notified us.

Savvy?

suggesting he was going to shoot up a school

Based on intent which is based on....? It is inferred by many (including me) that was his intention. However, there does not exists what would IMO be a compelling threat based on it alone. Also the investigation and warrant took place over a 24 hour period..which is pretty amazing given the past history of investigations.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: soberbacchus


However, there does not exists what would IMO be a compelling threat based on it alone.

I am confused why you would continue to think the online posting was the sole motivation for investigators?

people who know Rankin became concerned and notified us.

a reply to: soberbacchus

Hearsay. Which is admissible but solely for a conviction.

Upon seeing the post, people who know Rankin became concerned and notified the Texarkana Texas Police Department.

Detectives immediately initiated an investigation and obtained an arrest warrant for Rankin this morning.

That's it. No indication on what terms they knew the guy and intentions being a vague "concerned."

That's why I consider it the sole motivation.

a reply to: JinMI

Thank you for the compliment. I aim to please.

The issue is that it was in the same post, indicating a relationship in the mind of the poster. Had he posted a statement of "I am thinking of going back to school" by itself, I would dismiss it. Had he posted a picture of a rifle without the school reference, I would dismiss it. When the two are posted together, the implication is that the weapon was related to him going back to school, and in the context of a recent shooting, there is a legitimate concern that his intent was to either shoot up a school, or at least instill fear in others that he intended to shoot up a school. That is making a terrorist threat.

Now, the possibility does exist that he had no intention of shooting up a school, and that he combined a photo of his favorite gun with an indication of higher learning desires. If so, fine... he gets to prove it. Until he does so, the implication in that post seems clear to me: "I'm taking this to a school." It is really no different that Luigi knocking on your door and saying "Do this or my 6'-6" 350 lb. friend here with the scar down his face and holding a baseball bat with nails driven through it will be very angry."

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck


Agreed, such a statement is monumentally stupid especially given the timing. That being said, I personally feel it still falls under free speech because it doesn't even remotely pass the test for criminal speech

From WaPo www.washingtonpost.com...

I keep hearing about a supposed “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment, or statements such as, “This isn’t free speech, it’s hate speech,” or “When does free speech stop and hate speech begin?” But there is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment. Hateful ideas (whatever exactly that might mean) are just as protected under the First Amendment as other ideas. One is as free to condemn Islam — or Muslims, or Jews, or blacks, or whites, or illegal aliens, or native-born citizens — as one is to condemn capitalism or Socialism or Democrats or Republicans.

To be sure, there are some kinds of speech that are unprotected by the First Amendment. But those narrow exceptions have nothing to do with “hate speech” in any conventionally used sense of the term. For instance, there is an exception for “fighting words” — face-to-face personal insults addressed to a specific person, of the sort that are likely to start an immediate fight. But this exception isn’t limited to racial or religious insults, nor does it cover all racially or religiously offensive statements. Indeed, when the City of St. Paul tried to specifically punish bigoted fighting words, the Supreme Court held that this selective prohibition was unconstitutional (R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992)), even though a broad ban on all fighting words would indeed be permissible. (And, notwithstanding CNN anchor Chris Cuomo’s Tweet that “hate speech is excluded from protection,” and his later claims that by “hate speech” he means “fighting words,” the fighting words exception is not generally labeled a “hate speech” exception, and isn’t coextensive with any established definition of “hate speech” that I know of.)

The same is true of the other narrow exceptions, such as for true threats of illegal conduct or incitement intended to and likely to produce imminent illegal conduct (i.e., illegal conduct in the next few hours or maybe days, as opposed to some illegal conduct some time in the future). Indeed, threatening to kill someone because he’s black (or white), or intentionally inciting someone to a likely and immediate attack on someone because he’s Muslim (or Christian or Jewish), can be made a crime. But this isn’t because it’s “hate speech”; it’s because it’s illegal to make true threats and incite imminent crimes against anyone and for any reason, for instance because they are police officers or capitalists or just someone who is sleeping with the speaker’s ex-girlfriend.

I can see this qualifying as "despicable speech" but I fail to see the imminent and credible direct threat, or the imminent call for violence

I think it is important to defend all free speech, lest we risk turning common nuisances (like trollers) into criminals

a reply to: JBurns

I agree with the hate speech sentiment expressed by the WaPo, but that isn't my argument. I do not care if the post he made was hateful; I believe if a society is to be free of hate, we should allow open hate speech... if for no other reason than to identify and socially (not legally) handle the hater.

My point is that in the wake of a massive school shooting, to combine a picture of the weapon used with a statement of returning to school sends an implied threat of violent intent. That is indeed an exception to the free speech clause, as correctly identified by the WaPo article you cited.

TheRedneck

"Take the guns first, due process later."

originally posted by: TheRedneck
" It is really no different that Luigi knocking on your door and saying "Do this or my 6'-6" 350 lb. friend here with the scar down his face and holding a baseball bat with nails driven through it will be very angry."

TheRedneck

There are so many ways here that is also so wrong...

"I feel horny" with pictures of kids
"I want to get personal with women" with pictures of battered women
"I want to play" with pictures of people murdered
"I want to go back to school" with a picture of an AR

Detaining someone is not conviction...

Not sure if this is still active but I’m the guy who posted the joke and got arrested. So feel free to ask questions. I can give an update if anyone is still on here. a reply to: Xtrozero

It was definitely a dumb decision to joke about something like that but I honestly never expected all this to happen. It was a picture I got online. I don’t have any guns. I would never harm someone especially not children. Everyone who knows me understands it was a joke without a question but it was a very poor attempt at humor.

Hopefully you no longer have firearms and now have more common sense.

a reply to: Lyrickcantrap

Lesson learned, I take it.

originally posted by: RazorV66
You can’t fix stupid.
Maybe just ban all social media so nitwits like this won’t have a platform to showcase their stupidity.

On the other hand it allows authorities to see who is making threatening gestures.
If it's public domain it's not spying so I;m good with it.
This is the same as if he had said it on a street corner with an AR 15 in hand.

This was a lesson I learned the hard way unfortunately. I’ve always had a warped sense of humor but I crossed the line with that post and I’ve put my family through a lot having to deal with this process. I’ve never had any firearms and I don’t plan on ever getting any. I’ve learned my lesson and it has been very expensive. a reply to: roadgravel