Well.....Told you so.

a reply to: JinMI

I hope there is follow up as well..I will check on it via his name/google in the coming days.
Cheers

a reply to: JinMI

What if he was going back to school... Shooting school, like where they teach you how to shoot? Would that be a crime?

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Wayfarer

An implement that was not found and a threat to no one in particular.

Also, only a threat due to recent events if that was the intent.

I could surmise the dude hid the weapon once he realized the hot water he was in. Perhaps he never actually had the rifle and we're all experiencing mass hysteria. Which do you think Occam would suggest is more likely?

Also, are you suggesting that an AR-15 is not a threat when used in any context that involves visiting a school?

a reply to: Wayfarer

A subjective summary could be made on multiple fronts. Doesn't validate a use of abuse of rights.

An AR is only threat given the hands that hold it.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Wayfarer

A subjective summary could be made on multiple fronts. Doesn't validate a use of abuse of rights.

An AR is only threat given the hands that hold it.

What rights of his were abused exactly? As I asked a poster earlier, is it or is it not a crime to cry FIRE in a theater?

And he was indeed holding it in the post he made, along with a message signalling an intent to visit a school.

a reply to: Wayfarer

I have not been able to find a photo. Do you have a link?

You are assuming. Guessing. Inferring that he is making a threat. Even the officers admitted that they didn't know if he was joking or not. As I said earlier. This is more like yelling 'smoke' from outside of the theater.

a reply to: JinMI

The charge is completely justified...no overt act has to be committed...a mere threat is all that is needed..I'm not troubled by the arrest..and I'm one who errs on the side of individual rights...good job by the detectives.

a reply to: JinMI

I google image searched, did not find a pic of him holding anything, there does appear to be a pic of a rifle from an instagram(lyrickcantrap) with the "going back to school"..looks like its more of an AK than an AR..not that that matters.

a reply to: vonclod
The charge explained..

www.criminaldefenselawyer.com...

a reply to: royalpiper

The link to the Texas statute is in the OP.

(a) A person commits an offense if he threatens to commit any offense involving violence to any person or property with intent to:

Intent. Given available evidence, it is arguable of that intent.

a reply to: JinMI

Intent...That's for the court to determine...all that is needed for the arrest is probable cause...good job detectives.

We have had thought police since the first hate crime trial. Hate is an emotion and as such falls under the broader heading of thought.

We have had illegal seizure since the first time property was seized and sold before a trial was held.

That said, a photo of a firearm with the caption of "going back to school" is clearly a cause for concern. There was no violation of freedom of speech, because no opinion was expressed in said speech... only a threat. His right to free speech stopped where the right of the students and parents at that school to go about their daily life free of overt danger started.

In this case, I believe the police acted properly. The suspect was identified by acquaintances, a potential threat was discovered, and action was taken to detain the man in order to prevent an actual crime from occurring. The charge was legally specified; no action other than the threat was needed. The seizure of the firearms in his home was likely to preserve evidence that he did have access to firearms and thus the ability to carry out the threat.

The question becomes, was this a legitimate threat to shoot up a school, or was this some kind of sick, twisted joke? A court will make that determination based on the evidence. If he is guilty of making a bona-fide threat, then he broke the law and will suffer the consequences. If not, if it is some kind of joke, he will have his day in court to try and prove that to a judge/jury. I have a feeling a judge would be in his favor.

If he is found not guilty, the firearms should be returned to him. If he is found guilty, they can be properly seized (if any belonged to others, then that becomes a question for the lawyers to figure out). I have to wonder at who would loan a firearm to someone who at best would make such a joke, and at worst who might be a serial killer in the making.

Whether or not he had the exact weapon pictured is irrelevant. If he possessed (or had ready access to) any similarly capable firearm, that is sufficient to establish ability. Motive and intent are two trickier yardsticks, but they can be established. 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

a reply to: TheRedneck

His right to free speech stopped where the right of the students and parents at that school to go about their daily life free of overt danger started.

There was no school specified. I suppose the line could be drawn back to whatever school he came from.

The suspect was identified by acquaintances, a potential threat was discovered, and action was taken to detain the man in order to prevent an actual crime from occurring.

You could infer that, however there is no proof in the article. Unless the actions of the arresting officers are proof enough?

If not, if it is some kind of joke, he will have his day in court to try and prove that to a judge/jury.

We are presumed innocent until proven guilty. You know this. It's up to the judge/jury to find guilt based upon presented evidence which admittedly is not complete to the public for obvious reasons.

I'm basing my stance on only what is shown in this article as there is only it to go on.

a reply to: JinMI

Be careful when trying to armchair litigate a case from what is presented in a newspaper article...if the charge was not deemed sustainable then the district attorney would not present it to the court...they will have the burden of proving intent at the proper time...this is far from a thought crime...

a reply to: royalpiper

We should all have as much trust in our bette...erm government.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: JinMI



Aaaand free speech just died.

I mean, threats have never been covered.

originally posted by: neo96

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.

They didn't know, but arrested him anyway.

Seems to me if your going to arrest someone better be damn sure.

Have you ever seen the level of hate spewed on Trumps Twitter feed!? I'm surprised more people aren't arrested for the vitriol and deep hatred posted on the Presidents public twitter account!!

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: JinMI



Aaaand free speech just died.

This shows the FBI doesn't do investigation before they react. They just mine people to prosecute. Just because they let the Florida shooter get through the cracks means nothing except they are so ineffectual and focus on the wrong things as to be laughable.

a reply to: JinMI

You could infer that, however there is no proof in the article.

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.

We are presumed innocent until proven guilty. You know this. It's up to the judge/jury to find guilt based upon presented evidence which admittedly is not complete to the public for obvious reasons.

Of course we are... by the courts. That's why we have limitations on the powers of the police. Police can arrest, detain, and investigate, the DA decides whether enough evidence is there for formal charges, and it is a judge who oversees all this and conducts the trial. A jury determines guilt.

In this case, the police felt they had reasonable suspicion, based on a social media post, to detain and investigate. That investigation, conducted with the approval of a court, gave them probable cause to arrest the suspect. The DA's office has 24 hours to then charge the suspect or turn him loose, and if charged the suspect will then face charges in front of a judge and jury.

The court presumes him innocent at this time, but the DA presumes him guilty based on the evidence. It makes no sense otherwise; why would anyone bring an innocent man to court, and since everyone is assumed innocent, no one can ever be brought to court. I once heard a judge addressing a municipal courtroom this way (as close to verbatim as my memory allows):

"When you step up in front of me, each one of you has an aura of innocence wrapped around you. When the DA presses charges, he tarnishes that aura. It is his job to produce evidence of a crime, but it is then your right to show your innocence in the face of those charges. If he cannot show sufficient proof that you committed a crime, or if you can show sufficient proof that you did not commit a crime, you will be free to go."

TheRedneck