I was just watching Fox News as I was flipping through the channels, and they made a very short announcement about a person being arrested for "sympathizing" with the Virginia Tech shooter.

Regardless of how messed up it may sound, the person allegedly did not make a threatening comment to anyone, but insinuated "I understand why". Therefore, this person did nothing illegal.

For the life of me, I cannot find a link to the article, but I will keep looking.

This is still American. Not a police state.

Well if he understood why someone would do this, would that not make him already having the same feelings and the possibility of unleashing them in a similar fashion? I'd guess he's just being held in precaution due to fear of copy cats surfacing in the coming days.. Fox news isn't exactly my favorite news outlet either..

The event that you spoke about was in regards to a CU student in Colorado. Below is a link to the article. This is deeply frightening that you can actually get arrested for something like this!!! It really makes you wonder at what limit will they stop this madness.

LINK

Wouldn't that more likely be a "cry for help"? But a cry for help is not a direct threat, and according to US law, the threat has to be "direct" before they can be incriminated for such comments.

That is my point, not about the twisted nature of supporting such an idea.

Fox News is fair and balanced. (pay particular attention to the slant)

According to the article, his comments were perceived as threatening by his classmates.

They're going to err on the side of caution, at this point. They can get him some help after they make sure he's not about to go off.

"Perceived at threatening" or not, that does not provide grounds for arresting someone.

Countless children grow up being bullied, so they may end up "sympathizing" the Columbine shooters... does that mean they should be arrested?...

Or does that mean they deserve a "listening ear" and assistance to get help?

"Eering" on the side of caution is completely un-American. That would be the steps taken by a police state.

Hmm.....the student in question said:



Now after what happened Monday.......this individual sould not be arrested and undergo a psych evaluation?!?

What are you smoking?

[edit on 18-4-2007 by ferretman2]

Well, that's a good question, which I can't answer because I'm not a lawyer, but what are "grounds for arrest"? I'd think the police have a duty to protect the populace, and if the situation warrants detainment for a perceived threat, especially given the current circumstances, they're going to act accordingly.

Doesn't mean he'll be booked, tried, or convicted, but until the threat can be assessed, I'm not seeing arrest as being inappropriate.

No, after what happened Monday, he shouldn't be arrested. He should be given help.

There are other means to get someone help besides throwing them in the paddy wagon, in a straight jacket, before they can be assessed.

I didn't see that in the link, so that's new info. Was he straight jacketed and thrown in a paddy wagon?

No, he wasn't thrown in a paddy wagon, in a straight jacket, before he was assessed. I was "painting a picture".

You can't lawfully just grab someone off the street and lock them up (as was done) by speaking their mind. If what they had to say was "offensive" to many people, and they thought he really posed a threat... he should have been pulled into the counselors office and approached in a different manner.

Simply because a child expresses he discontent for the makings of his room, that doesn't give me the right to beat him/her. Simply for someone making the comments as this person has done... that doesn't give anyone the right to arrest him without being properly charged... and thus far the only charges are on the speculative assumptions being made that he'll repeat the Virginia Tech shooting.

In a police state, this would be acceptable. However, this is not a police state. There are steps to be taken, of which were jumped right over in a paranoid reaction to Monday's events.

[edit on 4/18/2007 by Infoholic]

It's not 'discontentment' he was expressing.

He threatened to kill people because he didn't like the lighting, paint etc.

If this guy did flip out, you would be one of the ones saying 'why didn't they stop this guy?' wouldn't you?

This thread seems like a troll thread..........................................

Ahh. So this adult student (not a grade schooler) made comments in the wake of the VT tragedy that were determined to be "threatening" by the people that heard them. And in an effort to ensure everyone's safety, the police took him into custody in order to better evaluate the situation.

Since the police were apparently not present when the comments were made, they had the reports of only the class members who were present to go on.

So, they act based upon that knowledge. Which results in harm to no one. Or they could have let it go and in the extremely unfortunate circumstance that this guy went off and popped someone or multiple someones, could have been taken to task for failure to act after being notified of a suspected threat.

Nope, still don't see a problem. Worst case scenario, the guy gets the help he needs and everyone's safe. Sounds like a win-win to me.

Like most things, what actions can be taken depend on the state. Down here, folks will be familiar with the state's Baker Act, which allows a police officer, judge, mental health worker, etc, to initiate an involuntary examination of an individual if, among other things, the individual is deemed dangerous to him/herself or others.

Like it was said, the worse thing that happens is that a few peoples' time is wasted. Better safe than sorry (if the kid actually did carry out something there will certainly be cries of "Why was this comment ignored?!!") It's similar to the practice of holding certain state"guests" (pedophiles, rapists, etc.) longer than their actual sentence, because they're not being "penalized," they're being "treated."

Several points:

He understood why the VT kid did what he did

you jump to the conclusion that he

has the same feelings as the VT kid

and could

possibly unleash these assumed feelings in a similar fashion...

Firstly, what does "understand" mean? I understand why child molesters molest children. Does that mean I have the same feelings? No. I understand how a man might feel learning that his wife died. Am I a man whose wife has died? No.

So, you're ok with arresting a man because of assumed feelings he has?

Max Karson did this for attention.

His Yeti Paper

Google Max Karson and you'll see he's very interested in his 15 minutes (or days) of fame.

But the willingness to arrest this guy is sickening.

Well I disagree with that. (Wuh. I can't get along with ANYONE today ).

I think it's a valid question. I think the OP makes a valid point. It's an extremely tough call to make and a big reason why I'm glad I'm not in a position to make it. It's thankless, you'll always be second guessed, and no matter how it pans out, there'll be a significant number of people who think you acted improperly.

But there's nothing wrong with having the discussion, and I for one am glad there are people like Infoholic who are keeping track.

Just so happens, in this particular instance, we disagree.

Caught me at the end of my day, BH. So this is a "hit and run".



Based upon what those "assumptions" are driven by, absolutely.



And now I'm even less sorry. There ought to be a way to prosecute him for his actions taking the police away from more urgent matters. Like calling in a false alarm to the fire department. I know he didn't call the cops, but it looks like he apparently acted in a manner designed to deliberately make that happen.



Maybe we're seeing two different things. When the police are called in to a situation, it's not like they have the luxury of doing aome extensive background search. 32 people just died and this goofball pulls a stunt in an atmosphere fraught with tension. The cops made a decision based upon the situation as it was presented. Max didn't get pistol whipped or convicted - he was detained for everyone's protection.

I'm still not seeing the big issue.

Actually, it looks like he may deserve to be arrested after all, not for what he said about the VT student, but for disturbing the peace. He's done this kind of thing before. Tried to cause trouble. Don't the Denver police have computers?

If this idiot did it for 'publicity' then he should be prosocuted for making terroristic threats against the students. One charge per student threatend.

This is not a 'freedom of speech' issue.......this is about some attention-whore moran whose an ass.

If this "idiot" did anything for publicity... so, now you're assuming that people that try to get attention should be locked up?

As for the rest of your comment, I feel you should edit that. This is ATS and we demand better from our users.