Fart joke leads to college student being arrested and charged

I'm looking at this story, the completely hysterical emergency response to it(11 agencies?!), and I'm looking at people in this thread so indoctrinated into this hyper-vigilant, scared, "whipped dog"
mindset, and I'm wondering what the # happened to us. I mean, I know what happened(TPTB) but how did people as fearless as we used to be, become this pathetic? We're all acting like sexually abused children. How bout we stop being scared and SADDLE UP.

The entire planet is waiting for us to rediscover our balls and kick some SERIOUS ASS. The rest of the world looks for us to lead the charge.

That's why there IS an America. That's why we exist.

Time to dance, evildoers. Time to Dance.
.

There is a huge difference between the expression "passed the bomb" and "put a bomb". No doubt the district attorney will roll his or her eyes and drop these ridiculous charges.

Still he doesn't deserve the 10 Year Sentence and $ 20,000.00 bail. That's just insane and it doesn't match up the mistake he did. They should have just made him do Community Service or something similar.

The entire planet is waiting for us to rediscover our balls and kick some SERIOUS ASS. The rest of the world looks for us to lead the charge. That's why there IS an America. That's why we exist.

reply to post by LightsideAssassin


No. That's a Hollywood egotistical fantasy, that sadly a lot of you seem to have fallen for.

Originally posted by Morg234

The entire planet is waiting for us to rediscover our balls and kick some SERIOUS ASS. The rest of the world looks for us to lead the charge. That's why there IS an America. That's why we exist.

reply to post by LightsideAssassin

 

No. That's a Hollywood egotistical fantasy, that sadly a lot of you seem to have fallen for.

Wholeheartedly disagree. Also, it's a good message. We need to get off our butts and stop all this madness.

Originally posted by theshepherd2
What do you expect from Nazi Germany?

ETA: My mistake, this is American.

edit on 27-5-2012 by theshepherd2 because: (no reason given)

Really?


What does Germany have to do with any of this? You have your head stuck in your a**.

On topic, the guy deserved it. He should know, or be aware that the government makes a big deal out of everything now a days. Schools in particular take things like this even more serious. Every time a shoot out in a school happens, the school gets blamed at the end because they missed signs that someone wanted to shoot the school months before.

It's his own damn fault for using that term. Ok, he's from the country, possibly a bit slow and retarded but still should know what the word bomb means And in todays world everyone should know that something like that can easily taken out of context, especially if people don't know that a word like "bomb" can have for some people different meanings than what it is supposed to mean.

reply to post by ShadowAngel85


Wow! The programming sure is working on you isn't it. You apparently will turn on your fellow man in a heartbeat if the government tells you too.

Oh and by the way, "A bit slow and retarded" does not describe someone near graduation making straight A's. It more closely describes someone being blindly led to give up their rights and besmirch others for daring to not be mind controlled by the thought police.

I always find most american humour lacking.It always goes to the slapstick stuff.With this I guess humour has officially died.At least he didn't write it on the door in black marker along with his mates mother's phone number asking for a good time and a snide remark about the Dean with drawing of a big c*** beside the Dean's name.I guess gone are the days were you got a good chuckle from the stuff written on the bathroom wall.He might make some money selling pass the bomb toilet paper lol.Its a sad day were no common sense rules on all levels from the the one finding the toilet paper to the teacher and then the police.Simply take the student to the library and ask the stupid if need be where is the bomb.It was a joke I just farted in the library and then slap the kid in the head well dont do that again.Then everyone moves on with their day.Everyone one these days dont go to people direct.If they have a problem they do the circle phone calls and when it gets to you everything is blown out of proportion and still goes on your record.People love getting other people in trouble over stupid stuff too with that method.They always believe the ones that make the complaint.

They better go arrest a few thosusand rap artists then -
I've heard many say "they are the bomb".
As many bombs as our government drops on others yet citizens at home can't make a joke about flatulence.

Government seems to make a specialty of hysteria and paranoia.

this stinks to high heaven. if you can't say bomb in public then why do people say obomba?

reply to post by charles1952


Here is a link to 574.115 and here is a link to the Mississippi State Constitution Article III. It is Section 13 you want to look at to compare against the lesser statute 574.115. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and all subsequent legislation must be harmonious with that Constitution, and all harmonious legislation with the Constitution must be enforced as if it is harmonious with that Constitution. That is the law.

It is fairly clear, since all they seem to be charging this student with is a threat, that there is no evidence to support that the threat even existed. A prosecutor will have to prove mens rea if it does go to court. Mens rea is a guilty mind. Let's take a look - since so many are incapable of reading what was all ready posted - first, at Section 13 of Article III of the Mississippi State Constitution:

The freedom of speech and of the press shall be held sacred; and in all prosecutions for libel the truth may be given in evidence, and the jury shall determine the law and the facts under the direction of the court; and if it shall appear to the jury that the matter charged as libelous is true, and was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted.

Now let's take a look at the the oath of office the arresting officer took upon becoming an officer of the law. (Note, I tried to provide a link to this Google document but it does not work. Simply Googling Mississippi oath of office will produce this document):

Section 268 of the Mississippi Constitution states that all officers elected or appointed to any office in this state, except judges and members of the legislature, shall, before entering upon the discharge of the duties thereof, take and subscribe the following oath:

"I ______________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Mississippi, and obey the laws thereof; that I am not disqualified from holding the office of __________________; that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter. So help me God."

Now let's take a look at 574.115:

574.115. 1. A person commits the crime of making a terrorist threat if such person communicates a threat to cause an incident or condition involving danger to life, communicates a knowingly false report of an incident or condition involving danger to life, or knowingly causes a false belief or fear that an incident has occurred or that a condition exists involving danger to life:

(1) With the purpose of frightening ten or more people;

(2) With the purpose of causing the evacuation, quarantine or closure of any portion of a building, inhabitable structure, place of assembly or facility of transportation; or

(3) With reckless disregard of the risk of causing the evacuation,quarantine or closure of any portion of a building, inhabitable structure,place of assembly or facility of transportation; or

(4) With criminal negligence with regard to the risk of causing the evacuation, quarantine or closure of any portion of a building, inhabitable structure, place of assembly or facility of transportation.

2. Making a terrorist threat is a class C felony unless committed under subdivision (3) of subsection 1 of this section in which case it is a class D felony or unless committed under subdivision (4) of subsection 1 of this section in which case it is a class A misdemeanor. 3. For the purpose of this section, "threat" includes an express or implied threat. 4. A person who acts in good faith with the purpose to prevent harm does not commit a crime pursuant to this section.

Neither the educator who called the police, nor the arresting officer acted in good faith. Chicken little's screaming the sky is falling is histrionics not "the purpose to prevent harm". In good faith, and in the face of Section 13 of Article III, the educator who called the police had an obligation - particularly given the express language of subsection (2) "With the purpose of causing the evacuation" - to talk to the student and make sure that the note was indeed written so as to fairly be described and informed by this statute.

Further, the arresting officer, who took an oath of office to "faithfully support...support the Constitution of the State of Mississippi, did not act in good faith either, but instead grossly misapplied a statute in order to criminally arrest this student.

If the teacher knew this kid well enough to recognize his hand writing, it makes me wonder why the teacher just didn't confront the kid, asking, "What's the meaning of this note?"

If the teacher could have avoided a whole lot of confusion by just using normal communication with the kid. That's what I would have done.

Originally posted by ShadowAngel85
It's his own damn fault for using that term. Ok, he's from the country, possibly a bit slow and retarded but still should know what the word bomb means

Keep in mind its a Mississippi 'country' folk. Thats the closest you can get to Neanderthal!

Deep south country college folks getting straight-A's is the equivalent to North Eastern 3rd grader getting all D minuses in reality.

I say let him go on stupidity. Most folks in that area dont even know how WRITE at all. Most dont know the meaning of 4-letter words either, except words like "dirt" or "fart" or "beer"!!

reply to post by smyleegrl

A college student writes he put a bomb in the library.

It is like Chinese whispers here. The original term was 'passed a bomb in the library'. (ETA or as we would say dropped a bomb) That (passed or dropped) has a very different meaning from 'put'.

Any suggestion that 'America', 'free' and 'brave' belong in one sentence needs their head examining. Your authorities are just plain pathetic.

reply to post by Dance4Life

God, so true. I only wonder who was the d-bag that thought he should be turned in for this. Hopefully it was no one under the age of 40.

I take very extreme exception to that remark.

It is actually far more likely to be someone under 40 who has been 'conditioned' by the nanny state. Those of us who are older have got more sense.

reply to post by Needalight

Erstmal hat theshepherd2 ganz klar "Nazi Germany" geschrieben, was sich deutlich auf NS-Deutschland von 33 bis 45 bezieht und nicht auf unsre heutige Bundesrepublik.
Ich bin sonst der erste der Deutschland gegen Nazivergleiche verteidigt, aber hier ist ganz klar Nazi-Deutschland gemeint gewesen.

Zweitens sollten wir von allen Völkern auf dieser Erde am besten verstehen das angebliche Sicherheit niemals auf Kosten von Freiheit durchgesetzt werden darf, denn genau so wie derzeit in den USA hat der Wahnsinn bei uns damals auch angefangen!

*Dear Mods, I'm not sure if it's allowed to write in german on ATS.
I'm willing to translate immediately if necessary.

Originally posted by HangTheTraitors

Originally posted by ShadowAngel85
It's his own damn fault for using that term. Ok, he's from the country, possibly a bit slow and retarded but still should know what the word bomb means

Keep in mind its a Mississippi 'country' folk. Thats the closest you can get to Neanderthal!

Deep south country college folks getting straight-A's is the equivalent to North Eastern 3rd grader getting all D minuses in reality.

I say let him go on stupidity. Most folks in that area dont even know how WRITE at all. Most dont know the meaning of 4-letter words either, except words like "dirt" or "fart" or "beer"!!

edit on 28-5-2012 by HangTheTraitors because: (no reason given)

On the contrary, having been in both the South and the NorthEast, the South has much more intelligence. The NorthEast has a bunch of uneducated gang members not capable of doing anything other than weighing out the drugs they're selling. The South has them beat in the intelligence arena.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Dear Jean Paul Zodeaux,

I'm always in awe of your intellect, it is pure and extreme. Mine is more pedestrian and muddy. Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems that your position is that, outside of slander or libel, any law putting any limits on speech is so clearly unconstitutional that every adult, even those untrained in law (the teacher), should realize that it is unconstitutional and therefore ignore it.

Then how did that law get passed and signed? What of other laws regulating speech? There are many.

In this case I would take bits and pieces of the statute to get this:

A person commits the crime of making a terrorist threat if such person...knowingly causes a false belief or fear that an incident has occurred or that a condition exists involving danger to life...With reckless disregard of the risk of causing the evacuation,quarantine or closure of any portion of a building.... For the purpose of this section, "threat" includes an express or implied threat.

Except for the "reckless disregard" (which would probably be up to a jury to decide) he's met the elements of the crime.

I don't think your use of subsection 2 is appropriate for this fact situation. Not surprisingly, I like mine better. Yes, talking to the student is one option. But the teacher has to be willing to risk the building on the belief that the student is telling the truth. Further, there are probably school policies along the lines of "Better safe than sorry."

While you claim they acted in bad faith, I don't see the evidence for that. The teacher seemed to be motivated by safety, and the officer used a possible interpretation of the statute in order to get the student to where a fully informed legal decision to prosecute could be made. The policeman isn't a lawyer.

Anyway, I'm glad you're posting. It's a pleasure to read your work.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952

I'm always in awe of your intellect, it is pure and extreme. Mine is more pedestrian and muddy. Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems that your position is that, outside of slander or libel, any law putting any limits on speech is so clearly unconstitutional that every adult, even those untrained in law (the teacher), should realize that it is unconstitutional and therefore ignore it.

My friend, that is so close to a perfect summery of my stance that I am in awe of your intellect as well. I would quibble, however, with your choice of wording in regards to unconstitutional, which either implies, or is too easily inferred to mean that only rights enumerated by Constitution are rights. More correctly, my stance is that the law is natural and Constitutions and statutes can only describe it at best, and at worst can only encourage unlawful behavior. It is my stance that rights are self evident and that we don't need any enumeration of this students right to speech in order to know that a statute was used in an unlawful manner.

The statute, as written, is fine. Indeed, it is so well written that it clarifies the crime in such as way as to make clear this student had not acted unlawfully, and also clarifies it in such a way that we can understand the consequences of applying this statute without good faith.

Let us just take the bits and pieces of that statute you highlighted. Do you see the word "knowingly" in it? Do you see the phrase "reckless disregard of causing evacuation, quarantine, or closure..."? Do you see the words "express" and "implied". The student did not "knowingly" create the unfortunate events that followed the discovery his fart joke by a school administrator, and it was instead the school employee who exercised "reckless disregard of causing evacuation...or closure", and it was through inference, not any "express" or "implied" language, that this "threat" was perceived.

The rules of statutory construction require that each and every word be given significance.

You say he has met the "elements of a crime", but you have failed to show beyond any shadow of a doubt that this is so. Indeed, it was through your own inference that you've come to this conclusion, necessarily failing to compare this statute against Section 13 of Article III, and the students own insistence it was a fart joke.

I don't think your use of subsection 2 is appropriate for this fact situation. Not surprisingly, I like mine better. Yes, talking to the student is one option. But the teacher has to be willing to risk the building on the belief that the student is telling the truth. Further, there are probably school policies along the lines of "Better safe than sorry."

Instead the educator risked violating the very statute you've pointed to, risked violating this students right to speech, which is expressly enumerated as sacred, so profanely ignored this right in order to assuage their own fear without any attempt to avoid "reckless disregard of the risk of causing the evacuation, quarantine or closure..."

Were I this students assistance of counsel it is unlikely that the D.A. would even seek an indictment on this because I would make sure the student openly challenged jurisdiction on this matter, and would make it clear the problem with ignoring these challenges of jurisdiction which would only bind the prosecutor, and the judge if that judge failed to dismiss to their own criminality. Prosecutors and judges know the law well enough to know that it would be more prudent to dismiss than to go forward with this nonsense. That dismissal would then become prima facie evidence of the educator and the arresting officers criminality.

If the prosecutor and the judge ignored the challenges of jurisdiction and pushed this to trial, and the prosecutor used your arguments, I would convince the jury of your errors handily and since a prosecutor is obligated to prove mens rey, I would insist the jury had no choice in this matter but to acquit. Once again that acquittal would become prima facie evidence to the criminality of not just the educator and arresting officer, but now the prosecution and judge.

The bad faith lies in the profound disregard for Section 13, Article III, to begin with and ignorance of the law is no excuse, and the Mississippi State Constitution is the Supreme Law of that Land.

Originally posted by smyleegrl

Originally posted by Liberal1984

smyleegrl My knee jerk reaction was outrage, then I read the article again.

A college student writes he put a bomb in the library. What did he expect would happen?

This may come as a big shock to you, but I think he probably expected it to be flushed down the toilet. Why would anyone with so much as one brain cell expect a terrorist to write on toilet paper? Oh of course, not everyone has one ….

He expected it to be flushed, and yet it wasn't. Who's fault is that?

You are saying "fault" as if something awful happened for which blame must be laid. Whose fault is THAT? Besides, it didn't say "put" a bomb, I'm guessing it said "passed" or "dropped" (the more common nomenclature for passing offensive wind).

I drop bombs all the time.

No, they are not explosive (unless you are right near me with a match when I drop them)
No, they do not indicate terroristic intent.