Topic: Teenage Gamer May Go To Jail For Up to 8 Years

/me high-fives the incredibly intelligent Shypdarman

@alexsays: no. adding 'jk' is a way of saying something obnoxious and then cya. it happens all t he time. people consider it a 'get out of jail free card'. to pretend otherwise is naive.

@jazz007: he didn't say this in anger. he wrote this. on facebook. that takes more time and allows for more time for thought. or not.

@Aviator That was sort of my point though, unlawful acts we can sympathize with can be deemed okay, but ones we believe are highly offensive can be held against you even if you state that you're joking.

Seems like a fairly large gray area. I personally can't see myself shooting a man in the head for hooking up with my girlfriend, but that doesn't mean I am taking his threat literally and reporting him to the authorities. (Though he was pretty serious, he was pissed. lol)

I think the bottom line in this situation is that parents need to teach their children that Facebook (and the internet in general) is not just something fun, it's a double-edged sword and can be quite dangerous. It can be used for good things, it can be used for bad. you can use it, or it can use you.

when your real name and personal information is involved, you don't start showing your rear end making horrible 'jokes' like you're AnonymousGuy1337 on some random forum (not to say that it would be okay there either, but ffs, common sense!). everything you say publicly (and sometimes not publicly) on FB and the rest of the internet absolutely can and will be used against you if someone has the inclination and/or opportunity to do so, so choose to be a jerk and play the fool at your own risk. :/

_{yea we do}

I hope I didn't take your now revealed to be facetious statement into a hostile context. Presupposing an unreasonable conclusion and then working backwards can be a fruitful mode of argumentation, so thanks for providing me with it.

A teenager didn't think about minor grammer details of a statement he made, gee, what a shocker. Expecting a teenger to think about such minor details like that isn't very realistic. If your taking something that could be a threat seriously, expecting minor grammer details to be a good indicator of whether he is serious or not about doing it is pretty stupid.

@Jaz007: He was 18 when it happened. If he was 13 you might have more of a point, but as he was an adult I'm sure you can understand how his words would carry more weight.

Maybe the government should start looking at the minor grammer details of possible threats to see if they're serious or not then if those little details carry so much weight. (P.S. I'm not trying to sound hostile, just trying to make a point.)

@jaz007: what do you suggest the authorities do when they are alerted to threats against the populace such as this? should they be ignored? should they be put down to humour? should they never be investigated?

if someone threatens children directly, what do you think should be done? i am asking you seriously. you are obviously offended by this. do you have a solution?

He could be 103. Judging his intent on how he said he was kidding seems ill-advised. We can't assume he was serious about the killing part, but not serious about the kidding part, because we take issue with his grammar.

If they send him to prison it will be because they thought he was making a legitimate terrorist threat. If that's the conclusion some people draw from reading his post, that he actually intended to threaten people, then we'll just have to disagree.

This is ignoring the fact he was using the 'threat' as an act a crazy person would do, something he was sarcastically dismissing.

it is not a 'minor grammar' detail. it is the difference between thinking of doing something and intending to do something. one is an actual threat the other isn't.

Why are you editing your responses into my posts? Not only did I have to track it down, but its highly confusing for others reading through this thread.

@alexsays: who are you talking to??

He used that as an example of something a crazy person would do, while dismissing the idea he was 'crazy'. He followed it up by mentioning he was kidding.

Where did you see the actual threat where he intended to harm anyone?

This is the important part of this thread.

This was my post, edited by you, with your response.

A seemingly odd way to use your abilities.

@alexsays: i did not edit your comment. all i did was quote it and add mine. i don't know what is going on, but i did not do that. in fact, my post is up under your name...i don't know what is going on.

i may have hit the wrong button. if i did, i apologise and will delete the comment. it was unintentional.

We can't really assume anything either way, about either portion of the statement. was the 'j/k lol' an honest statement of his mental state at the time he wrote the 'threat' statement, or was it a hasty coverup to throw off people who may have chosen to take him this seriously in that post-Newtown-shooting point in time? It's for the court system to decide now.

You're right about the 'agree to disagree' part of your comment, i'm afraid. i'd give you a friendly ':3', but the seriousness of this topic kinda doesn't warrant it, i don't think

also, k8sMum is right — we have no way here at NL to edit comments without showing that 'edited by' line at the bottom. unless you were trying to make a joke regarding your own lack of getting that part in before hitting the 'reply' button? nm, must've been accidentally deleted before i started looking for that particular 'edited by' line it seems :3

As you both may discover, I believe you deleted his post. The subject matter of his comment has seemingly vanished.

@theblackdragon - take a look at the post @alexsays quoted, and how the author changes.
Oh! Perhaps it's the "combine posts" function you admins have; and with that I'll butt out.