You may recall a rather disturbing incident around the time of the 2015 Pokémon World Championships in Boston, when two men due to attend were arrested in possession of multiple firearms. It emerged that social media and forum posts had been reported as threatening, prompting the police to act.
The trial of 28 year-old James Stumbo and 19 year-old and Kevin Norton has now concluded, with both men pleading guilty to unlawful possession of guns and ammo, with the plea deal holding each accountable for one weapon each and both for around 300 rounds of ammunition. Both men received two years of imprisonment, of which they've served nearly a year already, while two years on probation will follow.
Both men reportedly had no criminal records prior to these charges, and may petition to serve their probation in Iowa where they have "firm roots", according to Suffolk Superior Court Judge Rosalind Miller.
In any case, these guilty please and sentencing bring closure to an unpleasant episode from last year's Pokémon World Championships.
With thanks to Ryan Millar for the heads up.
The two foes used Nasty Plot! It (thankfully) had no effect!
...In all seriousness, I'm glad that nothing came of the incident. Whatever possessed these two to bring weapons to a public event to begin with?
James Dumbo and Kevin Moron.
They won't be able to play Pokémon Go for another year.
Probably just some Team Rocket cosplayers.
@Kroko I was just about to post something about this, but you were too quick for me!
Oh, yeah! I forgot about these two...thank God they were stopped. They brought this upon themselves.
Two years, huh?
I mainly resorted to this as another way to test meme generator. Looks like I can embed just-baked pics into comments, cool!
Please = Pleas
Well i guess they won't be playing sun and moon + go for 2 years
Used Nasty Plot!
They should be in jail for life. Anyone who clearly intends to mass murder a crowd is a danger to society.
@thesilverbrick I concur.
Did you see that similar incident recently where some dude might be facing 5 years in prison and a $250,000 fine for simply making a threat (not actually doing anything, just writing/saying some threatening words)?
"Ceblua faces a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine."—for literally doing nothing other than saying something that some people didn't like.
Warn him, sure, but five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Get the total and utter **** out of here!
It's utterly terrifying to me that precrime really does exist now (more so than anything that guy said, by far):
We are no longer free at all, if we ever even were.
Anyone saying we need to "lock these people up" or whatever; you guys are part of the problem. We need to lock up criminals, not people who haven't committed any crime whatsoever, other than being douches.
And, to be clear, there's obviously ways we can and should prevent crimes from happening in the first place too, especially potentially serious crimes—but not this!
Because, if we keep going down this path, soon they'll be locking people like me up for calling someone a douche, and maybe some of you guys too at some point if you even remotely step out of line.
We have some very big problems in this world, and some random guys making written/verbal threats online are not at the root cause of them—not even remotely close.
@Kirk Just gotta say, you are not alone on how you feel about this. I read your back and forth with others on here the other day about how that guy got fired for saying nasty things about his company on Twitter. For the most part, I agree with you. It's ridiculous how people overreact these days. (Although, I will say the specifics mentioned in the article here are obviously more than just a verbal threat.)
@FiveDigitLP Yeah, in this case these guys had guns and stuff, so they definitely needed to be apprehended and some kind of action taken. The other guy though, he just made some written/verbal threats, and there's a chance he could see five years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000 for that. It's mind boggling and terrifying to me just on the face of it.
Should've been sentenced to 2 years of playing Pokemon GO in Baghdad.
@Kirk I get what you're saying, but that sort of threat is crazy to have to deal with. 5 years is a lot, but a warning would simply not be enough. This isn't someone being a butt, this was someone giving a crazy scary threat during a time where these things actually get done. You don't joke about something that big.
Freedom of speech does NOT extend to this, and shouldn't. If any teen could try to troll a company by sending serious death threats and getting scotch free, then all it'd do is send the company's members nervous and unsafe. Plus, separating the real threats from the unreal would be awful. The punishment is pretty high, but I still feel he should get punished in some way.
@sunrisensoul And how exactly did you determine a warning from the police or whatever wouldn't be enough?
I feel he should get punished too, in a way that's reasonable and that fits his "crime". He made a serious sounding threat; he should maybe spend a day in the cells to teach him a lesson and have his name and details taken down so he knows they're watching him. Maybe he could even get a $50 fine too, or something like that. That kind of thing would be reasonable-ish enough to me here.
But this is just beyond absurd (potentially 5 years in jail and up to a $250,000 fine), and I REALLY think any sane person can feel that in their heart and soul, even if their actual brain has been totally programmed/conditioned by the media and mass "social" media to think otherwise.
As Charles Chaplin so eloquently put it, "You are not machines . . . you are men!":
I only wish we all knew better.
What unlawful possesion of guns in USA even means? Isn't firearm ownership and all the things associated with that debated and controversial to this day?
Also gj reporting news about pokemon go, guise! You reported that Nintendo is worth more than Sony, but didn't report it dropped below Sony the very same day:-)
Am I the only one who thinks this required a much heavier sentence? And much quicker, too?
@Dave24 The guns probably weren't registered, or they weren't the registered owner of the guns.
@Santoria oh, okay. My guess was that it all depends on the state, because if I remember correctly, you don't have to register the gun in some states.
But anyway, thx for explaining.
@Kirk You can see it in the swatting culture. So many kids who keep at it because there's no consequence. Like I said before, 5 years is a lot, but there definitely should be a punishment. I'm not someone who works in that, so I have no idea how long would be okay, but personally, a month with stuff like psych evaluations and maybe being put in some program for that week would seem good. The alleged 5 years thing is to catch headlines most likely, and he'll probably get a much, MUCH lower amount of time in jail, but that announcement will probably be quieter. First one will get on the news though for sure, and hopefully would deter people from doing the same.
Also, I feel you're being a bit harsh on people who would disagree with you. Totally programmed/ conditioned? Any sane person? It's still an actual crime. Our prison system is awful, and our law system isn't perfect by any means, but calm it down.The people who went to work there, and had to deal with not knowing if this was a joke or not,. they're not machines. Just reminds me of the "It's just a prank, bro!" people, there's something really wrong with trying to pull a joke like that.
@sunrisensoul The main issue I take is that it's not an actual crime. Or, at least, it really should not be until it is confirmed as anything more than some idiot just trying to act tough and threatening online; much like a school bully may say he's going to kill you if he catches you.
If they can confirm beyond a reasonable doubt that what this guy said was likely a genuine/serious threat—maybe he has that gun he spoke of, or maybe he has a history of violent behaviour, maybe he's been charged with a similar crime before—then it's likely to be a genuine/serious threat, and then you can treat it as a crime because his words are far more likely a genuine precursor to intended violence.
But, I could say online right now that I'm going to kill you because you hate a game I love. That does not make it true, or any real kind of threat, and it does not warrant any legal intervention/action whatsoever. It would be a total and utter violation of my basic human freedoms and totally and utterly oppressive as far as I'm concerned if someone should take some kind legal against me for simply saying something like this in the heat of the moment. And that's the line we are willy nilly skipping between here.
He's just a random and flawed human being, so he doesn't have to execute some exact measures to make sure he's not breaking any very specific laws (it's his God given and immutable right to be flawed); the guys on the other side, however, the police and the lawyers and such, all have a very serious responsibility, both legal and moral, which goes to the heart of human liberty.
I think this line is being pushed further than further back, and I think that is ultimately far, far, far more dangerous than anything this guy said. And I think that's what all you guys need to be talking about more here, rather than congratulating the system for potentially putting a perfectly sane human being behind bars and whatever else.
@Kirk What more can I say than I disagree? Even if it is some "idiot" trying to act tough, if it's let go and continues, it'll interfere and make ACTUAL threats harder to see. Same reasoning for why it's bad to pull a fire alarm.
And if you were to give a death threat, in that example, well, if they just saw the threat and called the cops, you'd definitely get a warning and a checkout. The threat he made was much more serious than that though. It's not a specific law, you just don't have to threaten someone with violence or worse. He can be flawed all he wants, and people make mistakes. This goes beyond that though. Just like how you can't just give a drunk driver a warning, you can't just do that in this situation.
People are so afraid of the slippery slope that it has them believe that one step will lead everything into some orwellian oppressive state. Just ends up leaving things not fixed at all. Really reminds me of how people equate anti-bullying stuff in school to be anti-freedom of speech, which I disagree with immensely, and that's all I'll say on all this.
@sunrisensoul None of that is an excuse/reason to allow more and more of all of our basic freedoms and liberties to be eroded away under the guise of protecting us from some "potential" crime.
"The threat he made was much more serious than that though. "
No, it was not. It was him blabbing "I'm maybe going to come up there and visit you with a gun, blah, blah, blah."
Him showing you a pic of him holding said gun would be "much more serious than that though", like those kids did in the actual example in the article above (they showed images of actual guns in their car and then travelled to the actual show too, as I recall); that was way more serious than the other guy just spouting off some threatening sounding words.
Basically, you guys simply will not see the problem here until it's too late. Ironically, which is how the likes of the government and the police are brainwashing the masses into allowing them to enact this type of pre-crime regime, under some implied threat; and you all jump the gun to support them in stopping that stuff. Except, unlike some implied threat, what these people who continue to distort and abuse all these laws are doing is actually real and right there in front of all of our faces too. But, that you can't see. Just trust me (or don't) when I say that the real threat here, to all of us, is ultimately not some guys shooting off their mouths online.
It's just like the whole "terrorism" thing, but being played out ever so slightly differently—yet every bit as insidious and ultimately more detrimental to all of us than anything any terrorists have ever done in the history of humankind.
These people, along with a sheepish "social" media "guided" masses, are getting better and better at setting things up so we'll all willingly and gladly shackle our own chains, while laughably talking about how bad things like slavery and oppression are and that we're glad we got rid of that kind of stuff.
@Kirk I agree with you. But some people need to learn to keep their own mouths shut and learn a little self control and manners.
These guys though, not only did they make"jokes" about shooting up the tournament, but they brought their guns along with them. No matter which way they try and spin it, it was by no means innocent and are definitely a public menace. What other reason could you possibly have for bringing dangerous weapons to a tournament for a kid's game if you aren't working security?
I'm just thankful these worthless losers had big mouths and that sharp eyed people got them caught before it turned into a tragedy.
@Kirk "According to court documents, between July 2, 2016, and July 3, 2016, Cebula transmitted messages over the internet to Blizzard Entertainment, in which he stated that he 'may or may not pay [Blizzard] a visit with an AK47 amongst some other 'fun' tools,' and 'might be inclined to 'cause a disturbance' at [Blizzard's] headquarters in California with an AK47 and a few other 'opportunistic tools,'" the report said.
Certainly sounds like something someone would say as a threat. It's a big matter of opinion on how bad the threat was, and honestly I feel it's REALLY bad to do something like this at a time like now. Dude, I'm not a fan of the police right now, as you can see from the stuff that's happening on the news and social media right now. If there's one good thing about social media, it's that everyone can post on it, and once something's on the internet, it's there forever. Look at the recent shootings for an example. America itself is on a bit of a decline, or rather was for a while but is more visible now.
No matter what corporations out there try to do stuff, there's always some news places that do it right. Things are never completely hidden, and people do fight back. You can't prove a slippery slope, there are good and bad examples for the way things have gone. And with how inept the NSA is, pleeease. I get what you're saying, but the way you say it, the more tin-hatish it seems. There is a problem but punishing someone for being an awful person and making a threat like this, which is definitely a crime and has been for a long while, is not at all affecting freedom of speech. Freedom of speech does not/should not allow you to endanger people's lives or give a scare like that. Go look up Snowden, or actually examples and please stop acting like everyone is sheep, it's cringey. Can we leave it at that?
@sunrisensoul So, literally, he sent them a couple of messages with some threatening text content in them. I've not said he didn't do as much; I'm saying I 1000% do not believe that is potentially 5 years in prison and $250,000 fine material—not on any remotely sane planet.
99.9% of people are sheep; it's not even debatable at this point. The evidence is overwhelming; just look at how quickly the "social" masses jump on board whatever junk is currently trending on Facebook or Twitter and the like, especially if it's something that allows them to be part of a righteous lynch mob to punish the sinners of the world. . . . Them not knowing they are sheep does not change the fact they are sheep; it just makes the situation even more dangerous for all of us, because we're all literally walking into it blind, and worse, most of us are pretty brainwashed into a very dangerous way of thinking and acting too.
If you think it's "tin-hatish", that is only because you are patently unaware of anything other than the total surface level stuff that's going on here, the stuff that is visible in mass media and on "social" media sites, most of which is geared toward one group way of thinking and acting (even when it's clearly not in our best interests), which goes exactly to the problem I'm talking about.
And, no; just not talking about it because it makes us all feel uncomfortable goes right to the root-cause of why all this stuff is happening—because we're all too lazy, scared, ignorant, sheepish, whatever, to say or do anything other than exactly what we're "supposed" to. We're just brushing it under the carpet and hoping we don't get into trouble ourselves, hoping we don't get noticed, and that is not the solution here.
We need to start making the real problems in our society more visible, not the just the stuff the corporation-owned and controlled "news" media and the stupid "social" media would like us to focus on, like all that "terrorism" and "racism" and "sexism" out there that is clearly at the root of what is tearing our society apart, and clearly that's why most of us feel trapped and oppressed most of the time. It couldn't possibly be because of things like a society built around capitalism, debt, tax, inflation, greed, selfishness, fear, making the rich ever more rich and the poor ever poorer, controlling the masses, silencing the outliers, and slowly but surely taking away more of our basic rights, freedoms, and liberties, while the rich get ever more rich and ever more powerful, etc.
Here's two short YouTube clips I think everyone should watch; they get right to the heart of it all:
Please, do actually watch them. They're both very entertaining and educational at the same time, and they strike right at the real truth of this modern and so called "civilised" society we all "live" in.
I want you to understand something: I'm not your enemy here; I'm just taking a stand for people like you, me, and all of us.
@Tempestryke Yeah, in the case of the two guys mentioned in the article above, it was crossing a line just on the face of it. Saying you're going to shoot and kill teens at a games tournament or whatever, and then also posting images of you actually standing there with the guns with which you could commit such a crime (and also already having tickets to the event too, as I recall); that obviously needs to be dealt with. I totally get that. And, I'd say the punishment for these guys probably wasn't too out of line—but still kinda was, if I'm being honest.
The other example, however, the one I mentioned above about the guy who simply sent a message or two to Blizzard implying he was gonna do some bad stuff (and that's basically all); and then him now facing potentially facing five years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000—that's just beyond mental imo.
To me, hearing stuff like that is almost as if we're living on planet Cuckoo, or trapped in George Orwell's 1984.
They got off light. People get more time for being caught with a certain drug that's been made legal for recreational use in some countries and even states in the U.S.
@Kirk I agree that a *possible sentence of 5 years/$250,000 is harsh, and the judge will most likely not hand down a sentence that extreme. However, violent threats are not an extension of free speech. Inciting or threatening violence against someone is totally illegal. The punishment you see there (5 years, $250,000) is for those people who actually pose with the AK-47 they intend to commit the crime with, and display intent. However, by threatening them with words alone, he probably will make an emotional plea to the judge, who will let him off easy. If he doesn't, then his attorney can file an appeal. The judge doesn't set these maximums, and they aren't set for each individual case, they are set for the crime. If the crime is a violent threat, that is the maximum sentence. Period. Whether that crime is as serious as a legitimate death threat, with the person admitting they wanted to kill, or a kid saying on the internet, "MAN I HATE YOU GUYS ILL KILL YA WIT MY AK-47!!1!11!" The kids won't get that sentence. The adult making legitimate death threats will. I would be outraged as well if 5 years, $250,000 was the minimum, but I'd be surprised if the minimum was anything more than probation. If a threat is made against the president, ANY LEVEL OF THREAT, then secret service pays them a prompt visit. It's about security. A death threat is not protected free speech, no matter how you slice it. I'd be surprised if he gets a year in jail, max.
As for the fellas illegally carrying firearms AND threatening the lives of others; this should NOT BE TOLERATED! 99% of legal gun owners never commit a crime. Concealed carry permit holders are statistically less likely to commit a crime than our own police force, for god's sake! It's people like these guys who are in illegal possession of a firearm that should be sent to jail, because we need to send the message that illegal possession of an otherwise perfectly legal item is not acceptable. 2 years jail time was an apt punishment. I might've even sentenced them longer, because people like that make legal gun owners look like criminals by association.
@Dave24 Gun ownership varies by state. In California and New York, it's about as restrictive as Europe. In 2nd amendment-respecting states, it's some of the most permissive in the world. We live in a strange time. Liberals are wanting more and more gun control, making it seem like a controversial topic. However, (with the execption of places like NJ, NY, CA and CT) gun laws have become somewhat more permissive over the years. Concealed Carry permits (a permit that allows someone to carry a firearm concealed under clothing or in a vehicle) have become much easier to obtain in most states, and there are more guns in the states than ever before. A common joke among gun people is that the best gun salesman in the world is Barack Obama, because every word that comes out of his mouth about how he wants to control guns gets people scared enough to go out and buy a gun
One man was most likely arrested for illegal concealed carry of a firearm, the other for illegal possession of a handgun by a person under 21. Guns don't need to be registered in almost all states, but in some states, you aren't allowed to have a firearm in your vehicle without a concealed carry permit, which neither of these men had. So that is the reason for their arrest.
@happylittlepigs Hey, I agree with most of what you say.
But, I still think we have to be very careful as a society, and as citizens of said society, what we start to accept as being the following under law and punishable by the law:
"threatening violence against someone is totally illegal."
Personally, I don't think we should simply count every single time someone posts a message online saying something remotely along the lines of "I'm going to kill you", in one form or another, as being automatically illegal, and certainly not just because the mass media and "social" media interpretation of some law has supposedly told us all how to group-think about this kind of thing. Sometimes we need to actually question these laws and specifically how and when they are being enforced, because the punishments are pretty frikin' severe.
So, that's more the point I'm getting at here.
I do not disagree that there is a law that says it is illegal to incite violence or make death threats. Nor do I think there shouldn't be such a law. I do, however, say we're starting to see that law be somewhat abused, to the point that we've now reached a situation where it's being used to stop almost any single written threat of violence whatsoever, even when sometimes it could be very convincingly argued that it really was not a serious/real threat at all, and instead was just some human being venting a bit of frustration. It's getting to a point of social conditioning—cleansing of the mouth as it were—being severely enforced by law.
If I am angry a Nintendo for whatever reason, I should be allowed to post some stupid comment online saying "I'm gonna kill all you gits for doing that!" in some idiotic rage where I clearly do not actually mean those words in the slightest, especially where I'm clearly just venting frustration, and it was obviously most effective to say some really hateful words and really hammer the point home that I'm majorly eff'd-off about it. Doesn't mean it wasn't stupid to act like that and say those things, but that notion of being an idiot and saying something stupid and inappropriate really should be every human being's God given right.
Using law to stop people committing crimes is not the same as using law to stop any form of negative human expression, even if we really don't like said expression—and I think we all just need to be aware of that at all times, and not allow these people to silence all forms of human behaviour that doesn't fall in line with some kind of oppressive Orwellian society.
The guys in the article above, who both made death threats and showed some evidence that they were indeed intending to follow through with those threats: They're obviously in line for some kind of legal punishment, within reason.
The guy who just posted a couple of silly raging messages, that were obviously crossing the line a bit: He should probably just have the police visit him, get a warning, maybe spend a day in the cells, and possibly have to pay a small fine (like $50 or something) just to hammer the point home.
Can you see the difference here, between reasonable and fair punishment that fits the crime and something that's genuinely far more insidious and worrying?
@Kirk I totally understand where you're coming from. I am as big a free speech activist as anyone, but when it comes to violent threats, how does law enforcement determine what is an actual threat and what is an internet troll? The law addresses violent threats, with a maximum punishment of 5 years/$250,000. That punishment will only be handed down in cases where the accused is found to have validity in the threat. So a case where he is actively trying to plot to kill them. But in the case of the internet troll, the troll's lawyer will probably bring up the fact that it was a troll, and that's considering the DA even wanted to bring a troll to trial. The fact that this case is going to trial shows us that there is probably some actual intention here, as a judge would probably shoot down a case where the person is some 12 year old saying mean things on the internet. Like I said earlier, the Secret Service investigates every single threat of harm that is said about the president. They don't prosecute all of them (or even most of them) but they pay them a visit. That same practice could be (and probably is) applied to threats against individuals. The police pay them a visit, scare them a bit, and they promise never to do it again. The sheer fact that the case is going to trial shows that the police and/or DA believe there is cause to be afraid of this person's threats.
@happylittlepigs Hey, I hear ya; and you're general attitude and outlook here is all good. It's just a little different to mine.
Maybe they do believe there is a genuine case. I'd love to believe that were the case (no pun intended). But, my life experience and a lot of digging into things has taught to be just as suspicious of the intentions of the "good" guys as those of the "bad" guys, especially when there's maybe an element of celebrity and big money involved (and Blizzard is a very big and rich "celebrity", as it were, with a lot of reach and influence across millions of fans).
It's that whole thing about "Who will guard the guards themselves?" – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_custodiet_ipsos_custodes%3F
We all have this inherent trust that the people protecting us are nothing but the good guys. Except, nothing is that clear or black & white in a society that is entirely governed by money, capitalism, profit, greed, banks, media moguls, corporations, etc. More often than we'd all love to believe, the people that are supposed to be "protecting" us are really just protecting their own self interests, and whole lot of them are just glorified servants of the corporate agenda at this point, especially the lawyers. I guess that's why the Devil was a lawyer in The Devil's Advocate.
So yeah, it might be getting taken further in this case because the guy's a genuine threat, or maybe it's just a real good case to send a message to a whole lot of people with. Put the fear of God in them as it were, and make them tow the line, less they too say the wrong thing. Better just to go to work, shut up, and get on with the daily grind.
I really don't know anymore—and I'm not going to call it either way—but I do question everything now, just in case.
@Kirk It is always good to be wary of the government. When you trust the government too much, they take more and more power. The reason the U.S. is the world's most free country is the mistrust of government with power. Our constitution doesn't grant citizens rights or privileges, it prevents the government from messing with them, but I'm sure you already know that. I understand your mistrust of government and wholly value it, but the beautiful thing about our legal system is the rights afforded to the accused. They are innocent until proven guilty, they have the right to an attorney, and trial by jury, and the right to appeal the court's decision. Even with these restrictions tto the power of the state in place, the accused can always challenge it. So, in this case, I trust the judicial system to deliver justice. You have every right to distrust the judicial system, as I do as well to a certain degree, but if there's any branch of government I choose to trust over the others, it's the judicial system because of the rights of the accused.
@happylittlepigs Well, you have a lot more faith and trust in the system than me, that's for sure.
I believe that business and money always trounces everything else at the end of the day, even though the forefathers tried to make it so that wouldn't happen. And, sadly, I actually think the US is one of the worst culprits of this kind of thing, along with the UK.
I kinda always go back to these two clips:
And when I watch those two clips I imagine the American and British flags waving around, and the governments brainwashing the masses into believing they're the good guys, when, ultimately, they're probably the worst of the buys guys, when you get down to the brass tax of it all (pun intended).
@Kirk I'm genuinely afraid of living in Europe. The way they restict their people's liberties at every chance they get, and what's even scarier is that their people are totally fine with it! And what's scarier than that is that there are actually Americans who want that level of authoritarianism to consume us! It's insanity! I do not trust the government when it comes to restricting our liberties, but the judicial system is functional for several reasons:
-Right to a lawyer
-Right to trial by jury
-Right to speedy trial
-Innocent until proven guilty
-No illegal search/seizure
-Right to remain silent
-Protection agaisnt self-incrimination
-Right to face your accuser
-Right to an appeal
-Corrupt police work=innocent
-Protection against double jeopardy
-Protection against cruel/unusual punishment
All of these protections and rights, in my opinion, give the accused an advantaged position when they are brought to trial. Although I do think the system could use reforms such as the removal of the three strikes law which results in people who can get arrested for continuous minor felonies (like drug possession) that cause them to get mandatory life without parole. This seems absurd. A person who is arrested for drug possession 3 times shouldn't go away for life. Each punishment should fit each crime. You shouldn't be able to tthrow that rilwrule out the window on their third offense.
Enough of my tangent, point is that I generally trust the judicial system, but all other branches of government (ESPECIALLY the legislative) are untrustworthy.
@happylittlepigs Yeah, having basically won cases against both Warner Bros. and Rockstar North myself, I know the law can be made to work for you if you are the innocent party--as long as you know what you're doing with it. But usually only lawyers know that stuff--it's deliberately written so most human beings don't have a clue what it's on about--and I just don't trust them. Corporate laywers especially--boy are they slimy in my experience--I do not trust. lol
What do you say to the families of all that get murdered after the fact? "Sorry we thought they were empty threats?" If you are stupid enough to be making threats on the web nowadays, you deserve to get caught. It should be well known by now that these things get out and should not be said.
@whanvee If you make threats of course you deserve to get caught; or, at least I don't have any issue with someone getting caught for making threats. I do, however, have an issue when the punishment doesn't fit the "crime". And, the problem with what you said is that we can't run a society based on oppressing everyone and making them live in fear of unfair punishments simply because we're afraid bad things might happen. We have to run society in such a way that we can prevent crimes where possible—real crimes—and also reasonably punish anyone who does commit a real crime. But, we also have to be very clear about what constitutes a real crime in the first place, and we can't just call anything we don't like a crime and leave it at that. That's not a truly fair, civilised, or free society; it's an Orwellian police state, and that's far more terrifying a world to live in than a world where there's a random chance someone might do something bad every now and then. Sadly, a police state is apparently what we're heading toward, and people like you are are at the front of the band that's marching us there.
Tap here to load 45 comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...