Justin Carter, or, Why Do Canadians Hate Free Speech?

[empath]

I dont mind her getting worried, I dont mind her calling. I mind that from the reports, the police acted on her phone call and arrested him, then when the investigation turned up nothing continued to hold him "to set an example"

THAT is the part that worries me, because that means that anyone who posts anything that can be taken out of context is subject to arrest and extended imprisonment because someone they dont know took something they said out of context because they didnt know or didnt care about the context and called the authorities.

I saw this shit flare up in other places a few days ago - the really fun part is the relevant Texas statute requires INTENT to actually go ahead and carry out the threat, which in this case there is NOTHING to corroborate his response to someone saying he was crazy (for extolling one LoL hero over another, IIRC). "Yeah, I'm so crazy I'm gonna go shoot up a kindergarten" as being anything other than an idle, off-hand remark.

This shit should have stopped with the police visiting him; the investigation should have continued as it has, but NOT with a minor in police custody arrested without the requirements for the law/act/etc. he was charged under.

His future is being maimed so that law enforcement officials can look good to the public, and waste a pile of taxpayer money in settling the incipient civil lawsuit his father files against them.

This is the world you live in; money means nothing to your 'protectors' - they'll spend as much of yours as they need to make you think they're competent.

...and people wonder why I felt let down by the Occupy movement...

[JayBlanc]

Under Texas law, over 18 is not a Minor. But that doesn't matter because Texas can decide to charge anyone under 18 as if they were over 18 if they want to.

You shouldn't complain about Canadians, complain about who makes up the justice system of Texas. And the fault of that lies with Texans, as judges there are all directly elected officials.

It's not "Government", it's the people of Texas who vote in Judges who are "Tough on Crime" and then are surprised when these things happen.

[Cybren]

Judges don't decide who to prosecute, and every time someone says "he should be fined or reprimanded but this is ridiculous" is a monster. Literally a monster.

[Metcarfre]

People use "literally" way too much.

[Duckay]

Judges don't decide who to prosecute, and every time someone says "he should be fined or reprimanded but this is ridiculous" is a monster. Literally a monster.

Show your work?

[Cybren]

Well, the contempt for joy and happiness for one, the snarling too.

[JackSlack]

From what I can tell, here's what he's being charged with.

Sec. 22.07. TERRORISTIC THREAT. (a) A person commits an offense if he threatens to commit any offense involving violence to any person or property with intent to:
(1) cause a reaction of any type to his threat by an official or volunteer agency organized to deal with emergencies;
(2) place any person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury; or
(3) prevent or interrupt the occupation or use of a building; room; place of assembly; place to which the public has access; place of employment or occupation; aircraft, automobile, or other form of conveyance; or other public place; or
(4) cause impairment or interruption of public communications, public transportation, public water, gas, or power supply or other public service.
(b) An offense under Subdivision (1) or (2) of Subsection (a) is a Class B misdemeanor. An offense under Subdivision (3) of Subsection (a) is a Class A misdemeanor. An offense under Subdivision (4) of Subsection (a) is a felony of the third degree.

Keeping in mind that we may not know everything here, I think sub-section 3 seems improbable at least (he never named a location, which you'd think would be step one there), and that section 1 is only slightly less improbable (he made the comments in a forum not immediately accessible to any public agency, and that's a weird way to go about provoking an emergency response). Sections 2 & 4 are where I'd guess they'd make their arguments; and given the severity of the response you'd have to guess they'll argue to 4, suggesting schooling is a public service.

I also think, without additional details, the whole thing is an insane over-reaction, and the correct response chain involves the police chucking the notion in the bin upon a cursory investigation. Absent any details we may not yet know, it is an authoritarian and disgusting breach of free speech based upon panic.

[empath]

Under Texas law, over 18 is not a Minor. But that doesn't matter because Texas can decide to charge anyone under 18 as if they were over 18 if they want to.

Oh, he's nineteen now - has anyone bothered to mention that Mr. Carter has been in jail since February? He was supposed to have his day in court back on the first (tin-foil hat time - that date is ALSO CANADA DAY, coincidence?!? {melodramatic music} ) but funnily enough, no news site has ANY details of this yet.

Mind you, after checking further I've discovered Texas's 'age of majority' is actually SEVENTEEN, so your point still stands, but quibbling over a single word in what I said? Maybe we should split hairs about how the half-million-dollar-bail set means his family actually only has to scrounge up one-tenth of that, a paltry $50,000us; no drastic rearranging of family finances there...


Listen, EVERYONE:

This shit is happening because you give these people power and control over you; they're not intrinsically evil people, but the seductive siren song of authority corrupts as ably as a warm, humid day works over a piece of uncooked meat left out.

...and this shit (and worse) is going to CONTINUE TO HAPPEN; either get used to it...or maybe CHANGE something to keep it from happening?

[Duckay]

Well, the contempt for joy and happiness for one, the snarling too.

I honestly don't understand what you're trying to say, here.

And empath, I can't speak for JayBlanc but personally I think it's important to stick to the facts as we know them. It's not about quibbling or splitting hairs; it's about there being sufficient reason to find fault with or question things without exaggerating or misstating what's happened/happening. Making incorrect claims only weakens the argument, in my opinion, and makes it easy to lose sight of what we know and blow things further out of proportion.

[Dubious_wolf]

Well I think it's bullshit. There wasn't any crime committed here. "Conspiracy to Incite terrorism" is an absolutely vague notion. Why didnt the creators of Call of duty 2 get arrested for "inciting terrorism"
There was no direct threat made, this is old militaristic dictator behavior shit right here.
"Learning the consequences" has absolutely no barring here either.
The consequences of what? Making snide comments in a non serious manner? Half the commedians in the god damn world should be arrested if not killed if we are using that as a yard stick. There was no conspiracy no plans that they found. No preparations in the house hold. There was one stupid comment.

Technically the eighth amendment has no barring since he was arrested by state police from what I could gather....
But still 50,000 bail is crap.

[empath]

Well, the family has to post $50k with a bail bondsman, who THEN posts the half-million on their behalf, but yeah, even that smaller amount is a serious hardship.

And the key here "with intent"; I'd REALLY like to find out how the D.A. feels the State can show Carter INTENDED to bring about ANY of the six subdivisions, off of a single comment, and no other physical evidence...

But then again, They have no intention of bringing this to trial; he's "being made an example of", due process is going to be subverted when things get close to Them having to put up or shut up. He and his family will be given 'a plea bargain' and they'll quietly brush the mess they've made under the carpet and the media will barely report about it.

Justin is just a tool to make Them look good to the 'public safety' faction of voters; a resource to be used and then discarded with no thought to consequences when his usefulness for Their purposes has ended.

...I hope this never happens to any of us.

[Lord Hosk]

First, All laws in the United States are subservient to the constitution which includes any amendments to it.

1 Constitution
2 Presidential orders
3 federal laws
4 state laws
5 local ordinance

There are a few middle steps but those are the big ones, that's why people selling marijuana can still be arrested in states like Washington or locality like Ann Arbor Michigan that have legalized it, you cant make a lower law that trumps a higher law. Cities townships and any subdivisions of land operate at the will of the state, the states are granted their status by the federal government.

The eighth amendment still applies and the fact that there is a group or person willing to put up 90% if the family can pay 10% does not negate the fact that the bail was set at $500,000 for a kid with no means to run based on the charge of "Terrorism" and a desire to "teach him a lesson"

Also the way bail works is you pay the bail, you get to go "free" with restrictions on movement, and then if you appear at trial you get your money back. When a Bail bondsman pays it for you (normally) they pay the full amount, and you pay them 10% then they keep an eye on you to ensure that you go to the trial so they get their money back. That 10% is your fee to them you dont get it back when you arrive at the trial but they do get the full amount back.

Mayhem, Threats to public officials, or even ACTUAL ASSAULT on a school or school official, have a standard bail of $100,000.

$500,000 is typically the bail set for attempted murder, assault with firearms, and multiple counts of sexual assault on minors.

His bail should have been closer to $25,000 based on anything I have read.

[JayBlanc]

The judge might justify his bail setting as "multiple counts of threats against a public official", but it is certainly excessive bail. However, to be honest the cost of pursuing a civil case in Texas will far exceed the amount of bail. Add on to that a Jury trial is hard to get in Texas civil cases, and are often overturned in the State's favour by a superior judge, and because the Texas judges are political electioneerists it's unlikely a Judge will stick their neck out on being 'soft on crime' by making any ruling that lowers bail amounts.

Again, this is the fault of the people of Texas who voted in judges and legislatures that made the Texas 'justice' system what it is today. Blame "Tort Reform" campaigners, those who wanted directly elected judges (but never vote in judicial elections because "they don't matter"), those that voted consistently for stronger penalties and higher bail amounts, those who pushed for "Zero Tolerance" laws... And then to cap this all, remind yourself that Justin Carter is the nice white boy tip of the ice-burg. Think about how many people Texas executes a year. Using the very same 'justice' system.

If you're surprised or shocked by Justin Carter's treatment by the State of Texas, or if you think this is the worst the Texas justice system has to offer, you simply haven't been paying attention.

[empath]

Oh, yeah - I almost forgot about that; if Justin Carter had been named Jesus Mendoza, I'm guessing the police investigation would have been concluded when "the suspect pulled a firearm (with filed-down serial numbers and is completely missing any fingerprints) and investigating officers were required to defend themselves"...

[The Jester]

[Lord Hosk]

...because that means that anyone who posts anything that can be taken out of context is subject to arrest and extended imprisonment because someone they dont know took something they said out of context because they didnt know or didnt care about the context and called the authorities.

[Koyote042]

[Elomin Sha]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-22839359

[Cybren]

Well I think it's bullshit. There wasn't any crime committed here. "Conspiracy to Incite terrorism" is an absolutely vague notion. Why didnt the creators of Call of duty 2 get arrested for "inciting terrorism"
There was no direct threat made, this is old militaristic dictator behavior shit right here.
"Learning the consequences" has absolutely no barring here either.
The consequences of what? Making snide comments in a non serious manner? Half the commedians in the god damn world should be arrested if not killed if we are using that as a yard stick. There was no conspiracy no plans that they found. No preparations in the house hold. There was one stupid comment.

Technically the eighth amendment has no barring since he was arrested by state police from what I could gather....
But still 50,000 bail is crap.

That doesn't matter because of equal protection.

[Lord Hosk]

Cybren, how you are applying equal protection?

[Lord Hosk]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-22839359

There are some significant differences between the two cases in my view.

1. He made the threats with a date and a implied location
"...I'm planning on killing him first ... I'm gonna kill hopefully at least 200 before I kill myself. So you want to tell the deputy, I'm on my way.". Vrs Vague ideas about "I think im' shoot up a kindergarten..."

2. There was a actual response meaning he caused terror.
The next day schools in the area were closed, children kept home Vrs weeks later someone reported it to the police and they arrested him.

3. His intent was to cause a panic at that school, he wasn't using Hyperbole by any stretch of the imagination.

4. He turned himself in, and admitted that he had done it for the purpose of causing a panic.

On the surface they are similar but when you actually look at the cases they are VERY different. Also Im not sure about British law, so I dont know about the rights vrs government control there other than you dont have to worry about getting shot nearly as much as we do.

[Metcarfre]

And he has a stack of priors, which explains the length of sentence to an extent (not sure how much weight that caries in UK courts).

[empath]

...and thus Reece Elliot is the reason Texas (and other jurisdictions) have these laws; still doesn't mean they don't get unfairly enforced.

So the philosophical question here is: which 'evil is lesser'?

A situation where Justin Carter doesn't get his life destroyed by over-reaction, but a wilful 'troll' like Reece Elliot goes free and unpunished for his hollow yet credible threats?

Or a situation where Elliot is tracked down, caught, charged, tried and punished for his traumatizing and disruptive behaviour, but Carter gets thrown in jail with no reasonable chance of posting bail (which WILL look bad in any trial later) for a 'speedy trial' to "be made an example of"?

Yes, ideally we'd have the best of both worlds, but limiting to just the two contingencies, which would anyone prefer?

[Lord Hosk]

If the only two options are both free or both imprisoned I am 100% behind both free. Though those aren't the only options because they were very different situations as I said.

In an ideal world, the police investigate both, they would detain Elliot for a few days find that he has a history of criminal offenses and caused significant damage by his actions and would be punished, when investigating Carters case they would find no reason for action to be taken, detain him for a few days while they investigate then free him.

Based on what I read, the system worked correctly in the Elliot case but I maintain that it has very much not worked for Mr Carter.

[Tycherin]

I see the problem as being the disconnect between the society in which our judicial system was conceived and constructed, and the society we live in now. Prior to a couple decades ago, the average person couldn't communicate with millions of people except under extraordinary circumstances. The law wasn't built with that kind of possibility in mind - nor was it built considering the unique combination of permanence and accessibility that the internet offers.

In 1995, if I made an offhand comment to my buddy Dave, he could go tell the police whatever he wanted and it would be my word against his - hearsay, nothing more. On the other hand, if I went to the effort to write something down a letter or something, I had to put some effort into that - maybe not a lot, but more than a few seconds. With Facebook, you get the availability of saying whatever the hell you're thinking combined with unparalleled permanence.

The justice system has no idea what to do with that, nor does any part of the U.S. government (or any other government, as far as I'm aware).