Yep, it's a tough one, but .... fuck it.I feel for the mother.
Silly kids will be silly...But the shitty world we live in sort of handcuffs enforcement here...If he shoots up a school and they take no notice they will be blamed afterwards.
Sad really
how old is your son?If it were my son I'd say take him to jail
throw away the key.....If it were my son I'd say take him to jail
So when someone makes a threat what should they do?it's functionally retarded for law enforcement to engage in these circle-jerks of signalling "We Do Things".
In this case the kid actually made a threat.seems like a slippery slope anybody who is a little weird can now be arrested on "threat".
no, this was not a "true threat" as defined by the SCOTUS.In this case the kid actually made a threat.
So what is a "true threat"?no, this was not a "true threat" as defined by the SCOTUS.
that is a good name for van damme film doe. bring back coked out van damme Obama.So what is a "true threat"?
the fact that the cops in the video acknowledge that it was "probably a joke" and "it doesn't matter if he's joking" means that they know this kid made a hyperbolic statement, but they don't know that vile, caustic statements made in public are protected under the 1st Amendment.So what is a "true threat"?
Threats of physical violence are protected under the 1st amendment?the fact that the cops in the video acknowledge that it was "probably a joke" and "it doesn't matter if he's joking" means that they know this kid made a hyperbolic statement, but they don't know that vile, caustic statements made in public are protected under the 1st Amendment.
yes, under the Watts v United States decision (1969) a threat which is made as hyperbole, and not as a statement of actionable intent, is protected speech.Threats of physical violence are protected under the 1st amendment?
It's an officers job to put people before a court, not to replace it.yes, under the Watts v United States decision (1969) a threat which is made as hyperbole, and not as a statement of actionable intent, is protected speech.
no, an officer's job is to know the extent of his authority. The current interpretation of 'qualified immunity' is one of the reasons communities are so confrontational with police. The cop has to know that there has to be something beyond the words to justify an arrest...cops shouldn't be able to throw anyone in jail that they want to, and then say 'well I wanted to err on the side of caution." that's not Rule of Law.It's an officers job to put people before a court, not to replace it.
The extent of an officers authority is to enforce laws, not interpret them. If someone is uttering threats they should be arrested. Whether or not it's a legitimate threat is for the courts to sort out.no, an officer's job is to know the extent of his authority. The current interpretation of 'qualified immunity' is one of the reasons communities are so confrontational with police. The cop has to know that there has to be something beyond the words to justify an arrest...cops shouldn't be able to throw anyone in jail that they want to, and then say 'well I wanted to err on the side of caution." that's not Rule of Law.
And this limit is established case law that's been around for 50 years. The cop is wrong, and should know he's wrong.
EDIT - cop is wrong based on what's in the video and what I've seen reported...could be more evidence, but doesn't seem to be.
that's your opinion, but it's a fantasy.The extent of an officers authority is to enforce laws, not interpret them. If someone is uttering threats they should be arrested. Whether or not it's a legitimate threat is for the courts to sort out.