Local School Threat

[Fraggle09027]

http://www.mcall.com/news/local/alle...lallentown-hed

Well at least he did not have a firearm to fuel the drive by media. Talk about close to home.

[jsb889]

Wow, thats really sad someone is that depressed. He shouldn't have said any of that, but being how hes being treated, it makes ya wonder exactly what you can and cannot say. Wouldn't being jailed for a terroristic threat be unconstitutional? First amendment, free speech.

[OneLungMcClung]

Well at least he did not have a firearm to fuel the drive by media.

Don't worry. If he has ever come within farting distance of anything even remotely seeming like a firearm, they'll point it out.

"Brown's experience as a cubscout is being called in to question, mostly centering on the belief that he may have held a .22 rifle at one point at the age of 7."

"Brown is believed to have viewed certain news clips in the last five years, including media shorts that showed disturbing images of Marine Soldiers firing their M-16s in Boot Camp. It is now being determined if this played a role in his violent threat to the school."

"Brown was involved in the theater department at school. It is believed that in one of the plays that was produced there a plastic replica of an AK-47 Assault Machinegun was used. This may have had an impact on the you...blahblahblah"

And on and on. Don't be surprised by the tripe these media asoles come up with.

[Charlie B]

Boo F**kin Who. Life’s a bitch, and then you die.

[KeithPA]

I think I know where he went wrong....

he 22-year-old senior theater major ends

[1911shooter]

Another nut job wanting attention,,,, oh my daddy beat me my mom didnt love me enough.... i didnt get all the things i want like my friends did... oh whoa is me,,,, i'll take it out on the rest of the world and blame them for my problems...... what a a$$hole i dont feel sorry for him, come to think of it i dont feel sorry for most people as they bring it upon themselves....
wow he held a gun once when he was 7 holy crap he's got anger issues, oh no he used a plastic gun for a play wow hes gonna be a murderer man i feel like i need to puke now this is rediculous but it is exactly the type of things we as gun owners neede to fight against... he treatend to kill a professor and one in paticular... so good he's in jail but it wont do any good some wise lwyer will get him off for being crazy, he'll go to a hospital then they'll turn him lose till he does commit a crime, but they will claim he is cured and that it was the gun owning community and not that he is a wack job. and then it will start all over again.....

i must digress sorry for the ranting.

[Fraggle09027]

Another nut job wanting attention,,,, oh my daddy beat me my mom didnt love me enough.... i didnt get all the things i want like my friends did... oh whoa is me,,,, i'll take it out on the rest of the world and blame them for my problems...... what a a$$hole i dont feel sorry for him, come to think of it i dont feel sorry for most people as they bring it upon themselves....
wow he held a gun once when he was 7 holy crap he's got anger issues, oh no he used a plastic gun for a play wow hes gonna be a murderer man i feel like i need to puke now this is rediculous but it is exactly the type of things we as gun owners neede to fight against... he treatend to kill a professor and one in paticular... so good he's in jail but it wont do any good some wise lwyer will get him off for being crazy, he'll go to a hospital then they'll turn him lose till he does commit a crime, but they will claim he is cured and that it was the gun owning community and not that he is a wack job. and then it will start all over again.....

i must digress sorry for the ranting.

I agree whole heartedly. The whole "rant" is what I have been saying for quite a while. Todays younger generation has lost respect for others (and common manners). The only people who can change this trend is the parents of today, But once you 18 your actions are your responsibility and so are the consequences that follow.

I better stop to, this going off topic a little, sorry.

[Nate]

These "terroristic threats" are going to lead to the end of free speech.

[Fraggle09027]

These "terroristic threats" are going to lead to the end of free speech.

IMHO I think threats are not freedom of speech. If someone were to tell me or post that they are going to kill me I would not just say "well thats your right to say that". Any threat should be taken seriously, even when its other countries wanting nukes because Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth as President Ahmadimejad believes.

[SuperMoose]

Wouldn't being jailed for a terroristic threat be unconstitutional? First amendment, free speech.

First Amendment, freedom of speech is limited. Allow me to clarify a bit as I've written two legal memorandums on the subject in the last week. If you guys want I'll elaborate a bit on the subject.

“It is apparent that the unconditional phrasing of the First Amendment was not intended to protect every utterance” (Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 483, 1957). There are several different categories of speech which do not fall into the guarantee of protection by the First Amendment. Fighting words, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 572 (1942), or obscenity, Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 481- 485, (1957), or incitement, Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), or libel, Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974), have been held unprotected by the First Amendment.

The current precendent was established in Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951). It established the Clear and Probable Danger Test/Grave and Probable Danger Test. It basically says that if the words are likely to create a problem it may be suppressed. The Court refocused the ruling in Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), to Imminent Lawless Action. In other words if the speech is to create a situation in which there is going to be a huge problem, it may be censored.

Offhand, I don't know where this kid's comments would fit, I honestly don't care to figure it out as I've been dealing with constitutional law all semester and have no desire to decode this. I still have a test in one of my con law classes. Hope that helps though.

-edit
Also thought to add this, I hope this doesn't sound like a smart ass comment, its not intended that way. With that said, I don't know whether a lot of people know this or not but just because the Constitution says things such as "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. " AKA the First Amendment, doesn't mean that the text is to be taken literally. Things such as freedom of expression have been derived from the text that clearly does not state a constitutional protection to that. So while some of you might argue that Congress or the State is infringing on your constitutional right to bear arms, that is not necessarily the case. The Court through the practice of judicial review, established in Hylton v. United States (most people think it is Marbury v. Madison), interprets the Constitution and makes law through its opinions. The Second Amendment has been interpreted to mean that you may own a firearm. Just wanted to share a quick Con Law lesson with everybody, I don't know how much people know about that Constitution and the law that surrounds it.