I agree. I wish there was a more organized "left" but from what I've seen it's just many many random groups that are not on the "right". If there was an organized left, then they should focus only on improving the well being of the average US family through improving the economy and healthcare to work for everyone. The left let's itself get baited into these culture wars. If everyone's lives improved then I believe a lot of these culture war issues would improve as a byproduct of a happier populace who would be more forgiving to those around them.
Except I'm not sure this is an "unreal" risk. I was telling someone a story today about how I was outside with my daughter who was 10 at the time. We live in cul-de-sac and 2 houses down there is a neighborhood pool but across the street (very non-busy street). The neighborhood has some unused wood from building a fence and sent an email out saying that people could take some. My daughter said she wanted to take a wagon and go get some to make a project. I encouraged her to go alone but I'd watch from the front of the house, but next to the road (I'm literally 2 houses away). I actually thought it would be good for her to do it alone (with me watching). I watch as she looks both ways before crossing and being very careful of her surroundings, etc.
Then all of a sudden the teenage boy (about 15-16 years old) runs out of the house over to her and starts talking to her. The mother runs out soon after. I walk over there and they are talking to her and looking concerned at me. I walk up and the mom is yelling at me about letting my daughter outside alone. I explain to her that I was here the whole time watching. She then says that some stranger could have come up to her in which I reply, "I know. It's a good thing I was here."
My daughter said she was afraid to go in the front yard after that because she said the creepy neighbors are probably watching her. Thank goodness they moved away a few months ago.
That level of concern is a bit ridiculous for a 10 year old. I was riding my bike all over by myself at that point. Crossing the street with indirect supervision is something I'd trust a 6 year old with.
Now maybe I had a charmed childhood, but I'm in my mid twenties, so it's not like I'm talking about growing up in the 50's here. My parents are older though, they did grow up in the 50s, and I I know they view independence as an important individual trait. I'm sure overprotective parents are not a recent phenomenon. One of my (younger) brother's friends was accompanied to and from school by his mother well in to High School. Walk, drive, riding a bike, you name it, she was there.
My mom asked her about this once, and she was like "Oh, [Declanomous's Mother], you have [Declanomous] and [Son #2]. I just have [her son]. I don't know what I'd do if anything happened to him." My mom thought this point was kind of ridiculous, because it's not as if one child is a backup for another child. She just let my brother and I run around because she wanted us to learn to do things on our own.
Personally I think the current environment vis-a-vis child rearing reflects a larger trend towards fear in overall society. Part of this is a result of a larger focus on danger in childhood development, but I feel like a whole culture around existential fear really developed after 9/11. It seems like we started viewing the entire world as dangerous, rather than being ripe for exploration. I feel like this is really noticeable when watching media from different eras. Popular TV shows before 9/11 were Seinfeld, Friends, and Fraiser. After 9/11 shows like CSI, 24, etc. became very popular.
I could be completely wrong. I know shows like Law and Order and ER were very popular before 9/11. I recall them being less existentially terrifying though. This could just be because I was very young at the time though.
On an evolutionary scale that's true, but on an interpersonal level it's less true. It's not like a person is more valuable because they are an only child.
My grandfather was a truck driver for over 40 years. He worked for a few different companies at during his lifetime but his last was for the US postal service. He said that was the life for a truck driver. He over drove twice a week (to and from Dallas, TX x2). I think it's really hard to get a job with them as a truck driver from what I remember.
Anyways, I love the truck driver culture. Before my grandfather worked for USPS, I would go with him on trips and we would go to these truck stops that were more like diners. I'm not sure if a lot of those exist anymore but the waitress would always remember my grandfather and he would just say, "my usual". Fond memories.
That's what I'd like to know too? I'm reminded of the old line I hear of "well, that escalated quickly".
Shouldn't there be maybe a simple check from a non-armed individual (I'm thinking a nice gentleman or lady in business attire - an investigator). Seems like most people will gladly help the police if they are kind and courteous. Then if that doesn't work out, bring in standard officers (no SWAT), to discuss matters but without breaking into a house. There still seems like there should be many levels of escalation before a SWAT is called.
Only if some sort of armed conflict occurs then a SWAT team is probably necessary and called in with proper escalation procedures. Why jump straight to armed conflict mode by bringing in a SWAT? Heck, I would even wager to say that RIGHT before a SWAT is called if you warn the individuals that if they don't comply, a SWAT will be called, then just the warning will be enough. Still I can't stress enough, that there should be escalation procedures. Long escalation procedures.
I dislike that in the article they removed the context of his statement. Just reading this, it sounds like he was making a threat, but if you read the KHOU.com (Houston) article it appears that here's merely mocking the person who is calling him insane.
NPR version:
"I think Ima shoot up a kindergarten / And watch the blood of the innocent rain down/ And eat the beating heart of one of them."
KHOU version:
'Oh you're insane, you're crazy, you're messed up in the head,’ to which he replied 'Oh yeah, I'm real messed up in the head, I'm going to go shoot up a school full of kids and eat their still, beating hearts,’ and the next two lines were lol and jk.,"
I think he crossed the line of "merely mocking". Stating something so non-funny and grotesque shortly after a elementary school shooting on a public facebook page is idiotic. Not only is it stupid but he also a young white male (and appears to lack common sense) - why shouldn't it be considered a threat?
Edit - I never said he deserved jail time or the ridiculous bail. I'm simply stating that his words on a public medium should be taken seriously and looked into. I'd expect the same from bomb threats or other terrorist activities.
Devils advocate - if an American Islamist made a comment about bombing ______ but then stated "jk", is it crossing the line? What if they were radical?
It's a slippery slope and I'm not a judge. I'm simply stating that I believe he crossed the line and I'm glad someone looked into it. No, he doesn't deserve to be in jail.
Why does it matter that he's young, white, or male?
Most people agree that it's stupid and deeply offensive to make that kind of comment.
Where people disagree is with a $500,000 bond; and with a prison sentence; and with jail time; for something that's no more nor less stupid that the stupid shit children do every single day.
EDIT: For the cost spent on him so far we could have shown him his comment, put it in the context of a recent school shooting, explained that some people are scared by that stuff, shown him the costs and process involved in checking if he's a terrorist about to kill a bunch of children and EAT THEIR BEATING HEARTS, asked him to consider his language in public in future, and asked him to talk to the woman making the complaint so she can see he's not going to kill children and he can apologise for scaring her.
That way you get a young man who stands a chance at getting a job in future (because felony convictions tend to affect what people can do) and who doesn't hate law enforcement.
Obviously it doesn't work for everyone, and when it doesn't work you use further measures. Luckily, by doing a bit of triage you have less people in prison and more money to spend rehabilitating them.
"non-funny" and "grotesque" are both subjective judgments and are no basis for imprisoning someone. You're suggesting that someone who demonstrated no capability or motive to carry out his "threat" should be imprisoned simply because an unrelated tragic event happened a few weeks before? And it's somehow more deserved because he is a young white male? That is a perverse notion and it is the antithesis of justice and equality under the law.
Devils advocate - if an American radical islamist made a comment about bombing ______ but then stated "jk", is it crossing the line?
It's a slippery slope and I'm not a judge. I'm simply stating that I believe he crossed the line and I'm glad someone looked into it. No, he doesn't deserve to be in jail.
I fail to see your point; you've changed so many details that your attempt at argument simply falls flat. We aren't talking about anyone with any sort of history, we're talking about a kid, a kid who posted something of a similar caliber to things expressed on the internet thousands of times an hour. Entire communities are notorious for containing this level of discourse, continuously; XBox Live first person shooters and 4chan leap to mind, but those are merely the large ones. If this is "crossing the line" than your "line" is simply useless, it's been crossed more than once just in the time it took me to post this, I'm sure.
I don't know what his intentions were, adding "lol" or "jk" afterwards doesn't make it go away. Honestly, I do think it was a joke from a dumb kid. I don't think he deserves jail time but I'm glad someone took it seriously enough to look into it.
> 1. Canadian woman saw post, reported to police to look into
> I agree with 1, I think it was a smart thing to do.
No, it was not a smart thing to do. When you see things like that, you should think. Not regex for scary or even mildly offensive combinations of words, but think. Put that gray matter to some use.
Anyone who reads the comment he made, in its context, and thinks "whoa, better call the cops", demonstrates a serious failure to think.
I'm don't think I agree with laws that can throw people in jail for making non-funny and grotesque comments. I'm not sure what being a young white male has to do with it either.
On the flip side, I would have found it more understandable that the police do a thorough investigation to decide if any laws have been broken. I fail to see the crime committed.
Yeah, I live in San Antonio and go to New Braunfels pretty often. I wouldn't call it a small town.
The whole thing seems absurd. His statement is obviously making fun of the person calling him insane, not a threat. It's pretty bad when you have to be so careful with what you say, because it can be considered "terroristic". Who get's to make that determination and how long do you get to sit in jail for until it's decided regarding a crime that wasn't committed?
Statements don't lose 1st amendment protection because they're "terroristic." The benchmark for that has always been "true threat." That's the law.
As for the New Braunfel's government's treatment of the kid: what the law is and what it's smart to say have always been two separate things. I'm willing to test the boundaries of the 1st amendment in say New York or Chicago. Maybe Austin or Dallas. Not so much 30 miles outside of San Antonio. This has always been the reality of places where the police don't have much better to do, and where things like this don't invoke national scrutiny.
Nice to see this discussion on HN. Back in early 2000, when I worked at Walmart's home office in Bentonville, we had a speaker come and talk to ISD about this exact topic. That was the main line that stuck with me, "Employees leave managers, not companies". It's probably not the case 100% of the time for causing the loss of an employee, but having a good manager makes all the world of a difference in an employee's happiness.
