Poll of the Day > 16 y/o RACIST CATHOLIC Kid who threatened to KILL Black People was NOT A CRIME!

(+) Yeah! (+)

16 y/o Racist Prick and a CATHOLIC high school student posted racist videos of himself threatening to KILL black people..but that WASN'T A CRIME according to police..and it wasn't until he threatened to SHOOT UP the SCHOOL where he was finally arrested!!

Robert Loia, the principal of Cardinal Newman School said the student was EXPELLED in July after they discovered MULTIPLE racist videos that showed him pretending to shoot at black people

In one, he used real guns to shoot a box of Jordan shoes saying he "hated black people" and that they were "stinky" and then used the n word multiple times

The first video surfaced when school officials were contacted by a parent of a student who was included in a group text message that contained the threatening racist videos..and it was reported to be one of his FRIENDS that busted him

Law enforcement reacted immediately and investigated it if it constituted a criminal act and determined IT DID NOT!

The principal said despite the investigation not leading to a criminal act, they had expelled the student and he was BANNED from school property

Loia said they met with the parents of students who got the videos and another parent found more videos on her child's ipad

In that video, the student said he was gonna "SHOOT UP" the SCHOOL and sent a similar text message to another student and FINALLY he was arrested as he was holding a semi-automatic rifle and shotgun and is charged with making threats to his high school!!

He is now held at the juvenile wing of Alvin S. Glenn Detention Centre.

Do you think what he did the first time (threatening black people) should have been a crime???

Racist "Catholic" Student -









School -


---

I don't care if it's a crime.

I want there to be a system where this means he can never own guns.

Its absolutely a criminal threat

In some states it would even be seen as assault

That department may have decided not to pursue for whatever reason, but it is a crime nonetheless. They enforce the laws, they dont make them.

---

Mead posted...

In some states it would even be seen as assault

How
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

How

Assault is defined not only as violence against a person but even attempted harm against someone, and some states view credible threats of violence as an attempt or intent to commit harm.

---

Mead posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

How

Assault is defined not only as violence against a person but even attempted harm against someone, and some states view credible threats of violence as an attempt or intent to commit harm.

Why

Like, do those states not have laws against threatening behaviour already? It seems dodgy to just call it assault.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Why

Like, do those states not have laws against threatening behaviour already? It seems dodgy to just call it assault.

Dont go around threatening to hurt people and you dont even have to worry about it

---

mrduckbear posted...

Law enforcement reacted immediately and investigated it if it constituted a criminal act and determined IT DID NOT!

Ducky's phrasing was ambiguous, but a local paper (The State) clarifies that the videos were of him shooting at things like boxes of shoes and pretending that they were black people. Legally, I'm not sure how much they could have done. I will mention that some of Trump's preemptive gun control measures -- which were criticized by "leftists" on the board because Trump suggested them -- might have covered an incident like this.

mrduckbear posted...

In that video, the student said he was gonna "SHOOT UP" the SCHOOL and sent a similar text message to another student and FINALLY he was arrested as he was holding a semi-automatic rifle and shotgun and is charged with making threats to his high school!!

Wait, so after the cops presumably talked to the parents about the videos, the kid was STILL able to get their guns to make a video threatening the school? At that point, shouldn't we also be thinking of charging the parents as well? If the kid isn't going to be in juvie for the next few years for making those threats, at the very least he needs to put in a home where there's proper supervision and no access to firearms.
---

What were Trumps preemptive gun control measures?

---

Mead posted...

What were Trumps preemptive gun control measures?

Because of the recent shooting, I can't find a link to the original proposal, but it was similar to this:
https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2019-08-05/trump-says-taking-guns-from-people-in-crisis

It's basically a temporary seizure of a person's weapons when red flags are reported. There's still the usual due process, but it stops potential imminent threats.
---

Aaantlion posted...

Because of the recent shooting, I can't find a link to the original proposal, but it was similar to this:
https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2019-08-05/trump-says-taking-guns-from-people-in-crisis

It's basically a temporary seizure of a person's weapons when red flags are reported. There's still the usual due process, but it stops potential imminent threats.

First Ive heard of it but it seems like a decent enough idea

looks like a lot of states are/were already doing it

---

Threatening to kill people is a crime, yes. This is a matter of fact, not opinion. It doesn't really matter what people "think" about it.
---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkwHcIQ3m-E" data-time="
---

Gaawa_chan posted...

Threatening to kill people is a crime, yes. This is a matter of fact, not opinion. It doesn't really matter what people "think" about it.

I think in this case there is no threat of a specific action and no specific target.

Gaawa_chan posted...

Threatening to kill people is a crime, yes. This is a matter of fact, not opinion. It doesn't really matter what people "think" about it.

A threat has to be believable to the reasonable man to be a valid threat.

Mead posted...

Dont go around threatening to hurt people and you dont even have to worry about it

Don't make yourself suspect and you won't have to worry about the police kicking your head in on sight.

Not being effected by something doesn't mean you shouldn't challenge its flaws.
---

In Canada the police cant do anything until after the fact. Our system is ridiculous.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Gaawa_chan posted...

Threatening to kill people is a crime, yes. This is a matter of fact, not opinion. It doesn't really matter what people "think" about it.

A threat has to be believable to the reasonable man to be a valid threat.

Mead posted...

Dont go around threatening to hurt people and you dont even have to worry about it

Don't make yourself suspect and you won't have to worry about the police kicking your head in on sight.

Not being effected by something doesn't mean you shouldn't challenge its flaws.

I think these days with mass shootings and what not any even half assed threat should perhaps be taken a bit more serious. Dont like the idea trumo had of take guns first due process later but then again I dont really feel sorry for someone who makes such threats on thr internet of all places. Id be upset if someone had their guns taken just on hearsay or a he said she said scenario. But there is hard evidence you said these things? Yeah I dont feel sorry for them if they get there guns taken or locked up.
---

mooreandrew58 posted...

I think these days with mass shootings and what not any even half assed threat should perhaps be taken a bit more serious.

That's the kind of downward spiral that creates dystopias. Disenfranchised person does bad, public gets restricted, person is alienated from restriction, becomes disenfranchised and does bad, public gets further restricted, another person is alienated by restriction, and nauseum.

I think more needs to be done on a positive end earlier on to be productive.

Regardless, what you quoted was me disagreeing with threats being classed as assault.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

That's the kind of downward spiral that creates dystopias. Disenfranchised person does bad, public gets restricted, person is alienated from restriction, becomes disenfranchised and does bad, public gets further restricted, another person is alienated by restriction, and nauseum.

I think more needs to be done on a positive end earlier on to be productive.

Sounds like youre all for better treatment of illegal immigrants.

---

zebatov posted...

In Canada the police cant do anything until after the fact. Our system is ridiculous.

not sure about that. in Canada, it's the opposite. even holding a regular mundane object with intent to use it for self-defense is illegal, let alone using it in a threatening manner. "Uttering threats" is also supposed to be illegal; even threatening someone over social media can be 5 years in prison.

---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

mooreandrew58 posted...

I think these days with mass shootings and what not any even half assed threat should perhaps be taken a bit more serious.

That's the kind of downward spiral that creates dystopias. Disenfranchised person does bad, public gets restricted, person is alienated from restriction, becomes disenfranchised and does bad, public gets further restricted, another person is alienated by restriction, and nauseum.

I think more needs to be done on a positive end earlier on to be productive.

Regardless, what you quoted was me disagreeing with threats being classed as assault.

Well I mean in the meantime. I agree more needs to be done in other ways but it wont happen over night so for the meantime threats should be taken very seriously.

I should have been a bit more specific I was responding to the, the threat has to be believable to a reasonable man part.
---

mooreandrew58 posted...

I should have been a bit more specific I was responding to the, the threat has to be believable to a reasonable man part.

Is it reasonable to assume Americans are all potential school shooters? If there's no reasonable grounds, then you don't believe strongly enough they would do it anyway.
---

zebatov posted...

In Canada the police cant do anything until after the fact. Our system is ridiculous.

That is horribly incorrect but you don't come off as the type of person to let facts get in the way of a good argument.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Why

Like, do those states not have laws against threatening behaviour already? It seems dodgy to just call it assault.

I dont see why you would or should care unless you do this often.

---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

mooreandrew58 posted...

I think these days with mass shootings and what not any even half assed threat should perhaps be taken a bit more serious.

That's the kind of downward spiral that creates dystopias. Disenfranchised person does bad, public gets restricted, person is alienated from restriction, becomes disenfranchised and does bad, public gets further restricted, another person is alienated by restriction, and nauseum.

If we're talking about threats on innocent people in public, I see no reason not to take them seriously. Those aren't the kind of things rational people would ever find themselves saying in the first place.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Is it reasonable to assume Americans are all potential school shooters?

What? No.

But anyone who says they'd attack a group of people or a public place should absolutely be investigated.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Mead posted...

Dont go around threatening to hurt people and you dont even have to worry about it

Don't make yourself suspect and you won't have to worry about the police kicking your head in on sight.

What?
---

EvilMegas posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Why

Like, do those states not have laws against threatening behaviour already? It seems dodgy to just call it assault.

I dont see why you would or should care unless you do this often.

Because it's ridiculous, and nobody should feel comfortable living in a country where it's laws are ridiculous.

keyblader1985 posted...

If we're talking about threats on innocent people in public, I see no reason not to take them seriously. Those aren't the kind of things rational people would ever find themselves saying in the first place.

Abusive language is considered threatening, so technically if somebody bumped you and you whispered under your breath how much of a prick they are, you could be got for threatening the public. We consider what is reasonable because what is less than that is unreasonable, something we cannot tolerate in law.

keyblader1985 posted...

What? No.

But anyone who says they'd attack a group of people or a public place should absolutely be investigated.

If there's no intent, it doesn't mean anything, it could be just blowing off steam, exaggerating for dramatic effect, satirical, etc.

If it is not reasonable to believe, it shouldn't be considered a threat.

keyblader1985 posted...

What?

US Police kick around suspects like ragdolls, they act unreasonably under minimal cause, this is not a premise that should be extended anywhere else.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Because it's ridiculous, and nobody should feel comfortable living in a country where it's laws are ridiculous.

I think I do. I mean, I don't go around making threats, so it doesn't matter to me from that side. And I would feel safer if the people threatening me were put away... Why wouldn't people feel safer...
---

Yes, he is racist.
---

LinkPizza posted...

I think I do. I mean, I don't go around making threats, so it doesn't matter to me from that side.

You don't make threats from your perspective, but perception is key. When decisions aren't made with reason in mind, you being misinterpreted effects you.

Imagine saying "I believe the war on Iraq was justified" (for arguments sake) and because somebody has a hate-boner for militaries they decide that means you think Iraqis should be murdered in their homes. You would be seen as threatening to Iraqis from their perspective, which means you would be considered guilty of violent threats to an entire race.

A reasonable man wouldn't see it this way, but what was suggested was to ignore what is reasonable because violence is scary.

LinkPizza posted...

And I would feel safer if the people threatening me were put away... Why wouldn't people feel safer...

I wouldn't feel safe from gub'mint if anybody could be put away for being perceived as threatening regardless of intent. People are put in straight jackets for their own protection, but I doubt anybody in a straight jacket appreciates that.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

LinkPizza posted...

I think I do. I mean, I don't go around making threats, so it doesn't matter to me from that side.

You don't make threats from your perspective, but perception is key. When decisions aren't made with reason in mind, you being misinterpreted effects you.

Imagine saying "I believe the war on Iraq was justified" (for arguments sake) and because somebody has a hate-boner for militaries they decide that means you think Iraqis should be murdered in their homes. You would be seen as threatening to Iraqis from their perspective, which means you would be considered guilty of violent threats to an entire race.

A reasonable man wouldn't see it this way, but what was suggested was to ignore what is reasonable because violence is scary.

Sure. Whatever. Though, with most normal people, you can tell what's an actual threat, and what's not. And like people were saying earlier, it has to be reasonable. A Karen saying you were threatening them because you would give them something you own, like your wheelchair, isn't reasonable.

As for you example, it doesn't matter if only one person sees that as a threat, because not everybody does. And most normal people won't see it that way. And in the end, if some random person calls the cops on you for that, most cops are just going to leave.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

LinkPizza posted...

And I would feel safer if the people threatening me were put away... Why wouldn't people feel safer...

I wouldn't feel safe from gub'mint if anybody could be put away for being perceived as threatening regardless of intent. People are put in straight jackets for their own protection, but I doubt anybody in a straight jacket appreciates that.

It has to be seen as reasonable, as stated earlier. I would very much feel safe. I would rather a reasonable threat be taken seriously, and I stay alive. Rather than nobody taking the threat against my life seriously and I end up hurt or dead...
---

LinkPizza posted...

Sure. Whatever. Though, with most normal people, you can tell what's an actual threat, and what's not. And like people were saying earlier, it has to be reasonable. A Karen saying you were threatening them because you would give them something you own, like your wheelchair, isn't reasonable.

Those people would be me, that was my whole argument.

LinkPizza posted...

As for you example, it doesn't matter if only one person sees that as a threat, because not everybody does. And most normal people won't see it that way. And in the end, if some random person calls the cops on you for that, most cops are just going to leave.

That's the problem. The police determined it unreasonable to be deemed a threat, but Mooreandrew seems to believe we should ignore whether it's a credible threat because violence is scary.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Abusive language is considered threatening, so technically if somebody bumped you and you whispered under your breath how much of a prick they are, you could be got for threatening the public. We consider what is reasonable because what is less than that is unreasonable, something we cannot tolerate in law.

I'm talking about explicitly threatening to harm people though, not simply yelling at them or insulting them.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

If there's no intent, it doesn't mean anything, it could be just blowing off steam, exaggerating for dramatic effect, satirical, etc.

Nobody threatens to shoot up a place or a race of people to "blow off steam."

Kyuubi4269 posted...

If it is not reasonable to believe, it shouldn't be considered a threat.

Yeah, and the police should determine what's reasonable, hence an investigation. Although in your extreme case the vast majority of people would agree that giving an opinion on a war is not threatening in any way, shape or form, so an investigation would not even be necessary. We kind of seem to be agreeing with each other in that regard.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

LinkPizza posted...

Sure. Whatever. Though, with most normal people, you can tell what's an actual threat, and what's not. And like people were saying earlier, it has to be reasonable. A Karen saying you were threatening them because you would give them something you own, like your wheelchair, isn't reasonable.

Those people would be me, that was my whole argument.

You're the Karen or the other person? If you're the Karen, then you deserve whatever you get. Like making a false police report or whatever. If you're the other person that she said was threatening her, then it should be deemed unreasonable and you would be fine. I don't see the problem here...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

LinkPizza posted...

As for you example, it doesn't matter if only one person sees that as a threat, because not everybody does. And most normal people won't see it that way. And in the end, if some random person calls the cops on you for that, most cops are just going to leave.

That's the problem. The police determined it unreasonable to be deemed a threat, but Mooreandrew seems to believe we should ignore whether it's a credible threat because violence is scary.

I believe he was saying it had to be credible, too. Also, it sounds like he's saying it should be looked at more. Or that more threats should be looked at closely. Which isn't a bad idea. Instead of just blowing off all threats, at least take a look or something. Like if they make a threat on Facebook, it wouldn't be a bad idea to maybe check what else they have been saying. It doesn't mean you have to run out to arrest them if it doesn't seem credible. But at least checking could possibly save lives if they think the threat is reasonable and have evidence to believe they might do whatever they said they would...
---

^That's all I've been saying.
---

LinkPizza posted...

I believe he was saying it had to be credible, too. Also, it sounds like he's saying it should be looked at more.

It was looked at, how is he in any position to determine the rigor of the assessment? To me he was denying the conclusion because he wants the guy arrested despite being deemed innocent.

LinkPizza posted...

Instead of just blowing off all threats, at least take a look or something.

There's no reason to believe it was blown off.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

LinkPizza posted...

I believe he was saying it had to be credible, too. Also, it sounds like he's saying it should be looked at more.

It was looked at, how is he in any position to determine the rigor of the assessment? To me he was denying the conclusion because he wants the guy arrested despite being deemed innocent.

When I was saying that, I was talking about all threats like this. Not just this particular one. In the end, credible threats should be investigated a little more closely. Blowing them off can end up bad.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

LinkPizza posted...

Instead of just blowing off all threats, at least take a look or something.

There's no reason to believe it was blown off.

I didnt say it was. I was saying it thatblooking would be better than just blowing off a threat. Again, I wasnt talking about this or any specific incident. I was just saying it would be better to investigate it rather than just blowing something off...
---

He just comes to argue about the most minute things.

---

How to completely ruin your life in less than 60 seconds.
No college will take him. No employer would want to hire him.
Lol what a despicable piece of stool.

BeerOnTap posted...

How to completely ruin your life in less than 60 seconds.
No college will take him. No employer would want to hire him.
Lol what a despicable piece of stool.

What's truly sad is many will blame him as an individual when he is a product of our culture and society as a whole is to blame.
---

LinkPizza posted...

When I was saying that, I was talking about all threats like this. Not just this particular one. In the end, credible threats should be investigated a little more closely.

There's no reason to believe any threat is not looked as closely as appropriate. The police don't investigate in a half-assed way when there's no shootings going on so there's nowhere more closely to look.

LinkPizza posted...

I didnt say it was. I was saying it thatblooking would be better than just blowing off a threat. Again, I wasnt talking about this or any specific incident. I was just saying it would be better to investigate it rather than just blowing something off...

That's what police do already.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

That's what police do already.

When they feel like it.

---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

LinkPizza posted...

When I was saying that, I was talking about all threats like this. Not just this particular one. In the end, credible threats should be investigated a little more closely.

There's no reason to believe any threat is not looked as closely as appropriate. The police don't investigate in a half-assed way when there's no shootings going on so there's nowhere more closely to look.

There were times when police could have looked a little deeper to stop something. Not every case can be looked at close enough. Certain tragedies that happened that were avoidable is police had just taken the time to investigate should be reason enough...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

LinkPizza posted...

I didnt say it was. I was saying it that looking would be better than just blowing off a threat. Again, I wasnt talking about this or any specific incident. I was just saying it would be better to investigate it rather than just blowing something off...

That's what police do already.

Sometimes they do. There are cases where they didnt. Or didnt look closely enough. Which is not good...
---

LinkPizza posted...

There were times when police could have looked a little deeper to stop something. Not every case can be looked at close enough. Certain tragedies that happened that were avoidable is police had just taken the time to investigate should be reason enough...

LinkPizza posted...

There were times when police could have looked a little deeper to stop something. Not every case can be looked at close enough. Certain tragedies that happened that were avoidable is police had just taken the time to investigate should be reason enough...

And in those circumstances, it is unreasonable to search someone who, until found guilty, is an innocent man to such an extent.

It is not reasonable to pry too deeply without good reason. The sociopathy of one is not good reason to invade and disrupt the lives of many.

LinkPizza posted...

Sometimes they do. There are cases where they didnt. Or didnt look closely enough. Which is not good...

Again, not reasonable to treat a presumed innocent person as though they are guilty. Everything is simple in retrospect.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

LinkPizza posted...

There were times when police could have looked a little deeper to stop something. Not every case can be looked at close enough. Certain tragedies that happened that were avoidable is police had just taken the time to investigate should be reason enough...

And in those circumstances, it is unreasonable to search someone who, until found guilty, is an innocent man to such an extent.

It is not reasonable to pry too deeply without good reason. The sociopathy of one is not good reason to invade and disrupt the lives of many.

How are you suppose to find someone guilty without evidence. Because no one should ever be found guilty without evidence of some kind. But when looking for evidence, they can look for evidence to prove or disprove guilt. Thats what an investigation is for. Youre the one that seems to think investigation automatically means guilt...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

LinkPizza posted...

Sometimes they do. There are cases where they didnt. Or didnt look closely enough. Which is not good...

Again, not reasonable to treat a presumed innocent person as though they are guilty. Everything is simple in retrospect.

But I dont think its wrong to investigate. Investigating doesnt mean youre guilty. It just means theyre investigating.
---

LinkPizza posted...

How are you suppose to find someone guilty without evidence.

The "threat" is circumstantial evidence.

LinkPizza posted...

when looking for evidence, they can look for evidence to prove or disprove guilt.

When they are reasonably satisfied their suspicion was unfounded, they stop and respect their privacy.

LinkPizza posted...

Plus, thats only the first part of the investigation where they even see if theres a reason to continue looking into a person. If they dont think the threat is reasonable, they can move on.

And they do. Some criminals slip through, but a more thorough invasion would be invasive and unfounded.

LinkPizza posted...

But I dont think its wrong to investigate. Investigating doesnt mean youre guilty. It just means theyre investigating.

Investigating someone means they have suspicion of guilt.

It's wrong to invade someone's privacy so we keep investigations to a minimum and give justification for every search that is made. If anybody can have their entire identity thoroughly probed on weak suspicion, we only ever have an illusion of privacy.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

The "threat" is circumstantial evidence.

And? They arent arresting them. They are investigating. So what does the threat being circumstantial matter. If someone makes a threat, they investigate to see if its a reasonable threat. And continue digging deeper if it seems to be...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

When they are reasonably satisfied their suspicion was unfounded, they stop and respect their privacy.

Yes. Exactly. I agree.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

And they do. Some criminals slip through, but a more thorough invasion would be invasive and unfounded.

Some do slip through. But I disagree with a more thorough investigation would be unfounded. That depends on the person and their history. And what they have already found, or not found...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Investigating someone means they have suspicion of guilt.

It's wrong to invade someone's privacy so we keep investigations to a minimum and give justification for every search that is made. If anybody can have their entire identity thoroughly probed on weak suspicion, we only ever have an illusion of privacy.

It means theyre a suspect. And there is nothing wrong with having a suspect. There are suspected of something. That doesnt automatically mean theyre guilty, though.

As for the second part, looking through someones Facebook page is 100% ok for investigating. It shouldnt bother them as they posted it online for others to see. And it depends on what you consider weak. You sound like you dont want investigations to happen until tragedy has struck. Most normal people would rather the police try to stop the tragedy before it happens. If we did it your way, mass killings would probably happen more often than they already do...
---

LinkPizza posted...

And? They arent arresting them. They are investigating. So what does the threat being circumstantial matter. If someone makes a threat, they investigate to see if its a reasonable threat. And continue digging deeper if it seems to be...

That's the significant bit. It does not seem to be, and that's the case sometimes in legitimate cases. The fact that shootings have happened does not justify searching even more "just in case".

LinkPizza posted...

Some do slip through. But I disagree with a more thorough investigation would be unfounded. That depends on the person and their history. And what they have already found, or not found...

More thorough is obviously relative. I mean more thorough than a properly trained cop would do.

LinkPizza posted...

As for the second part, looking through someones Facebook page is 100% ok for investigating. It shouldnt bother them as they posted it online for others to see.

Agreed, and that's where the original suspicion was aroused, all fine there.

LinkPizza posted...

And it depends on what you consider weak.

Less than would be acceptable under current rules.

LinkPizza posted...

You sound like you dont want investigations to happen until tragedy has struck. Most normal people would rather the police try to stop the tragedy before it happens. If we did it your way, mass killings would probably happen more often than they already do...

You've misread me. I don't want the police to investigate less than they do now, I just don't want shootings to be an excuse to probe more inappropriately "for your safety". I think Moore's stance is just giving an excuse to police to ignore people's rights more than they already do.
---

But I said to dig deeper if it seems to be a reasonable threat. Not just for funsies

So, for you, what is Less than would be acceptable under current rules.

I dont think they should use the shootings to probe more. I just want them to investigate enough to try to stop more. Sometimes, it seems like they investigate, then push it off to the side until it comes up that they were posting all sorts of shit that would be huge red flags...
---

Well sixteen year olds have absolutely what they are doing when they have sex so why should they be expected to take responsibility for death threats?