Your scenarios are not at all equal. The terrorists on 9/11 set out to do harm. If only we would have intercepted them. Tweeting about a bomb at a school (even in a potentially joking manner) would fit the scenario you describe, whether intending to do harm, or a kid being dumb and not thinking through the ramifications. That is where you intercept a kid and possibly press charges. Tweeting "@Pink I'm ready with my Bomb. Time to blowup #RodLaverArena B!*@h [my edit]&r
negaither
[quote who="DrJBHL" comment="41"]Correct. Context and appearance count. Context: World where 9/11, London, Boston, Aurora and school bombings/shootings happen. These cause "An abundance of caution". They also cause fools to get their arses handed to them. "Think before you speak or act". Good advice. He didn't: "He chose ...poorly."What he did was stupid in the extreme, and now he's going to pay the price...[/quote] "...stupid in the extreme..." A 16 year old kid is ex
100% absolutely
Hello!, He was shooting the gun, even if blanks, he was shooting (key word shooting) the gun. There is no way for the cops to know the bullets were blanks at that point, he was shooting the gun, a real gun. The 15 year old was not. You are right, there was no way for the officers to know that the bullets were blanks. In the current article, there was no way for the officers to know that the gun was fake. I don't see a difference. Whether shots had been report
The police received a 911 call reporting a person outside brandishing a handgun. That's all the information the officers have. They arrive on the scene, tell the perpetrator to put the gun down, and he points it at them. Should the police wait until they're shot? Of course not. The teen should have complied. In Seattle on New Years, a college student was firing blanks into the air out of a WWII era rifle. The police arrived, told him to put down the weapon, he pointed the rifle at the