Teen Jailed for Facebook Death Threat

[amnotanoobie]

[citation][nom]calmstateofmind[/nom]okay.....so i really dont see the big deal. its not like she was in person saying that she was going to kill her. it was over facebook. if the girl was serious then she would have said it in person, of which she has had the chance to do so for over four years. [/citation]

This is like writing on a letter that you intend to kill the person. Such letters are considered evidence in court, why should digitally written material be treated any differently?

 

[hillarymakesmecry]

Wow. Keeley is nuts!

 

[liemfukliang]

A similiar story is happen in Indonesia --> http/www.google.co.id/search?q=prita+facebook+omni&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a

The point is there is Miss Prita who is complaning about a hospital in Facebook. There not know how this complain is leaked to internet and everone read it. The hospital Omni International is suing Miss Prita for make their name bad. At this time writing this case has not been solved.

 

[gorehound]

hey listen up:

i am going to find out who all of you are in thius post and kill you.i will torture you slowly !!!!

now since i said that do you really think i should go to jail ?
what about freedom of speech even if it is in bad taste.

 

[cimtaurus]

How many times as a kid did you get mad at a friend and say something like "Mess with me and i will kill you" ?
She put on her facebook page that she was going to kill the girl not as a threat but as an outlet for anger. This all started with her asking for a hug...yeah that sounds threatening.

This is ridiculous.

 

[Lunatic Magnet]

First off the case is from England where they do not have a bill of rights like the United States. That's not to say there isn't freedom of speech in the Britain it's just implied rather than written on a piece of paper.

Second it doesn't matter what the medium was he used to threaten her. Facebook, letter, telephone, in person or even by carrier pigeon. It's still a threat and still against the law. Law makers and the public need to realize that. Just because it's on the net doesn't give you free reign to do illegal acts.

 

[Lunatic Magnet]

First off the case is from England where they do not have a bill of rights like the United States. That's not to say there isn't freedom of speech in the Britain it's just implied rather than written on a piece of paper.

Second it doesn't matter what the medium was he used to threaten her. Facebook, letter, telephone, in person or even by carrier pigeon. It's still a threat and still against the law. Law makers and the public need to realize that. Just because it's on the net doesn't give you free reign to do illegal acts.

 

[zak_mckraken]

The internet IS serious business. It's no longer the anonymous BBS where you could insult Lisa for the fun of it. It's now a larger-than-life media network that reaches everyone. Saying on someone's page "I'm going to kill you" is basically the same thing as saying it in their face, especially when you identify yourself doing so. It all depends on how serious you are. If I say "I'm going to kill you, hahaha", you're not going to take me seriously. If I say, "I'm going to kill you, John Smith of Evergreen Road", you might wanna call the police.

 

[ssalim]

Hey, if someone threatens me or my family even with online blog, I'd do anything to protect myself/them. Wouldn't any of you? She deserves to be punished (maybe not jailed).

 

[backbydemand]

Fair play, this isn't an internet story.

This is not like someone on Facebook who lives on the other side of the world who you will never ever meet.

This was about 2 people who know each other IRL, so what would otherwise be viewed as trash-talk or flaming is suddenly a threat.

 

[koss]

Freedom of speech and Internet aside, she had a history of threatening and altercation with the victim for FOUR years! I would oppose these kind of ruling based on Internet posting alone, but if the Internet post was a straw that broke the camel's back after years, then I would support the decision.

 

[nukemaster]

Do i hear 1 dollar?

 

[nukemaster]

oppsy wanted to post that here
http/www.tomshardware.com/news/Nokia-3G-booklet-netbook,8525.html

 

[dreamphantom_1977]

There is a difference between calling someone names and making death threats, Even online. I think 3 months is a light sentence.

 

[v1ze]

...and u can't yell fire in a crowded theater.
...and u can be charged with assault without physical contact.

intent is part of law and a death threat clearly states intent to harm. why is this so hard to understand?

 

[NuclearShadow]

A death threat because she refused a hug and now 3 months in jail because of the death threat. Is it just me or is this whole thing just flat out moronic?

 

[Hope Slayer]

Ok Ok...straight from me, the police officer.

As v1ze said...

intent is part of law and a death threat clearly states intent to harm. why is this so hard to understand?

That's a big part of it, the other is not just the intent but the ability to do it, these girls are in the same community therefor access to the potential victim is greater then me telling some random forum idiot 3000 miles away that I will due them harm.

She has a known history of altercations with the potential victim which brings about the issue of vicarous liability to ANYONE who knows the two parties involved. If something was to happen to the potential victim and someone could have potentially prevented it then the person who failed to act could land in some deep shit. It wasn't Facebook that arrested the perpetrator. She was arrested because someone (potential victim maybe) with direct knowledge of the two parties contacted the authorities, who then was able to find cause based on evidence presented to them to issue the arrest.

The perpetrator had two previous convictions already related to the current investigation and people think stuff like this has been hyped up to be more then what it seems? She's lucky she only was sentenced to 3 months instead of an 18 month sentence with 5 years of parole for civil rights violations of intimidation.

 

[jerreece]

Let's face it. A death threat is a death threat. Whether it's in person, via text, Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, written letter, voice message... it all means the same thing. The only difference is whether it's sent digitally or not.

As a former police officer, I can tell you the law generally doesn't require a death threat to be made in any particular format.

Mostly, it has to intimidate someone into believing you mean them some kind of harm (especially physically). Depending on how the individual state has their law written, simply using your hand to pretend to slit your throat while staring down your opponent, could be held against you as a death threat.

As for NuclearShadow: Who cares what the reason is for the death threat. A threat is a threat. The fact that it's all over a refused hug, points all the more to the immaturity of the suspect. The very fact that they threatened someone else's life over something so silly, really should add to the severity of what's going on with this person.

 

[jerreece]

Oh yeah, and for those who think online threats are a joke.

Remember the LA Fitness shooter? He actually wrote on his blog site for months about how he was going to kill people. Apparently nobody ever took him seriously... because look at what happened. People were shot and killed.

Yet, as someone mentioned here, that people take the internet "too seriously." If someone threatens you, and you don't take it serious, you're the one who's going to get hurt or killed. Think about that. Take it serious, or possibly end up dead.

Protect yourself people. Take threats seriously and call the police.

 

[midnightgun]

I agree with the decision in this particular case.