Teenager who plotted Columbine-style school massacre was not arrested . . .

Discussion in 'Western Europe' started by cerberus, Jul 21, 2018.

  1. cerberus

    cerberus Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2015
    Messages:
    25,530
    Likes Received:
    5,363
    Trophy Points:
    113
    . . . despite confessing to teacher and police"

    [​IMG] So if they'd carried it out we'd have heard the same old mantra we've heard a thousand times from the police "Lessons will be learnt.' Or 'We failed on this occasion.', as if they don't fail on every ****ing occasion.

    "Prosecutors said officers did “not respond adequately” when the alarm was raised"

    'did not respond adequately'? They didn't effing respond at all, ffs!

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ed-jailed-northallerton-teacher-a8457111.html

    I despair, I really do!

     
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2018
  2. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,665
    Likes Received:
    11,235
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What exactly does "plotted" mean. Seems like it could be a slippery slope.

    I'm of the perspective that people shouldn't be punished for a crime unless and until they actually commit it. That's more of a moral argument than utilitarianism.

    Let me give you an example. A man plots to kill his wife. But he never does it.
    Should he be punished for attempted murder?

    (It's different though if there are two people involved, and one person incentivizes someone to kill someone else, because now the intended crime is already out of the first person's hands)

    Also "plots" and "plans" have two different general legal definitions. It's a subtle but important difference. You have to have two or more people for it to be a plot.

    You might claim they "didn't do enough" to prevent something bad from happening, but there's also the other side of the coin:
    overreaction and tough response to school shooting threats
     
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2018
  3. cerberus

    cerberus Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2015
    Messages:
    25,530
    Likes Received:
    5,363
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If someone threatens to murder it has to be presumed they mean it. This is obviously preferable to ignoring the threat only for the murder to subsequently be carried out?
     
  4. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,665
    Likes Received:
    11,235
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Slippery slope for freedom of speech and criminalizing casual angry talk. Especially with school kids joking about this stuff all the time.
     
  5. cerberus

    cerberus Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2015
    Messages:
    25,530
    Likes Received:
    5,363
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, until someone carries out the threat; but presumably, provided that the victim isn't you or one of your family, you're cool with it? 'slippery slope for freedom of speech'! :rolleyes: :wall: Spare me from these effing liberals!
     
    The Scotsman likes this.
  6. The Scotsman

    The Scotsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2017
    Messages:
    7,027
    Likes Received:
    6,322
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    yeah its much better to allow people to obliterate their fellow man...just to make sure that the nicities of the law are seen through.
    I'd be much happier having seen my kids evaporated in a school bomb explosion knowing that they died.....legally....as it were.
     

Share This Page