[Fishinkeylargo]

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/the-facebook-page-of-osiris-aristy-accused-of-109205096519.html

Don't get me wrong this kid probably needs to be in jail, however the reason for the charge by New York's finest is scary, and if it sticks in court could set a scary standard for having all gun owners arrested for terrorist threats. Give an inch they will take a mile.

“As a result of this conduct, the defendant has caused the informant and other New York City police officers to fear for their safety, for public safety, and to suffer alarm and annoyance.”

I can see it now: "He went to the gun range and practiced defending himself, this conduct has us in fear for our safety and he should be arrested immediately." Where do you draw the line?

 

[GhostHorse]

Hmm. Are posts on social media public, or are they protected by the 4th amendment? Do they have the right to monitor his page?

Granted, what he posted was really, really stupid. This guy needs to hire a full time lawyer to follow him around and protect him from himself. But calling what was discussed in that article terrorism is difficult to defend.

 

[Scalpel]

Not all events result in issues. Sometimes the stupid need to be protected from themselves....

 

[kruizer]

As weird as this kid might be. he still has the protection of the 4th amendment unless he is posting terrorist messages.

 

[Peacemakr40]

The Kid has a criminal record and is posting images of himself with a firearm in his waistband. He then makes stupid comments indicating a potential for violence. Time for he to go down for stupidity.

 

[kschilk]

The kid's past certainly colors things a bit. The 4A is a fine defense but when there are extenuating circumstances like this, it's a hard call to make. If his account wasn't set for "private" (friends only), I'd say anything he posts is up for grabs by the LEOs.

 

[scoutfish]

If you stand up in the middle of a public place, the whole 4th thing goes out the window.

Even on this site, where you have to be a member so to speak...You still might be in your living room or "castle" as it is written, but you are not containing what you say to inside your home where it can not be heard.

Then there's that whole "reasonable" thing. What exactly is reasonable? Who defines it, what did it mean 20 years ago, and what will it mean 20 years from now?

"reasonable" changes as society's views change. Same as with slavery, women wearing pants, working, voting, etc... We have changed our views of soldiers from WWII to Viet Nam, then changed again ever since. Single parents used to be frowned upon. Back in the day, pregnant daughters were sent away until after they had the baby which was put up for adoption, now days it gets you a contract for a tv show.

So while I don't take emoticons too seriously just for the fact somebody used them...a threat was still written with words, and then posted for others to see. If it was just typed in a personal diary, then I would say the 4th was violated since it would have to be a random shot in the dark to discover. But again, it was posted for the world to see.

 

[ISSMER]

Until he makes a specific threat he goes on the watch list. It sounds to me like they were looking for a reason to arrest him and he gave them some ammo.

 

[TexasJohnBoy]

It was in a public forum, he forfeit his 4th amendment right since it was in a public forum, in my opinion. I agree emoji cartoons are probably not the same as written threats, but I mean come on... dude was dumb if nothing else.

 

[TexasJohnBoy]

I can see it now: "He went to the gun range and practiced defending himself, this conduct has us in fear for our safety and he should be arrested immediately." Where do you draw the line?

Hmmm... I think what he did is a little more like brandishing... if you went to, well anywhere, wearing a shirt with cartoons of guns to the heads of cops, you're probably going to have a bad time.

 

[Fishinkeylargo]

Hmmm... I think what he did is a little more like brandishing... if you went to, well anywhere, wearing a shirt with cartoons of guns to the heads of cops, you're probably going to have a bad time.

I agree what he did was a lot more brandishing, however when they use the excuse they did where do you draw the line. Like I said in the original post, give them an inch, they will take a mile.

“As a result of this conduct, the defendant has caused the informant and other New York City police officers to fear for their safety, for public safety, and to suffer alarm and annoyance.”

 

[john_bud]

The kid's past certainly colors things a bit. The 4A is a fine defense but when there are extenuating circumstances like this, it's a hard call to make. If his account wasn't set for "private" (friends only), I'd say anything he posts is up for grabs by the LEOs.

I think it's 1A, he has the right to put little picture on his facebutt account. If cartoons generically posted where a handful can see them causes "“As a result of this conduct, the defendant has caused the informant and other New York City police officers to fear for their safety, for public safety, and to suffer alarm and annoyance.”", then they are pretty frickn chickn.


I'm alarmed, annoyed and in fear of my safety and the public's safety that certain people exist. do they need to arrest all of them?


BUT! He posted evidence of a crime in nyc, possession of a firearm by a peasant. So, he should have expected to be locked up with the rest of the rabble that annoys bloomturd.

 

[TexasAviator]

While I don't agree at all with what he did. They are just words, that's where I draw the line.

I know others, and in some cases the courts, disagree but I think people should only be arrested for actions not words.

 

[leftcoastrebel]

Given his criminal history and the stupid and self-incriminating pictures he posted on publically available social media, I don't think this guy is a poster child for any particular Amendment,

Maybe a poster child for a prophylactic product, but not for Constitutional rights.

 

[ICUKev]

Hmm. Are posts on social media public, or are they protected by the 4th amendment? Do they have the right to monitor his page?

Granted, what he posted was really, really stupid. This guy needs to hire a full time lawyer to follow him around and protect him from himself. But calling what was discussed in that article terrorism is difficult to defend.

It seems that more people are getting in trouble over stupid things they post on social media every day. I just want to let people know that YES putting things out for the world to see gets monitored to some degree (it's out for the world to see remember).