Originally Posted by FatManMGS2

I'm having difficulty understand your post as it relates to mine; this is probably do to my poor wording. Having more time to think, I'll rephrase/edit my logic here:

The article says that he made a comment to the effect of understanding how one could kill 32 people.

As it pertains to this specific incident, there is a hidden word there: innocent. Since they were talking about VT, they were talking about the 32 victems there. By what I've heard of the gunman's "manifesto" and what not, his "justification" for murdering wasn't that the people did something, but rather to inspire fear in those he felt had wrong him. These 32 people were innocent bystanders caught in this madman's wake. When the guy from Coloroda says "32 people", I think it's generally implied that the word innocent is in there. Whether he meant innocent or not, I cannot say. But interpereted by an objective observer, such as myself, one would conclude that innocent is hidden in the words.

That said, I tried to think about it to myself. I cannot, under any circumstance, even think of any scenarios where I could intentionally kill ONE innocent person, let alone 32. In your current state of mind (judging that you are reading this, you are "sane" and rational, to say the least) I'm sure you would agree, would you not? Therefore, the only way someone would be able to even think of doing it, they'd already have to be of an un-rational mental state.

But that's just the tip of the iceburg; the above is just about thoughts. Consider taking it one step further, to the actual voicing of the thought. I think everyone here can agree that to say something to the effect of the above would be against the societal norms, is that not true? And the reprecussions alone; not legal, no, societal reprecussions. Saying something like that could get you outcasted, ridiculoued, ignored, and so on. Therefore, any rational thought would reveal that saying something like that would be against your best interest, right? Thus, the only way someone would say this is if they aren't able to rationally think, that is, if they are mentally unstable.

With that said, I think at the very least, this student exhibits states of mental instability. At the very least, he should go to counseling, or something to that effect.

But now, the ultimate question: did he violate the law?

Fundamental to the USA is the right to express yourself freely (free speech). There are limitations to this, such as the torts of conspiracy, or slander, or libel. Evidence of these would indicate that "free" speech is not as "free" as "free" implies.

But even more fundamental than the USA we have the actual "government" itself. These societies, populations, communities, if you will, came out of primarily one need by its inhabitants: the need for protection. At the most fundamental level, the purpose of government is to provide protection.

Now take a kid like this. Not just this comment, but even in the past, he has displayed "anger issues". Add that with the clear display of possible mental instability, coupled with semi-justifying the senseless murder of 32 innocent people, and what do you get?

People getting scared. People feeling threatened.

And thus we see the justification for the arrest, nothing more than an attempt to protect the people.

Originally Posted by Hambergler

Several witnesses told investigators the student said he was "angry about all kinds of things from the fluorescent light bulbs to the unpainted walls, and it made him angry enough to kill people,"

Pre shootings = Blown off as a figure of speech
Post shootings= Insane madman
2 years from now = Blown off as a figure of speech


I think police work involves a human variable that isn't spelled out in a manual or the law. A cop who isn't flexible enough to bend the rules a little in a common sense circumstance, I would consider a bad cop. If I was a cop at VT and someone called me and said this kid is talking about killing. Guess what, right or wrong, I'm picking him up. Squawk all you want.

Originally Posted by Hambergler

Several witnesses told investigators the student said he was "angry about all kinds of things from the fluorescent light bulbs to the unpainted walls, and it made him angry enough to kill people,"

Pre shootings = Blown off as a figure of speech
Post shootings= Insane madman
2 years from now = Blown off as a figure of speech


I think police work involves a human variable that isn't spelled out in a manual or the law. A cop who isn't flexible enough to bend the rules a little in a common sense circumstance, I would consider a bad cop. If I was a cop at VT and someone called me and said this kid is talking about killing. Guess what, right or wrong, I'm picking him up. Squawk all you want.

Originally Posted by TheFeniX

Um, yes they can. People have the right to assemble and unless they are blocking public access on the road-way, they can setup shop. Phelps obviously had no problem getting his crew together to protest War Veteran funerals. He just made sure to stay on public property and not block access to the road. You don't have to get a permit to assemble in any capacity. Most cities require one for sufficiently large groups. But they don't care what your message is.

Originally Posted by tHa_KhAn

I wasn't debating the legalities of anything I mentioned in my post. I was merely pointing out situations where the law is blurred or overlooked to prevent any form of unrest.