4 ms·

> If it had been a cop doing this Then it would not be an even similar case. It is a feature of many civilised societies that we tend to forgive misdemeanors b

> If it had been a cop doing this Then it would not be an even similar case. It is a feature of many civilised societies that we tend to forgive misdemeanors by minors as 'part of growing up' and 'learning right from wrong'. Should it be a crime because this autistic kid happened to be good at his prank?

krapp 9y ago
> It is a feature of many civilised societies that we tend to forgive misdemeanors by minors as 'part of growing up' and 'learning right from wrong'. Except many of the things he's accused of doing are clearly not misdemeanors. You're also assuming there was no malicious intent in what he did. He was perfectly aware that what he was doing was wrong, and he intended to do harm to people because they worked for the US government. You seem to have the actual legal system confused with the plot of Dennis the Menace or Leave it to Beaver. >Should it be a crime because this autistic kid happened to be good at his prank? Oh, he's autistic? Never mind, free pass then. No... it wasn't merely a prank, and being autistic doesn't imply being legally incapable of judgement.
- ryanlol 9y ago
  In civilized societies we also tend to forgive the more serious offences by minors as 'part of growing up' and 'learning right from wrong'.
  - krapp 9y ago
    Trying minors for "more serious offences" is a thing just about everywhere. It's clear this particular minor knows right from wrong, and that what he did was on the 'wrong' end of the spectrum. Would you feel the same way if he'd actually followed through on his rape threats? Or if he'd SWATted someone? At what point would you be willing to admit this "prank" wasn't harmless?
    - ryanlol 9y ago
      >Trying minors for "more serious offences" is a thing just about everywhere. And not locking them up, i.e. "letting them go" is a thing in just about every civilized country. >Would you feel the same way if he'd actually followed through on his rape threats? I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. There isn't a single mention of "rape" in TFA, you're discussing a 15 year old kid possibly threatening someone on a different continent.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - krapp 9y ago
        He bombarded Mr Johnson and his wife with calls, asking her: “Am I scaring you?” and left messages threatening to “bang his daughter”, the court heard. Unless you want me to believe he was threatening to "bang" Mr. Johnson's daughter consensually, it's a rape threat.
        ryanlol 9y ago
        It is a stretch to describe that as a rape threat. I don't believe a native English speaker would choose that wording to convey a rape threat. And again, if this was a rape threat it was a very unclear rape threat by a 15 year old kid on another continent. Not something any sane person would treat particularly seriously. Honestly, this sounds more like something along the lines of "I'm going to bang your mom", with the "mom" replaced. No sane person would assume that "I'm going to bang your mom" is a rape threat, but rather a threat of embarrassing you by engaging in sexual relations with a close family member.
        krapp 9y ago
        > Not something any sane person would treat particularly seriously. ... because the person making the rape threat disclosed that they were on another continent so as to assure his victims and minimize psychological harm? I understand he's sympathetic because he shares the same anti-US government bias that many HN users have, and anyone with a computer and a hate-on for the Feds is a hero around here, but it shouldn't be impossible to concede that what he did was not merely a harmless prank, but a crime that deserves something more than a mere slap on the wrist and tousle of the hair.
- jimnotgym 9y ago
  > forgive misdemeanors > clearly not misdemeanors Please don't read this to mean misdemeanors in the US legal sense of 'not a felony'. In the UK (where the trial is) misdemeanor would normally be understood to be 'something some people consider wrong' [0]. There is no concept of felony and misdemeanor in English law. I meant this in its ordinary English sense and I am sure we can both agree that this was a misdemeanor, as in 'not the right thing to do'. [0] https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/misdemeanour https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/misdeme...
- jimnotgym 9y ago
  > Oh, he's autistic? Never mind, free pass then. > No... it wasn't merely a prank, and being autistic doesn't imply being legally incapable of judgement. Well actually it raises the very real possibility. Unless he is guilty of strict liability offences the prosecution would have to show criminal intent In English law, s8 Criminal Justice Act 1967 provides the frame of which the 'mens rea' is assessed. It states: A court or jury, in determining whether a person has committed an offence, (a) shall not be bound in law to infer that he intended or foresaw a result of his actions by reasons only of its being a natural and probable consequence of those actions; but (b) shall decide whether he did intend or foresee that result by reference to all the evidence, drawing such inferences from the evidence as appear proper in the circumstances. from wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention_(criminal_law) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention_(criminal_law) If you cannot foresee the results of your actions you cannot be guilty. BTW publishing an opinion that suggests someone is definitely guilty, as you seem to at places in this thread, whilst a trial is ongoing is a crime in the UK.

krapp 9y ago

> It is a feature of many civilised societies that we tend to forgive misdemeanors by minors as 'part of growing up' and 'learning right from wrong'. Except many of the things he's accused of doing are clearly not misdemeanors. You're also assuming there was no malicious intent in what he did. He was perfectly aware that what he was doing was wrong, and he intended to do harm to people because they worked for the US government. You seem to have the actual legal system confused with the plot of Dennis the Menace or Leave it to Beaver. >Should it be a crime because this autistic kid happened to be good at his prank? Oh, he's autistic? Never mind, free pass then. No... it wasn't merely a prank, and being autistic doesn't imply being legally incapable of judgement.

ryanlol 9y ago
In civilized societies we also tend to forgive the more serious offences by minors as 'part of growing up' and 'learning right from wrong'.
- krapp 9y ago
  Trying minors for "more serious offences" is a thing just about everywhere. It's clear this particular minor knows right from wrong, and that what he did was on the 'wrong' end of the spectrum. Would you feel the same way if he'd actually followed through on his rape threats? Or if he'd SWATted someone? At what point would you be willing to admit this "prank" wasn't harmless?
  - ryanlol 9y ago
    >Trying minors for "more serious offences" is a thing just about everywhere. And not locking them up, i.e. "letting them go" is a thing in just about every civilized country. >Would you feel the same way if he'd actually followed through on his rape threats? I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. There isn't a single mention of "rape" in TFA, you're discussing a 15 year old kid possibly threatening someone on a different continent.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - krapp 9y ago
      He bombarded Mr Johnson and his wife with calls, asking her: “Am I scaring you?” and left messages threatening to “bang his daughter”, the court heard. Unless you want me to believe he was threatening to "bang" Mr. Johnson's daughter consensually, it's a rape threat.
      - ryanlol 9y ago
        It is a stretch to describe that as a rape threat. I don't believe a native English speaker would choose that wording to convey a rape threat. And again, if this was a rape threat it was a very unclear rape threat by a 15 year old kid on another continent. Not something any sane person would treat particularly seriously. Honestly, this sounds more like something along the lines of "I'm going to bang your mom", with the "mom" replaced. No sane person would assume that "I'm going to bang your mom" is a rape threat, but rather a threat of embarrassing you by engaging in sexual relations with a close family member.
        krapp 9y ago
        > Not something any sane person would treat particularly seriously. ... because the person making the rape threat disclosed that they were on another continent so as to assure his victims and minimize psychological harm? I understand he's sympathetic because he shares the same anti-US government bias that many HN users have, and anyone with a computer and a hate-on for the Feds is a hero around here, but it shouldn't be impossible to concede that what he did was not merely a harmless prank, but a crime that deserves something more than a mere slap on the wrist and tousle of the hair.
jimnotgym 9y ago
> forgive misdemeanors > clearly not misdemeanors Please don't read this to mean misdemeanors in the US legal sense of 'not a felony'. In the UK (where the trial is) misdemeanor would normally be understood to be 'something some people consider wrong' [0]. There is no concept of felony and misdemeanor in English law. I meant this in its ordinary English sense and I am sure we can both agree that this was a misdemeanor, as in 'not the right thing to do'. [0] https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/misdemeanour https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/misdeme...
jimnotgym 9y ago
> Oh, he's autistic? Never mind, free pass then. > No... it wasn't merely a prank, and being autistic doesn't imply being legally incapable of judgement. Well actually it raises the very real possibility. Unless he is guilty of strict liability offences the prosecution would have to show criminal intent In English law, s8 Criminal Justice Act 1967 provides the frame of which the 'mens rea' is assessed. It states: A court or jury, in determining whether a person has committed an offence, (a) shall not be bound in law to infer that he intended or foresaw a result of his actions by reasons only of its being a natural and probable consequence of those actions; but (b) shall decide whether he did intend or foresee that result by reference to all the evidence, drawing such inferences from the evidence as appear proper in the circumstances. from wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention_(criminal_law) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention_(criminal_law) If you cannot foresee the results of your actions you cannot be guilty. BTW publishing an opinion that suggests someone is definitely guilty, as you seem to at places in this thread, whilst a trial is ongoing is a crime in the UK.