The bail is over the top. I don't know enough about what it takes for a charge to be a felony or not. I do know that a lot of things straddle the line between f

The bail is over the top. I don't know enough about what it takes for a charge to be a felony or not. I do know that a lot of things straddle the line between felony and not felony and then certain other factors can tip it one way or the other. Not sure if this is the case here. I'm guessing the word "terroristic" gets people all worked up since what he did is no where near what we think of today as a "terrorist". But when you take that word back to its root (and forget all the current political and emotional baggage it has today) it is fitting. And as has been discussed before, the amount of jail time cited in an article usually depends on the bias the article has. Stories like this love to toss around the absolute max sentence that this level of crime could bring. It makes the actions of legal system appear all the more ridiculous. ("Wah? 10 years for a stupid Facebook post?") But stories the other way (about some bad person getting off easy) like to throw around the absolute minimum sentence. This also makes the legal system appear all the more ridiculous. ("Wah? He could be out in as little as some short time for murder?") Even better is when they pair the two together and say that some relatively minor offence has a max sentence of X, while some other horrific offence can carry a sentence as little as Y (where X > Y). I do love how we citizens love to second guess the actions (or inactions) of law enforcement without ever actually being in their position of making the decisions they have to make. Was this kid really going to do those things? Probably not but we can't really say for sure ("clearly there was no threat" is just an opinion). But if the police did nothing and then later he did it (or even something equally sinister) we would have been all over them for not seeing the warning signs or seeing and dismissing them.