Texas teen could get 10 years in prison for Facebook post

At best this kid has a sick mind and needs some help in a Psychiatric institution. What he said isn't exactly a healthy thought.

Theses days people in many situations take what you say seriously and will act upon it. Go to an airport and say something stupid and somebody WILL be talking to you.

What always baffled me about death threats is why do so many get ignored while others get immediately jumped on?

For example. They got all over this kid with spiky shoes. Why did all those Zimmerman death threaters get ignored?



From what I hear you could pretty much populate a small prison with the threaters sending death threats to people like Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin if anybody wanted to bother.

I agree N-Dog.

Adjusted.

Not to worry your God Prince is protected.

Feel free to burn Sarah Palin's church down though. They never bothered with the last guy or guys who did it.

Speaking of death threaters though. I notice they're now after the juror who was on Anderson Cooper last night.

Here's a tweet one little progger sent to her.

There's a difference though. People like Beck and other opinionators get death threats all the time. It's a part of doing business. An unfortunate part to be sure.

This kid though doesn't deserve to be in jail. He made it pretty clear he wasn't serious and even after the complaint, the cops should have seen that he had no intention nor capability to do anything. And he's been in solitary since February. That's BS.

C'mon now you know the reason.

Your kind of death-threateners tend to get more publicity and promotions for being such awesome patriots, kind of like with Ted Nugent becoming one of the main spokesmen for the NRA.

I'm also amazed that you'd invoke Glenn Beck as some kind of innocent in all of this horrid behaviour, especially after he got that one drone listener of his so riled up that the bastard ended up shooting up a highway in a gun battle with the California Highway Patrol while on his way to exterminate the offices of the Tides Foundation. Or when he gets his listeners so frothing at the mouth they start to stalk and threaten a 78-year old woman.



Don't let any facts interrupt your day though. You haven't so far, in the vast majority of the posts you've made here, so I expect you'll just keep plugging away at.....whatever it is you're trying to accomplish.

C'mon now you know the reason.

No, you only think you do. Some people are just wired to think they are victims all the time. You just can't convince them otherwise. It's where this whole liberal MSM stuff comes from. Despite overwhelming evidence against the notion of a "liberal MSM" some folks just ignore it and go on believing they are victims. I guess it is too closely tied to their self-identity to abandon.

From the article:

Nah. I rather have people that actually KILL others locked up.

And I'm amazed you'd invoke the Obamainator. When he has been invoked by among others that cop who went on the killing spree a few months ago, and that lady professor who wiped out her faculty room.

Anybody can play that game. It's silly.

My only point is there's a lot of death threats that never get bothered with. I wonder why that is. BTW Obama is not on the list of people who receive death threats that get ignored, as far as I know. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

Hey, here's one that illustrates what I'm talking about. Death threats are what turned Dana Loesch into a second amendment advocate. She started receiving them made towards her and her family. She complained to the police. They told her all they could do for her was advise her to get a gun.

You'll have to share that with us some time. Is it like that time when you simply claimed the Globe and Mail was non-partisan? That was good for a chuckle. Go ahead, got more of that "overwhelming evidence"? I could use another laugh.

I'm not claiming they are non-partisan. Individual publications may have their inclinations, but taken as a whole there's not much evidence that there is a bias. What I did say is that the four major dailies in Vancouver (including the Vancouver Sun and the Globe Mail--also the Province and the National Post) endorsed Harper in the last election, and the election before that. And all four wanted Canada to send troops to Iraq. despite that, I don't really think they are biased right. They were just wrong on Iraq and there were some good reasons to endorse Harper in the last election.

More evidence? How about Fox News being the highest rated cable news network. Or the fact that of the half of the top ten radio shows in the US are conservative talk shows.

You also have to take into account your own place on the political spectrum. If someone think Fox News is a bunch of commies, then it's easy to see why he would see the media in general as liberally biased.