Slashdot Mirror


Student Arrested For Using Phone App To 'Shoot' Classmates

New submitter Lord_Breetai sends word that a Louisiana high school student has been arrested for using a mobile app to simulate shooting his classmates. The app overlays an FPS-style gun and UI over a real background seen through the device's camera. The student tried it out and then unwisely posted a video of it on YouTube. Another student's parent saw the video and reported it to authorities. Major Wolfe of the local police said, "You can't ignore it. We don't know at what time that game becomes reality. He said it was a result of him being frustrated and tired of being bullied. He said that he had no intentions of hurting anybody. We have to take all threats seriously and we have no way of knowing that without investigating and getting to the bottom of it. With all the school shooting we've had in the United States, it's just not a very good game to be playing at this time." The boy is now facing criminal charges for terrorizing and interference of the operation of a school.

706 comments

  1. Really? by nospam007 · · Score: 5, Funny

    If they'd discovered his Whip-App, he would have been accused of racism too.
    Not to mention the beer app, since he's under 21.

    1. Re:Really? by ZosX · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is fucking unreal. Thought crime to the fucking max man.

    2. Re:Really? by gagol · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This generation will be so fucked up, its not even funny anymore.

      --
      Tomorrow is another day...
    3. Re:Really? by ZosX · · Score: 5, Insightful

      when I was a kid nobody would have thought twice about this. now this kid is in jail. he's the one that was bullied. i was bullied a lot in grade school, so I fully understand his frustrations and anger. next the "crushing his head" skit will be banned. our future is fucking fucked.

    4. Re:Really? by ZosX · · Score: 5, Insightful

      and let me add....he's 15. a minor. charges? wtf is this country coming to that even kids are now criminals?! WTF AMERICA??

    5. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Makes you wonder when they going to start on those using paintball guns? Wouldn't those messed up in the head folks that are freaking out over such as that, drawings of guns etc really been frightened by images of kids having "Western Day" at school running around with holsters on their sides and cap guns in their hands having mock battles with every other kid they see? School wide fast draw competitions etc? Those modern frightened by their own shadow idiots need to get off my lawn!

    6. Re:Really? by SINternet · · Score: 0

      On your use of "Thought Crime". Did the student go beyond keeping it in his head? I do agree this has gone too far. Get rid of everything Electronic and we will get back our sense of selves.

    7. Re:Really? by binarylarry · · Score: 0, Troll

      When you were a kid the press hadn't sensationalized all the murder sprees at school.

      Although I think there were significantly less of these back in the day.

      Hard to say in this case, we could just go "FREEDOM!" and complain the kid is being punished. It is an odd thing to do though. Can you imagine the repercussions for the staff if he showed up with an actual gun one day and they had done nothing? I have no love for teachers and administrative staff (they're boring leeches on society) but they would be fired if not brought up on charges.

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    8. Re:Really? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The root of the problem is that crime rates have fallen dramatically over the last two decades, while the number of police officers has not. The cops don't have enough real crime to deal with, so they fill the vacuum with make believe crime instead. The solution is to either reduce the number of police, or to refocus them on community policing and crime reduction rather than "making arrests".

    9. Re:Really? by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 5, Informative
    10. Re:Really? by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Hooray! Zero tolerance works! ;-)

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    11. Re:Really? by hodet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ya lets not help the kid socially integrate into his surroundings. Press criminal charges for his thoughts. They should be grateful they got an actual clue to a problem rather then trying to suppress his attempts to deal with his situation and make his day more bearable.

    12. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hard to say in this case, we could just go "FREEDOM!" and complain the kid is being punished. It is an odd thing to do though. Can you imagine the repercussions for the staff if he showed up with an actual gun one day and they had done nothing? I have no love for teachers and administrative staff (they're boring leeches on society) but they would be fired if not brought up on charges.

      Yes! We should punish children for having an imagination that does not conform to the acceptably Politically Correct norm! If teachers discover such a Politically Incorrect imagination exists and they do not report the child for reprogramming then the teacher should be punished severely! After they make the standardized Politically Correct apology sans visible bruises and contusions of course.

    13. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So everyone carrying and iPhone with this app on it can be arrested for carrying a concealed weapon unless they have a concealed carry permit?

    14. Re:Really? by sycodon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Zero Tolerance: A regulatory philosophy that administrators hide behind to avoid having to make decisions and subsequently defend those decisions.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    15. Re:Really? by Drethon · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised they didn't arrest the 3 and 8 year old kids across the street pointing plastic guns at cars that went by...

    16. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you punish and take away people's means of non-violent stress relief, do not be surprised when they snap and resort to violent means.

    17. Re:Really? by Oil_Tan · · Score: 0

      What about the people that released this app being scrutinized?

    18. Re:Really? by mysidia · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The solution is to either reduce the number of police, or to refocus them on community policing and crime reduction rather than "making arrests".

      Of course... I would suggest concentrating the surplus officers in the higher crime areas, and have a higher density of patrols in those areas, wherever those happen to be statistically speaking; and promoting community policing.

      Also.... some of those officers could be reassigned from policing the streets to Internal policing; that is monitoring their colleagues for possible wrongdoing; or standing by to assist colleagues, BUT doing other useful work for the people in the meantime --- other useful work such as gathering field data on the streets for research or government planning purposes; outreach programs -- just being present somewhere in uniform or with their car to be "visible" as a friendly reminder to the public to follow the law; in various places, such as around or visiting bars; not to make arrests, but to go around reminding potential patrons about the law; just either through friendly conversation, or by standing about in a place visible to as many people as possible.

      They can also put surplus officers on a task of using their brain to think outside the box, and investigate the possible existence of more complicated criminal schemes; such as the fraud involved in Banks misstating the value of their mortgage bonds and credit default swaps leading up to the housing crisis.

    19. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except the charts show violence declining in the 90's, before all of this "zero-tolerance" idiocy was rampant.

    20. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Geheime Staatspolizei

    21. Re:Really? by Dodgy+G33za · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "they're boring leeches on society"

      Teachers? Really. Of all the people in the world that could be called this (drug dealers, arms merchants, derivatives traders, merchant bankers, marketing consultants) it is a very sad state of affairs when people think this. There are lots of children in this world crying out for education.

    22. Re:Really? by binarylarry · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It really is sad because it's not the profession itself, it's how it's done (in the US at least).

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    23. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Placing more police in higher crime areas will just in having even more crime in those areas. Where there are police, there is crime. More police, more crime. The police know that everyone alive is a criminal, they just need to look hard enough to find wrongdoing. They(the police) may not be criminals themselves, but they do have criminal minds. Just like a compulsive liar thinks everyone else must be lying, the police think everyone in the public has a criminal mind. Public servants and politicians exempt of course.

    24. Re:Really? by steelfood · · Score: 1

      It gets worse. Police forces have been militarizing over the past decade or two. This means that they shoot first and treat everyone around them as a potential enemy. They no longer work for the good of the public; they work for the good of the government.

      So add that to the issues you mentioned, and you'll realize that there's no way to change them back into public peace officers without firing the current lot and starting anew. They're too set in the us-vs-them mentality where "us" is law enforcement and "them" is, well, us regular people.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    25. Re:Really? by binarylarry · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I fail to see how "fantasizing about killing peers" is related to political correctness.

      That said, kids in school can be awful to one another, so I bet most people feel that way at some point.

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    26. Re:Really? by PRMan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You mean like "If I'm going to face criminal charges anyway, I might as well have shot the bully..." Makes sense in a twisted sort of logical way.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    27. Re:Really? by M.+Baranczak · · Score: 2

      Paintball guns fall under the protection of the 2nd Amendment, so they're OK. But visual representations of guns? Those are dangerous and should be reported.

    28. Re:Really? by jythie · · Score: 1

      All of those things are very profitable therefor they are admired.

    29. Re:Really? by Stan92057 · · Score: 0

      Football,wrestling,basketball,gym class. Any of these activities reduce stress and mush healthier then playing video games.

      --
      Jack of all trades,master of none
    30. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      You can thank the teachers unions for this!

    31. Re:Really? by LWATCDR · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well can you blame them. What is the first thing that happens when kid does something wrong.
      "WHY DIDN'T ANYONE SEE THESE CLEAR WARNING SIGNS!" This kid played first person shooters, read gun magazines, and didn't get along with the popular kids! Just like millions of other people....

      Just like in the old days they used to say, "no one ever got fired for buying IBM". No school administrator ever got in trouble for putting a kid in jail as a potential danger. Man I am glad they didn't have first person shooters when I was in school. I know for a fact that at least one of my friends if not myself would have made a map of the school. Of course that person and everyone that played that map would go to jail for planning a terrorist attack.

      And the parents will not stop it because it is always better to throw another persons kid in jail to protect your own.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    32. Re:Really? by AJH16 · · Score: 1

      The crime is probably posting it to youtube, not using the app. It looks like the video may have just had parts of it in the school though, which makes it a much harder case. It also doesn't say if he was actually charged in the article, just that he was arrested. It makes sense that they would arrest and question him about it. It's just law enforcement doing their do diligence as long as they don't actually end up pressing charges when it is determined that he didn't intend anything nefarious. (Though again, the Youtube video itself may be a crime if it can be seen as threatening, though I'd question the wisdom of a prosecutor prosecuting for something that was posted as a kid showing off his cool app on his phone.)

      --
      AJ Henderson
    33. Re:Really? by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

      And younger have been prosecuted as adults why are you surprised this is nothing new?

      --
      Jack of all trades,master of none
    34. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      so they investigate and move on. Arresting the kid and filing charges is a clear sign the Police are not only clueless but are going beyond "Protect and Serve". Very scary

    35. Re:Really? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Right in line with the obvious long-term strategic goal of the US administration: Police-state and surveillance-state. You cannot build the former with a police that actually perceives itself as being part of the population and serving the population.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    36. Re:Really? by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Informative

      Although I think there were significantly less of these back in the day.

      Assume no longer. Looks like the decade from 1900-1910 had the most shootings, but it seems massacres were rarer.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    37. Re:Really? by Stan92057 · · Score: 2

      "It gets worse. Police forces have been militarizing over the past decade or two. This means that they shoot first and treat everyone around them as a potential enemy."

      Citation please, as thats just a load of over exaggeration. Cops dont shot unless they beleave there lifes are at risk ie pointing a gun at a policeman will get your stupid ass shot and most likely killed.

      --
      Jack of all trades,master of none
    38. Re:Really? by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      You have the right to actual guns, not depictions of guns lol

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    39. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Football,wrestling,basketball,gym class. Any of these activities reduce stress and mush healthier then playing video games.

      Yes, jocks rule. You geeks and your video games are all Columbine waiting to happen. If this kid was a jock there would be no way he would be getting in trouble. Because everyone knows that red blooded 'merikans never go on a shooting spree.

      Since you are too much of a redneck idiot to understand sarcasm let me put it in words you can understand:

      Fuck you, and your bully jock worship culture. The only thing I find amazing about this is that we do not have more shootings, since American fucking culture worships bullies so much, giving kids only one way out... the violent way out.

    40. Re:Really? by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      Here in Canada with have citizen groups that have investigative powers over the police, rather than the police investigating themselves for situation where a citizen is injured or killed.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    41. Re:Really? by fredprado · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Sure it is. Politically correctness is basically a set of acceptable behaviors to which any deviation is considered atrocious and punishable. It is the attempt to control and conform people to the same ideas by force. What he did was completely harmless, and I personally find very fun, as I find fun to play Quake or GTA, for example.

    42. Re:Really? by fredprado · · Score: 1

      Yes teachers, at least most of them. Those that ignore their obligations and abuse of their positions to force their world view and political ideals into kids. They are every bit as bad as bankers, traders, and drug dealers, in their own way.

    43. Re:Really? by burningcpu · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In 1999 when I was a freshman in HS, I saw another freshman walk up behind another kid and jokingly put a plastic knife from the lunch room to his back. He said, "give me all your money."

      Unfortunately, a teacher also saw this harmless joke. The kid was arrested and expelled from the entire school district.

    44. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Pick your favorite search engine and search for: student arrested gun drawing. While your at it, check for rulings against Freedom of Speech related to school activities. After all, art falls within the area of Free Speech doesn't it? Of course one could argue that image of a gun is like shouting "FIRE!" in a theater, but then one can argue anything.

      "Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY."

      --Goering at the Nuremberg Trials

      Nor do they want their children harmed in any fashion, question any attempt by government to make use of fear.

    45. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is apparently too much future potential for him to turn around from this one mis-deed, so they must insure he'll have a 2nd class life forever. Personally, I think it's to continue propping up the prison industry. Less weed smokers are heading for to prison for multi-year stints, so they have to fill the void some how.

    46. Re:Really? by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      Go read Radley Balko's work. Google Sal Culosi for a really good example.

    47. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Are you kidding me? You missed the absolute most important one: politicians.

    48. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you imagine the repercussions for the staff if he showed up with an actual gun one day and they had done nothing?

      Be careful with that argument, as it's a justification for locking kids up for any less-than-admirable behavior.

    49. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know English grammar is sometimes confusing, but it was pretty clear that GP was referring to the administrators as the leeches, not the teachers.

    50. Re:Really? by westlake · · Score: 1

      and let me add....he's 15. a minor. charges? wtf is this country coming to that even kids are now criminals?! WTF AMERICA??

      Children of "tender years" might have escaped prosecution. But that is and always has been close kin to the little loved insanity defense. Too young to control his actions. Too young to understand the consequences of his actions.

      The adolescent is a work-in-progress. He is not an infant.

      The first execution of a juvenile offender was in 1642 with Thomas Graunger in Plymouth Colony, Massachesetts. In the 360 years since that time, a total of approximately 365 persons have been executed for juvenile crimes, constituting 1.8% of roughly 20,000 confirmed American executions since 1608. Twenty-two of these executions for juvenile crimes have been imposed since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976. These 22 recent executions of juvenile offenders make up about 2% of the total executions since 1976.

      The death penalty is forbidden in all states for those under the age of 18 at the time of their crime following the Supreme Court's ruling in Roper v. Simmons (2005)

      Execution of Juveniles in the U.S. and other Countries

      Supreme Court rules mandatory juvenile life without parole cruel and unusual (2012)

    51. Re:Really? by Rockoon · · Score: 2

      It also doesn't say if he was actually charged in the article, just that he was arrested.

      Being arrested requires being charged. Thats how it works.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    52. Re:Really? by dinfinity · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well can you blame them. What is the first thing that happens when kid does something wrong.
      "WHY DIDN'T ANYONE SEE THESE CLEAR WARNING SIGNS!"

      It may be a crazy idea, but why not try talking to the (troubled) kid instead of fucking arresting him?
      Jesus Christ.

    53. Re:Really? by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 1

      Well can you blame them. What is the first thing that happens when kid does something wrong.

      Sure we can blame them. The issue, after all, isn't that there wasn't some level of an investigation into the incident. The issue is that (a) the school officials jumped well beyond the "there's a remote possibility that there's more to this than the simple stupidity/frustrations/whatever of a teenager" and (b) the police were more than willing to act on the "threat" that really wasn't there.

      "WHY DIDN'T ANYONE SEE THESE CLEAR WARNING SIGNS!" This kid played first person shooters, read gun magazines, and didn't get along with the popular kids! Just like millions of other people....

      Precisely. Every time people ask that, ask them if they'd like to get preemptive yearly speeding tickets which they have to pay in full regardless of whether they're ever stopped--and without it excluding them from having to pay if stopped. After all, all the warnings signs are there for most people. Point out that the law isn't there to stop every crime before it happens and that appropriate steps were taken to try to read warning signs. But, in the end, lots of people match the warning signs and it's not enough reason to lock up half the teenagers just because.

      Just like in the old days they used to say, "no one ever got fired for buying IBM". No school administrator ever got in trouble for putting a kid in jail as a potential danger. Man I am glad they didn't have first person shooters when I was in school. I know for a fact that at least one of my friends if not myself would have made a map of the school. Of course that person and everyone that played that map would go to jail for planning a terrorist attack.

      That always reminds me of the funny story. I was in school during Columbine. At the time, there were a group of us who would play Duke Nukem 3D in the computer lab. The net result was we had to get our parents to sign a waver and it was clear the person "in charge" thought it was all just stupid but never the less a CYOA move by the school. So, well, why isn't that enough now days?

      And the parents will not stop it because it is always better to throw another persons kid in jail to protect your own.

      Yea, until their own precocious snowflake gets thrown into jail for 50 years for sniffing glue. Really, it just shows the clear cowardice and slime of politicians who don't have the backbone to follow a clear path and will cave in to every little demand to be/stay elected. And yea, the parents are to blame too for the same reason. The real reaction that should be for this? Shaming all the parents who aren't (a) calling for the boy to be released and (b) for the rules to be changed (preemptively in other schools) to avoid this whole mess. In the end, it's almost always the parents fault. Well, except when the kid is responsible, but that'd require actual harm.

      --
      Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
    54. Re:Really? by rolfwind · · Score: 5, Informative

      When you were a kid the press hadn't sensationalized all the murder sprees at school.

      Although I think there were significantly less of these back in the day.

      http://reason.com/blog/2012/12/17/are-mass-shootings-becoming-more-common

      those who study mass shootings say they are not becoming more common.

      "There is no pattern, there is no increase," says criminologist James Allen Fox of Boston's Northeastern University, who has been studying the subject since the 1980s, spurred by a rash of mass shootings in post offices.

      The random mass shootings that get the most media attention are the rarest, Fox says. Most people who die of bullet wounds knew the identity of their killer....

      Grant Duwe, a criminologist with the Minnesota Department of Corrections who has written a history of mass murders in America, said that while mass shootings rose between the 1960s and the 1990s, they actually dropped in the 2000s. And mass killings actually reached their peak in 1929, according to his data. He estimates that there were 32 in the 1980s, 42 in the 1990s and 26 in the first decade of the century.

    55. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Healthier? Maybe, maybe not. There have been many accidents and some deaths involved with those sports over the years.

      Not to mention that if you're skinny and unpopular, you will likely be placing yourself right in the midst of those types who would bully you.

    56. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Although I think there were significantly less of these back in the day.

      Statistically I think there were actually more of them.

    57. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Football [...] reduce[s] stress and [is much] healthier then playing video games.

      Sure, knee/spine injuries and brain trauma aren't necessarily "unhealthy;" at least they don't directly lead to measurably shortened life spans for those affected patients/participants.

      Further, many "glory days" may be created, which may be looked back on longingly as one finds his dead-end job has just become automated, and the 1% have decided it is in their own self-interest to shirk their responsibility of providing for the welfare of those less fortunate — better to put those funds into high school and collegiate football programs. Starving kids will work harder to not be among the 99%, I understand the thinking goes. It's "for their own good."

      Or, were you referring to "soccer?" :o)

    58. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Peddle your divisive bullshit elsewhere. Unions gave rise to our middle class, and they die together. Your kind have taken an immense toll on our once great nation. There's got to be CEO out there who'd like his ass licked some more — go make yourself useful.

    59. Re: Really? by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 2

      Because that would real work from the officers. "Best" to just judge everybody us vs them and create division instead of unity.

      To Serve And Protect has been prevented to Judge and Extort :(

    60. Re:Really? by Blue+Stone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is clear - those people in authority in your country - they are incapable of a proportionate response - their judgment is terrible; faulty; bordering on the insane: they are unfit to govern, lacking basic reason abilities and judgment. There seems to be no facility or investment in the concept of "is this fair?".

      You have an anemy within your country and it is the ignorant, incompetent aresholes who are running it; they are unfit to weild the power they have been given.

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    61. Re: Really? by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      s / prevented / perverted

    62. Re: Really? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Misdirected blame. The school is the one pressing charges.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    63. Re:Really? by c5402dc53929211e1efb · · Score: 1

      Should have broke into the teacher's house at night and raped him.

    64. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fucking americunts, what do you expect from a pack of burocratic yuppie fuck wits.

      Locking up kids for playing a game on the phone. what next a license to shit?

      If i was this kids father I would fight the temptation to take a gun to that school and show them what violence looks like and probably call a lawyer, sue the fuckin arse of the school. They have no control over what games the kids play on thier smart phones, full stop.
      What next techers checking phones for 'bad' apps and calling the police?

    65. Re:Really? by murdocj · · Score: 2

      Yeah, god forbid someone would teach kids to read and write. Sure sounds like a leech to me.

    66. Re:Really? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      How do you even know the kid is "troubled". Okay all teens are troubled to some extent or another that is what being a teenager is all about.
      How is this any different than cops and robbers or the backstab game.
      Again it is the safe thing for the school administration to do. It is not the right thing, good thing, or effective thing but if this kid ever did snap and kill himself or kill someone else and it came out that a parent reported this and the school administration did nothing they would be hung out to dry by the press, media, parents, and probably the courts. Unil parents start being parents and taking some responsibility and people learn that 20 20 hindsight is nothing but a witch hunt to lay blame then nothing will change.
      Just watch for this phrase, "all the warning signs where there".

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    67. Re:Really? by crizh · · Score: 1

      'Although there are relatively few serious violent crimes at school, there are many less serious crimes and there are numerous discipline problemsâ"primarily disorderly conduct and fights that do not result in injuriesâ"that demand attention. Bullying, teasing, and harassment are common problems that deserve attention in every school, too.'

      So the rate of murder and aggravated assault has fallen in schools due to 'zero-tolerance' campaigns but the rate of 'minor' assaults that are arguably the cause of these more serious crimes has continued unabated?

      Violence in schools is unacceptable, in particular the sort of 'minor' violence that trains the next generation of criminal thugs and criminalizes the victims when they take the law into their own hands, ought to be stamped out as a priority.

      --
      Trust The Computer, The Computer is your friend.
    68. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The solution is to either reduce the number of police, or to refocus them on community policing and crime reduction rather than "making arrests".

      There is still plenty of actual crime out there for them to fight. They just don't want to confront an actual criminal, it might be dangerous. So instead they "invent" crimes so they can go arrest people who are not likely to resist. Where I live in Oregon, the police refuse to investigate actual crime anymore. The only way to get one to come out to investigate anything is if drugs or firearms were involved. We had an incident several years ago at my (then) place of employment where there was a hit-and-run with severe property damage (but no injuries) on our property. My manager called the police and was told "Unless you have the perpetrator already in custody, it's not worth our time to investigate." Thing is we had just received a delivery from this guy, we knew who he was as we had his signature on the shipping papers. We had the truck's ID number, license plate number, his employer, and a physical description of the truck (it had a big paint streak down the side from the car he just smashed into). Someone just got his car totaled that he still owed $10,000+ on, but "it's not a crime worth our time."

      We have a lot of minor crimes in town simply because they are NEVER investigated (much less prosecuted), and the crooks all know this.

    69. Re:Really? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I know for a fact that at least one of my friends if not myself would have made a map of the school. Of course that person and everyone that played that map would go to jail for planning a terrorist attack.

      I helped a kid create a counterstrike map of all the schools in the district back in 1999-2000. We did it under the guise that we were practicing "creating 3d explorable representations of buildings and structures to aid real estate sales agents with interactive rich virtual environments" and added that "county and city officials could also use the concept on new acquisitions and existing buildings in order to make decisions on how best to use the space". Had the administrator's permission to enter all the schools and video tape a walk through along with taking pictures with a yard stick in it so we could accurately represent the sizes of items in it. One school, we recreated all the crap on the walls and everything too. Took way too long so we ditched it for the others.

      Turned out to be a bad idea. No one wanted to purchase a video game and fumble through loading custom maps just to avoid driving 20 minutes across town and look at a building or send it to the engineers office to have them interpret blueprints.

      I don't know whatever happened to those CS maps, but I often wonder if they would happen to resurface if I wouldn't be getting a knock on the door from some 3 letter agency drone and an extended stay at club gitmo.

    70. Re:Really? by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      Police don't protect and serve. Their job is to figure out how to arrest more people, even when it's unwarranted.

    71. Re:Really? by coastwalker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The USA looks more and more like the definition of hell as the memory of the cold war fades. These days there is very little to choose between the all out capitalism of gangster run Russia and industrial prison America. Maybe it was always so and we who believed in the free world were fools.

      --
      Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
    72. Re:Really? by amiga3D · · Score: 2

      I remember a video game in an arcade back years ago that involved driving a car around doing different point scoring things. If you ran over pedestrians it deducted points and they screamed pitifully. I really liked hearing them scream so I was steadily running them down. They actually kicked me out of the arcade back then. Nowadays I'd have served jail time.

    73. Re:Really? by sumdumass · · Score: 2

      Have you been living under a rock or something? I mean just recently with the dorner case in California, the cops opened fired on a pickup truck who's only crime was being a similar color as the one dorner was thought to be in and delivering newspapers without their headlights on. That same day, another pickup truck was open fired on for doing nothing but going right for sirens and lights.

      Cops are scared little pussies in some cases and shoot to stop from pissing themselves. No guns being drawn or pointed or even an attempt to visual identify someone before shooting them. All I have to say is it was a good thing those cops were too scared to shoot straight else the three innocent people likely would have died.

      http://www.dailybreeze.com/general-news/20130207/police-confuse-truck-for-christopher-dorners-shoot-at-3-people-in-torrance-in-case-of-mistaken-identity

      Oh yeah, there was another shooting incident connected to the dorner search but I forget the details enough to find a link to it.

    74. Re:Really? by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking next up is licenses for phones. You can't trust just anyone with one.

    75. Re:Really? by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately education isn't happening much in modern schools.

    76. Re:Really? by digsbo · · Score: 1

      Politically correctness is basically a set of acceptable behaviors to which any deviation is considered atrocious and punishable.

      I slightly disagree -- political correctness is a set of attitudes and speech guidelines from which any deviation is considered atrocious and punishable. Behaviors, not so much.

    77. Re:Really? by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      The problem is in what is viewed as a threat by police. That has gotten a lot more broad, and since SWAT teams now are used regularly to serve warrants for non-violent offenses, a lot more civilians are getting shot.

    78. Re:Really? by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      When this happens, there's something wrong with police culture.

    79. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You will find that some people think anyone carrying an Iphone should be arrested on that basis alone. Having this app on it just makes it ridiculous.

    80. Re:Really? by crizh · · Score: 1

      I completely agree with this.

      I blame the media.

      By focusing on the wrong metrics of police performance they have compelled the police to try and improve those metrics. By the simplest and easiest expedient.

      So rather than cracking down on real crime they find misdemeanour's to prosecute 'law-abiding' citizens for. Most of us are not 'felons' and will come quietly, plead guilty and pay our fines when caught running stop signs, speeding or fiddling our taxes.

      People committing real crimes, like assault, resist arrest, scream for a lawyer and skip town if found guilty. They are generally a giant pain in the arse and use up a disproportionate amount of resources per successful prosecution.

      What we really need the police to do is crack down on 'minor' assaults. Particularly those committed by 'minors'. Nobody starts out a felon. They have to be carefully trained and nurtured, shown that they can get away with actions that society tells them are unacceptable, taught how to avoid serious consequences.

      Whether it is a failing system, lawyers or older felons that teach these things is immaterial.

      Bullying in the school yard is the training-wheels of full scale criminality and ought to be trivial to nip in the bud.

      What we really need is a two tier police force, one that deals with felonies and one that deal with misdemeanour's.

      If the first were constitutionally barred from supplying evidence to the latter all the better.

      The felony police would have no choice other than to do their fracking job and the rest of us would never have any reason not to provide them with all the support that we could.

      --
      Trust The Computer, The Computer is your friend.
    81. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like if you were this kid's father you might be tempted to go blow the school up and shoot the administration.

    82. Re:Really? by Twanfox · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You have obviously never indulged in flights of fancy or other thought experiments that are fun to explore but not fun to live. To take this stupid analogy further, let's explore...

      Playing World of Warcraft is rehearsal for killing the hordes of orcs.

      Playing Payday 2 is rehearsal for robbing banks and shooting cops.

      Playing Left 4 Dead 2 is rehearsal for the next Zombie Apocalypse, because you know it's coming.

      My child had a princess party once. Surely, she's royalty, or soon to be married into it.

      Get a grip, man. Sometimes playing a game is just a game. Crimes need to be based on real actions and real intentions rather than what one would indulge in for a game. Too many games would be unacceptable real world behavior, and yet we have them because it's fun to play them when there are no lasting penalties for those kinds of actions.

    83. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what she said.

    84. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Irony, thy name is blue stone.

    85. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ...Can you imagine the repercussions for the staff if he showed up with an actual gun one day and they had done nothing? I have no love for teachers and administrative staff (they're boring leeches on society) but they would be fired if not brought up on charges.

      You are actually trying to compare a goddamn FPS game on a cell phone to an event where a teenager brought a firearm into a public school. Yeah, I'm sure those are really fucking close scenarios in the employee handbook.

      You may not have any love for teachers, but you should at least acknowledge that they do posses common fucking sense and self-preservation just as you do. Of course they are going to act completely different if he brought an actual gun to school. How the fuck do YOU act when someone points a gun at you? Do you act like they have a fucking cell phone in their hands?

      For all the effort you put forth here to make teachers look like idiots, you managed to come out on top winning that award.

    86. Re:Really? by Soluzar · · Score: 1

      I find it hard to believe they'd kick you out for feeding a machine quarters, even if you played in a non-standard way. Did they say a reason?

    87. Re:Really? by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      What the hell makes you think that the only possible response is to throw a kid in jail when there are warning signs?
      That is messed up, man.

      Also, the whole idea of talking to the kid is to find out whether he is troubled and there is cause for real concern, whether he should seek mental help, etc. But I guess doing that would make too much sense.

    88. Re:Really? by aevan · · Score: 1

      Until they push for non-violent, non-contact sports. Then maybe non-compete sports too, so everyone wins..

      Slippery slope? Not really, since I've heard people decry the previous sports in the past. Not basketball, but football? wrestling? hockey? Promotes violence amongst children!

    89. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? The administrators should be have their licenses suspended for tolerating the bullying, and criminal charges should be filed against the parents of the bullies.

    90. Re:Really? by drkim · · Score: 1

      If they'd discovered his Whip-App, he would have been accused of racism too.
      Not to mention the beer app, since he's under 21.

      Wait till they find GTA 4 on his computer.

      Then they can charge him with auto theft, too.

    91. Re:Really? by drkim · · Score: 1

      Football,wrestling,basketball,gym class. Any of these activities reduce stress and mush healthier then playing video games.

      Really? Because I thought that since there are 3.5 million sports injuries to children each year, that those things would be less healthy.

      "More than 775,000 children, ages 14 and under, are treated in hospital emergency rooms for sports-related injuries each year."
      I don't know, maybe there are even more video game injuries being treated in ERs each year; I couldn't find a stat on that...

      So you don't injure yourself Googling:
      http://www.lpch.org/DiseaseHealthInfo/HealthLibrary/orthopaedics/stats.html

    92. Re:Really? by Dahamma · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hah, that's the first thing I thought of when reading this.

      "I'm crushing your head, I'm crushing you head!!"

      "A 17 year old was arrested today for allegedly threatening to murder a classmate with his thumb and index finger. Police and school authorities are blaming a Canadian terrorist group for encouraging the act".

    93. Re:Really? by Dahamma · · Score: 2

      So give the kid a couple hours of counseling after which it will be obvious if he was trying to kill people or just playing with his phone. Arresting him and threatening criminal charges for DOING NOTHING WRONG already seems more criminal to me than ignoring him.

    94. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Paintball guns fall under the protection of the 2nd Amendment

      No, they don't. They're not firearms (literally! there's a strict definition... go figure), they're sports equipment.

    95. Re:Really? by Dahamma · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So the kid was bullied, and he fantasized about getting even. I'd bet the majority of kids who get bullied (and there are a LOT of them) do the same thing (they just don't post it on Youtube, which was pretty stupid). Still, how does that make the former (which involved actual aggression) "kids will be kids" and the latter (purely imagination) a serious criminal act?!

    96. Re:Really? by Dahamma · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is the same sort of mentality that got actors and writers arrested or blacklisted for being a "threat to America" or homosexuals arrested or harassed for being "a threat to the children". The way you think is not and should never be a crime. In some cases it may warrant assistance but not prison.

    97. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You left out middle managers, hairdressers, and telephone sanitizers.

    98. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Football

      As long as you don't count brain damage as being unhealthy.

    99. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are some very good teachers, but unfortunately, most are just there for the paycheck and the pension.

    100. Re:Really? by amiga3D · · Score: 2

      I kept killing the pedestrians and when the ambulance showed up I'd run over the EMT's. It was the freaky sounding screams that made me do it. I loved hearing it. I kept shoving quarters in and there were about a dozen kids watching me and laughing their asses off. I think that might have been the clincher. It was morbid but fun.

    101. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the biggest mistake is assuming that you have to be a teacher to actually engage in the act of teaching. a further extension of this mistake is to assume that only certified teachers are capable of teaching and/or to assume that they can do so more effectively than a non-certified teacher.

    102. Re: Really? by AJH16 · · Score: 1

      I suggest you check your facts before you correct someone. Maybe it is different where you are but police can arrest someone for suspicion of a crime, they just have to release within a certain time or file charges. The police may also arrest someone after the prosecutor decides to press charges, but that is NOT always the order.

      --
      AJ Henderson
    103. Re:Really? by celle · · Score: 1

      " There are lots of children in this world crying out for education."

            The children aren't crying out, the parents are. The children just want to play, share, and enjoy life. It's the adults who can't get it together.

    104. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Precisely what I threatened the principal with when my son was in a similar situation. The principal was rabid but the district director was much more cool about the situation. The principal was overruled and the bullies were 'educated' and my son was allowed to continue attending class. He never repeated the incident. The bullies never stopped though...

    105. Re:Really? by celle · · Score: 1

      "Looks like the decade from 1900-1910 had the most shootings, but it seems massacres were rarer."

            If you had bothered to look at the wikipedia article, you would have noticed they counted everything no matter how distantly if it at all related to school a school shooting. Like a jealous husband killing their wife after school or shootings just because the victim or shooter was an employee. Quite a few were adults threatening/killing adults and not kids killing everybody. It reads like a generic search for anything with "shoot" and "school" in it but is more about adults and kids, especially of the time, being adults and kids.

    106. Re:Really? by BasilBrush · · Score: 0

      Political correctness is the practice of changing the use of language and public activities to reduce discrimination in society.

      It has absolutely nothing to do with arresting a kid for making a YouTube video of him shooting his classmates.

      It's not heath and safety regulations either.

    107. Re:Really? by celle · · Score: 1

      "Unfortunately, a teacher also saw this harmless joke. The kid was arrested and expelled from the entire school district."

            Unless the potential victim was in on it, it's not a harmless joke. The response was overkill but the initial act was still attempted assault. You're there to learn not harass other people.

    108. Re:Really? by BasilBrush · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No you wouldn't. No one's been arrested for Grand Theft Auto (the video game).

      The difference here is posting a video on YouTube of a simulation of shooting real specifically identifiable children. It'd have been just as arrest worthy if it'd been done with video effects tools rather than as a game.

    109. Re:Really? by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      You're looking at this from the direction of the kid playing the game. Because that's the angle the story has been written from.

      Consider the angle of your school age kid, being featured in a video on YouTube, without his or your permission, as a simulation of him being murdered in a school shooting spree.

      The kid has not been arrested for playing a game. He's been arrested for publicly posting a video simulation of him murdering his classmates. If it had been done with video effect tools rather than a game cap, it would have been just as worthy of arrest.

    110. Re:Really? by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. You don't know what you are talking about.

      Arrest happens out in the community. It's the precursor to taking someone forcibly to the police station. Following that charges MAY be placed at the police station. Or the person may be released without charges.

    111. Re:Really? by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Makes you wonder when they going to start on those using paintball guns?

      If you shoot people with paintballs when they haven't consented to it, you can and should be arrested.

    112. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know for a fact that at least one of my friends if not myself would have made a map of the school. Of course that person and everyone that played that map would go to jail for planning a terrorist attack.

      I did that with a couple of friends. Of course, it was back in the days of - original DOS DOOM, not the newfangled one.

      We made a reasonable map of our school and used a few scanned pictures of teachers for the monster sprites. Even handed it out to whoever wanted it. There was no malice. It was an exercise in stress relief, fun, and to see if we could actually do it. Kids will be kids. IIRC one of the teachers who we used had a quiet word to one of us because he wasn't impressed about being fragged, but that was the end of it.

      This story is an example of zero tolerance gone too far. Others have said it, but it's a bunch of beaurocrats trying to avoid having to take responsibility for anything by just throwing the book at everyone who doesn't conform to their narrow social norm. That's not the only thing though. It's trying to appear as "tough on crime" so that others won't be tempted to step outside the narrow social norm that they want everyone crammed into. Social conformity is a weapon of the dictatorship - make almsot everyone conform to your narrowly defined social norm and then arrest those who don't becasue they are obviously the dissenters who will try to topple your regime.

      Captcha: restart (what I think the whole system sorely needs)

    113. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (troubled) kid

      Who said the kid was troubled (in the mentally ill sense that you implied)? Maybe it was a perfectly healthy way for him to let go of some built up anger. Perhaps it was just a perfectly good laugh to pass the time.

      I think everyone has moments where they wish they could go postal. What separates mass murderers from the rest of us is that the rest of us find non-violent ways to relieve the pressure that invariably builds up over time. The handful who can't or won't do that just snap when they get to breaking point.

      I'd say if someone demonstrates that they are just letting go of some built up pressure then let them be. It doesn't even warrant a talking to.

    114. Re:Really? by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 1

      Political correctness is institutionalised politeness.

      It rarely has anything to do with "punishment", though certainly ostracising might be involved - you know, like the ostracising this idiot deserves for being a dork waving his iPhone around "shooting" people. Although merely having an iPhone might be sufficient.

    115. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Consider the angle of your school age kid, being featured in a video on YouTube, without his or your permission, as a simulation of him being murdered in a school shooting spree.

      Hmmm... if I were featured in such a video, I might think about how my actions affected the person who posted it, maybe even try to rectify the situation by talking to them and trying to understand their feelings.

      But what am I saying; these are school bullies. They'd probably just pick on him some more until he snapped.

      The real disappointment here are the teachers and faculty. This is not something a person should be arrested for. Maybe some counseling, definitely some work to find out what bullying is taking place to rectify that situation, but not arresting someone who already feels he is being persecuted. Now he can't trust his peers and he can't trust authority. Where else is there to go?

    116. Re:Really? by nanoflower · · Score: 1

      Imagine if they had caught you playing a game like Carmageddon where much of the fun was in running down pedestrians.

    117. Re:Really? by antdude · · Score: 1

      That is what older generations always say about the younger generations. :/

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    118. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Children of "tender years" might have escaped prosecution. But that is and always has been close kin to the little loved insanity defense. Too young to control his actions. Too young to understand the consequences of his actions.

      And if there are no consequences to his actions, we'd better invent some!

    119. Re:Really? by Sinesurfer · · Score: 1

      Agreed. The comment that the police "have to take all threats seriously" ignores the pre-existing bulling events or school sub-culture. I'm guessing if you're attacked at that school and defend yourself then you suffer the same punishment as the attacker (while assuming the attacker is punished).

      --
      Regards Sinesurfer A Nerd is someone who lives for technology, A Geek is someone who lives for technology and loves it
    120. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I fail to see how "fantasizing about killing peers" is related to political correctness.

      Haven't you heard of the school system's zero intelligence policy toward weapons? That's another way of saying political correctness.

    121. Re:Really? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      You are not getting me. I am telling how things are. Did not read this? "Again it is the safe thing for the school administration to do. It is not the right thing, good thing, or effective thing"
      It is the safe thing to keep from getting his butt handed to him. Until people make it not the safe thing to do like getting his butt fired for putting a 15 year old in jail for breaking no law I see then it will keep happening.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    122. Re:Really? by hazah · · Score: 1

      Everyone stop thinking! This man's an expert!

    123. Re:Really? by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      As someone who spends time driving through a city. I would be all in favor of banning the use of phones in public. A lot of pedestrians (and drivers) care more about text messages than they do for their own lives, or anyone elses.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    124. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By whose definition? Note the example used there. Additionally like so many other terms, especially those with political relevance, this one has varied a little in meaning since Democrats borrowed it from the Communist party of the USSR, who probably also translated it from something else but at least in this case it came with the theory of moving others into compliance with pre-determined thought processes influenced, at least in theory, by choice of terms used in labeling others and events. A type of mind programming you might say. Now, what words do we use here people?

    125. Re:Really? by ZosX · · Score: 1

      They should grow a pair and start worrying about real threats and not some kid throwing virtual darts at their pictures. Gimme a fucking break.

    126. Re:Really? by Kuruk · · Score: 1

      We are head long into self destruction. Won't take long before our collective governments will arrest all children for numerous offences like water pistols and apps of mass destruction.

      One generation later all breeders will be in prison and we go extinct for our stupidity.

    127. Re:Really? by jaymzter · · Score: 1

      Fox Butterfield, is that you?

      --
      If thou see a fair woman pay court to her, for thus thou wilt obtain love
    128. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Second Amendment, U.S. Constitution

      It does not say "firearms", it says "arms" which includes not only firearms but many other things, including swords, knifes, bows, crossbows, blow guns, air guns, etc, so yeah, those paint ball guns are protected by the second amendment, just need to slightly change the ammo to make them more useful as arms. Oh, and btw, everything on that list, including firearms can also be "sports equipment" and there are lots of "sports equipment" not on that list that can and has been used to kill people.

    129. Re:Really? by MickLinux · · Score: 1

      I suspect that more common than being thrown in jail for sniffing glue, is being thrown into a heart attack.

      --
      Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
    130. Re:Really? by hazah · · Score: 1

      Yeah? And what is that getting us? At this point they're justifying their budget by just showing their numbers. Pathetic twats.

    131. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not at all twisted. It's why this AC opposes the death penalty.

      It's undeniably resulted in specific additional instances of murder.... usually in the form of:

      "I already took you across state lines five minutes ago so I'll get the chair anyway... may as well shoot you so you can't tell anybody where I am..." in carjackings and hostage situations.

      Twisted logic is only 'twisted' if you have overwhelming moral concerns. In a world in which an increasingly large quantity of people have virtually nothing and are likely to lose the little they do have forever over something as assinine as a phone game... there's nothing twisted at all about such backlash. The bully has gotten a free ticket to destroy somebody's life with no consequences. The bullied has nothing to lose. If you participate in a system in which someone feels like they have no value, have nothing to lose, and eternal suffering to gain -- things get bad horribly fast.

      That is not immoral, wrong, or twisted. It is incredibly disruptive to people like yourself that have the luxury of moral consideration.

      You don't want stuff like this to happen, stop perversely incentivizing it as a society. Also take note that punishment after the fact can't do anything.

      Even if you threaten to torture someone like this forever, they'll just hang themself first.

      School shootings are just people hacking the difference between moral and operational rules of society.

    132. Re:Really? by sconeu · · Score: 1

      If it had been done with video effect tools rather than a game cap, it would have been just as worthy of arrest.

      That is to say, not worthy at all. In the US, there's this thing called the "First Amendment". He harmed nobody with that video, it is protected speech.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    133. Re:Really? by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      When teachers are always worried that they'll be fired if they get some low-scoring students for a year, the teaching will be of lower quality. Unions work for some consistency and theoretically work to the betterment of the children. But the "conservatives" want to punish the kids for using "free" education that should be reserved for the rich.

    134. Re:Really? by burningcpu · · Score: 1

      My comment wasn't detailed and I may have given the wrong impression. The two guys were friends, and he had said it in a joking manner. There were more factors that made it obvious to all involved that this was a benign situation.

    135. Re:Really? by boorack · · Score: 1

      Yout corporate overlords are earning gobs of dollars on this. How much do prison operators charge per jailed soul ? $100 a day ? $250 a day ? This is what big american business morphed into since 1980s.

    136. Re:Really? by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      It's currently cheaper has less penalties and less jail time to be charged with fleeing the police than it is to get a DUI. Both legally and socially.

      Just say'n

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    137. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's more than one way to skin a cat. Certainly, some form of intervention would be appropriate. They could contact the parent, or they could volunteer the use of a school councilor. . . Or they could call the police, have him arrested, give him a criminal record making his future success difficult, put him in a series of cages filled with criminals, and see nothing get solved except creating more criminals out of a situation that only required a check up on the kid to make sure he wasn't going to do something crazy.

      It's kind of insane when you look at it. I can't imagine how much it must suck to be a kid these days. I'm not even that old but I don't remember that kind of crap happening when I was a kid.

    138. Re:Really? by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

      Hooray! Zero tolerance works! ;-)

      "He said it was a result of him being frustrated and tired of being bullied. [....] We have to take all threats seriously"

      Apparently not.

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    139. Re:Really? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      It's "us" vs "them". And the cops are there for their profit, not our safety. Sadly, we are close to where we'd be safer without them than with.

    140. Re:Really? by Internetuser1248 · · Score: 1

      Making it easier to get a real gun than to simulate one on your phone

    141. Re:Really? by Jyms · · Score: 1

      Can I assume that games like Paintball (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paintball) and Laser Quest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_Quest) are also illegal in the USA, or is this a technology thing? Is the virtual world seen as more dangerous than the physical world?

    142. Re:Really? by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      I understand that you are trying to point towards the effects of lawsuits (by parents) on schools. The problem is that your argumentation is flawed and that you are in a sense perpetuating the myth.

      The reality is that if somebody asks "why did no one see the warning signs?!", a perfectly reasonable response could also be: "Well, we did see the warning signs and that is why we informed the parents, and had our school counselor and his teacher talk to him about them."

      I.e.: there are more 'safe things' to do.

    143. Re:Really? by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      criminal charges should be filed against the parents of the bullies.

      On what charge? Being related to someone who chose to do something illegal? Unless you can show that the parent encouraged or provoked the bullying, then the child is responsible for his own crime. A parent can do a good job raising a child and the child still go wrong. Everybody makes their own choices and needs to pay their own consequences. What lesson does the child learn if his parents are punished? Why, that he can do whatever he wants and someone else will always pay for his actions. Yes, I know in today's society that is exactly what we are striving for, where no one has to be responsible for their own actions and everyone can blame their parents, or their neighborhood, or their upbringing or whatever, but I prefer a society where people are held accountable for their actions.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    144. Re:Really? by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      In 1999 when I was a freshman in HS, I saw another freshman walk up behind another kid and jokingly put a plastic knife from the lunch room to his back. He said, "give me all your money." Unfortunately, a teacher also saw this harmless joke. The kid was arrested and expelled from the entire school district.

      In the early 80s when I was in grade school, we saw this sort of thing all the time, except we would use our thumb and index finger as a gun. Happened hundreds of times at recess. Teachers saw it, they didn't care, neither did the "victim". The victim was likely to be the perpetrator next time it happened. It was all innocent fun, nobody got hurt and nobody got sent to jail for it. Why we used to play guns with our thumb and index finger all the time on the playground. Too my knowledge, no one ever actually put a bullet in their finger and fired it at someone. See, kids are actually kind of smart and know the difference between a game and reality.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    145. Re:Really? by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the new generation of of the old generation doesn't even know how to piss on the young generation. Why back in my day, we could rank the new generation so bad they would go home crying to their mommies.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    146. Re:Really? by antdude · · Score: 1

      "Mommy, where are you?" :(

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    147. Re:Really? by fredprado · · Score: 1

      It certainly has a lot to do with punishments, and in many many ways. It ends careers, kicks people from jobs, punishes children in schools and even puts people in jail as in this case.

      And it is far from being just institutionalized politeness. It is and always was an attempt of thought control, of indoctrination. One would be hard pressed to find real differences between Political Correctness and 1984's Newspeak.

    148. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can get that for your ipad - brought back squishy memories.

    149. Re:Really? by cavebison · · Score: 1

      This is fucking unreal. Thought crime to the fucking max man.

      And nobody thinks to accuse the developer of the app for the "thought" in the first place.

      Or the movie studios who regularly propagate, and profit from, the thought of bloody revenge for being unjustly treated.

      Or politicians who consider dead children the price we pay for sucking up to the gun lobby.

      Nope, it's some kid letting off steam with a computer game who gets all the attention. Why? Simple - it's EASIER than the above.

    150. Re:Really? by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 1

      And I suspect the same was true for cocaine before it was rendered illegal. Of course, the adverse effects of cocaine use on its user wasn't the basis for making it illegal--at least officially. It's considered too odious to infringe upon a person's liberty for their own well being. But if you can make up even the most frivolous extrapolation that it might lead to harm to another, well lock them up and throw away the key. And as much as I agree about the ideas of personal liberty and the right of self destruction--let's ignore how suicide is effectively if not outright illegal in plenty of those self-described personal liberty states--, I'd feel a lot more comfortable if we'd just admit to the real reason so many things are rendered illegal as they are. Perhaps then they could be limited in scope or later repealed as it's recognized how it isn't the place of the state to regulate such things (exactly the circumstances that lead to the repeal of prohibition in the US--well, that and the decade long violence). But, that is in the same scope as wishing that laws be named in accordance with their purpose or politicians lie less.

      Sad to say, but I'd imagine only a lot more school shootings will eventually make people realize how stupid this idea of targeted zero tolerance really is. And I don't wish for that any more than I wish for a lot more terrorist attacks to show the stupidity of the TSA. But, in the mean time, people have to life with the hassle and the inherent corruption in giving people who shouldn't have the power a position to ruin a lot of peoples lives for no good reason. That's the real travesty here. The whole NSA scandal just makes me feel even more pessimistic that public uproar would even matter.

      --
      Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
    151. Re:Really? by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

      If you think sitting there fat asses on a couch is better more power too ya DOC.. You people amaze me anything to prove someone wrong. And ya my kid played sports and was not a fat lazy couch potato. Go google that moron

      --
      Jack of all trades,master of none
    152. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just a matter of time now that they start black bagging people... Soon getting frustrated in public will be outlawed, then the camera's in your tv's come.. oh wait.. already here.. Just a matter of time before the NSA is taking control of all cameras connected to the internet, if they haven't already. Big Brother is Watching.. We have been Orwellian since the Patriot Act... The ripple effect.. Enjoy what you can.. Soon we'll all be drinking Banana Broccoli Shakes singing I'm an Oscar Meyer Wiener..

    153. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Patriot Act needs to be "eliminated" not amended, eliminated.. History shows amendments just compound the issues and make matters worse.. If a bad idea is discovered as being bad, you get rid of it.. My gratitude for my freedoms going swirly go out to the GOP, George W. Bush and all you motherfuckers that help approve the Patriot Act.. We are experiencing the Ripple Effect right now from another brilliant idea by a group of brilliant leaders between the years 2000 and 2008 that broke the world and have us seeing terrorists in our soup..

    154. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep soon our kids will be calling people thought criminals and we'll all be turning against our neighbors.

    155. Re: Really? by stressjudo · · Score: 1

      Your definition of politically correct is an example of politically correctness. It is not institutionalzed politeness when a person is required to self-censor their speech or their actions. Please read anything by the great Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn to see how damaging this can be to your humanity.

    156. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure you can be arrested prior to any charges being filed. The phrase "arrested on suspicion of" gives 36,300 results in Google News search (and 56,700,000 results in Google web search). Suspicion != charges.

    157. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And ya my kid played sports and was not a fat lazy couch potato.

      Sounds like your kid is on track to be a douchebag jock bully just like you! Also, I'd check your own I.Q. score then google the etymology of the word 'moron' before you start throwing it around like an inflated pigskin

      or I could simply save you the mental exhaustion of a google search. Moron_(psychology)

    158. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've got nothing to add. I would have been sitting in jail the past forty years if this nonsense had been the norm when I was in school. It's a way of protecting the bullies from the people they bully.

      Don't send your kids to government schools!

    159. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, god forbid someone would teach kids to read and write. Sure sounds like a leech to me.

      Teachers like this one you mean? Jeff Bliss tells off uninterested teacher.

    160. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How the fuck do YOU act when someone points a gun at you? Do you act like they have a fucking cell phone in their hands?

      For all the effort you put forth here to make teachers look like idiots, you managed to come out on top winning that award.

      Nope, looks like you just snatched defeat from the jaws of victory yourself there in making the extremely important point that any reasonable person can and does make a huge distinction between having either a gun or a cell phone pointed at them. LEOs need not confuse themselves with reasonable persons.

    161. Re:Really? by drkim · · Score: 1

      If you think sitting there fat asses on a couch is better more power too ya DOC.. You people amaze me anything to prove someone wrong. And ya my kid played sports and was not a fat lazy couch potato. Go google that moron

      I never said I promote "sitting there (s.i.c.) fat asses on a couch"

      I just doubt that "Football,wrestling,basketball,gym class" are safer than this:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QpLUKGDFVM&feature=player_detailpage#t=63

    162. Re:Really? by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 1

      It certainly has a lot to do with punishments, and in many many ways. It ends careers, kicks people from jobs, punishes children in schools

      Wait a moment - you're saying that being impolite can affect your professional and academic prospects? Well, isn't that news!

      and even puts people in jail as in this case.

      Arresting someone for making shooting motions has nothing to do with political correctness and everything to do with fucked up US gun culture and the kneejerk response.

      One would be hard pressed to find

      Typing "one would be hard pressed to" isn't even close to evidence.

    163. Re: Really? by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 1

      Self-censor speech = deciding not to run through a carnival shouting that everyone is a nigger cunt.

      Self-censor actions = deciding not to go around raping everyone.

      Oh god, you're right, this whole "self-censorship" thing is totally unreasonable.

    164. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AMEN!

    165. Re:Really? by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      Yes! We should punish children for having an imagination that does not conform to the acceptably Politically Correct norm!

      That policy has been in place for decades: it's known as gym class, or if you're from some weird part of the country, "PE".

    166. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you imagine the repercussions if he ends up working in a shitty job for the rest of his life due to being educated by these people? They should pull their fingers out and do a better job immediately, lest, in the future they be blamed by the media for failing to educate and provide moral guidance.

      Oh wait - in the US, the only thing that matters is guns and issues surrounding guns.

      Better shoot him to prevent him from shooting his whole class in the future. Preemptive response.

    167. Re:Really? by gagol · · Score: 1

      Natural selection ar work...

      --
      Tomorrow is another day...
    168. Re:Really? by KingBenny · · Score: 1

      the question is how come they're so fucked up ? here schools are trying to install a habit of scanning fingerprints to check attendance and what not. So by the time they graduate being in jail must feel pretty natural. So 'these kids' everyone talks about i wonder who they are. I think they're actually their own kids : insulted, criminalized, raised with little to no hope of a future by a generation who spent it all without a thought, then expected to take care of the financial hole THAT generation left behind. kids these days huh, all i see is less fighting, less drugs outside, less noise, less violence, less anything than when i was trotting about in the streets, people call police faster though. If i hear my old man talk about when he and his friends went out, well that sounds even worse ... less dope, no joints even, but violence and barfights every fucking week. kids these days huh

      --
      Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
    169. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meh, it took the kid what - a few minutes to stitch together those scenes in an app built to do just that? That could just be mild irritation by someone who has some tech skills.

      You have to move with the times. What you really want to look for is intent. As someone who was subjected to what today would be felony levels of psychological, physical, and sexual abuse by my "fellow classmates of '95" I would seriously recommend looking in to what caused him to publicly post those vid/images.

      Hopefully it was just a fit of pique by someone bored with school.

    170. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh ? The article you point to lists only 26 shootings in 1900-1910, 40 in 2000-2010 and 45 in 2010-2013.

    171. Re:Really? by Raedwald · · Score: 1

      Zero Tolerance: A regulatory philosophy that administrators hide behind to avoid having to make decisions and subsequently defend those decisions.

      And also, zero tolerance = zero justice. By replacing human judgement with an inflexible rule, we replace the justice that come from judgement (being judicious) with a mechanical tyranny.

      In the context of school bullying, this will disproportionately fall on the victims of bullying. The bullies are good at bullying. From practice they know just how much they can get away with without crossing the line of official sanction. Frustrated and angry victims are not so practiced, so when they snap, they are more likley to cross the line that gets them punished.

      --
      Ne mæg werig mod wyrde wiðstondan, ne se hreo hyge helpe gefremman.
    172. Re:Really? by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      If it had been done with video effect tools rather than a game cap, it would have been just as worthy of arrest.

      That is to say, not worthy at all. In the US, there's this thing called the "First Amendment". He harmed nobody with that video, it is protected speech.

      The first amendment simply states you're allowed to make the speech. It doesn't say you're immune from the repercussions of said speech.

      I suppose that's the problem with the Constitution - it's all about rights, but the technical thing is, it's not just rights, it's rights and responsibilities.

      Otherwise yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theatre is protected speech. And it is, though you're not immune from charges of inciting a panic, causing death (murder or manslaughter, depending on whether you intended to or not), and other things.

      Likewise, if some known (American) Al-Qaeda associate post a video on YouTube calling for the killing of fellow Americans, is that protected speech? Yes, it is. However, you'd be remiss if the authorities didn't arrest the guy. Unfortunately, this guy fell under the same kind of laws (the law never appreciates humor).

    173. Re:Really? by EpicStory · · Score: 1

      Let me first of all say that facing criminal charges seems extreme in this case. The young man didn't break any laws and didn't commit any criminal acts. So he shouldn't be facing any judgement concerning the law, since he didn't act against it. However, I believe we're overlooking something extremely important. The fact that he considered and entertained the idea of shooting his classmates in frustration and retaliation. That is a problem and it should be addressed. He shouldn't face criminal charges, though. He should be given professional help. I don't care if it's a flash game, app, computer game, whatever. Actually entertaining thoughts of killing other people is a step towards the real thing, especially when it's done in frustration with specific targets. It is a real problem. So, I have a suggestion. Instead of merely chastising our legal system (again, I agree that the young man should not face criminal charges), stand up and propose how the problem should be addressed. And yes, it should be addressed. Think about it. The only reason our legal system is handling the problem is because no one else does. (And in case your wondering, letting it go and allowing the young man to "act as he wants" is not addressing the issue.) So, how can we help this young man? How can we make sure he doesn't take that small step, turning that app into a grim reality?

    174. Re:Really? by EpicStory · · Score: 1

      Entertaining the thoughts of violence is a form stress relief? Whatever happened to reading a book or going for a walk?

    175. Re:Really? by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      What you really want to look for is intent.

      Right. And arrest may be required whilst looking into intent.

    176. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      local police said, "You can't ignore it. We don't know at what time that game becomes reality.

      Why is everyone here so negative all the time? If the local police are right, about video games coming to life, I am going to be riding a dragon soon, and casting magic spells to slay monsters. I can hardly wait!

    177. Re:Really? by fredprado · · Score: 1
      There is a whole lot of ground between "being impolite"and "being politically incorrect". Being politically incorrect means saying any thought that defies the social order, no matter how politely you do so. For example if you point in a study even with a considerable amount of evidence that women are in average worse in ANY given task you can say bye bye to your academic funding.

      Typing "one would be hard pressed to" isn't even close to evidence.

      And exactly because it is true that is the only thing you can say about my statement. You can't really find such differences, mainly because they do not exist.

    178. Re:Really? by lancelet · · Score: 1

      Yeah... I remember a game called Cowboys and Indians. Mass slaughter every lunchtime. And we were Australian kids, so we had little idea what Cowboys or Indians actually were, beyond some vague notion of conflict, horses and rolling plains.

    179. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not arrestworthy, though. The question is, what defines a threat?

      "A statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone."
      "A menace of bodily harm such as may restrain a person's freedom of action."

      "I *want* to kill you" /may/ be a threat.
      "I'm *going* to kill you" /is/ a threat.

      This video? At most, it /may/ be a threat. And where I come from, if you /may/ have been the guy who shoplifted that candy bar, you have committed no crime, you only may have committed a crime, and you cannot be charged with a maybe. You cannot be tried for a maybe (i.e. the trial is what establishes guilt or non-guilt), but not charged.

    180. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed.

      I believe in 'Start as you mean to continue'. It seems that this jock-asshole culture transcends individuals and dictates the whole of US foreign policy:
        * http://johnpilger.com/articles/from-hiroshima-to-syria-the-enemy-whose-name-we-dare-not-speak

    181. Re:Really? by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 1

      For example if you point in a study even with a considerable amount of evidence that women are in average worse in ANY given task you can say bye bye to your academic funding.

      That's simply not true. You will lose funding if you come up with bullshit reasoning to further your agenda, but as long as your methodology is sound, you'll be fine. A lot of crappy pseudo-academics and incompetent researchers lose their shit and blame the system when they come up with bullshit and the community don't buy it, but that's another matter.

      For example, I was just reading a 2007 study by Prof. Thomas on racial bias in jurors. It showed that ethnic minority jurors were more likely to be racist than white jurors in specific cases. Far from ending her career, the innovative and well-argued report has fed back both into the academic community and into the English justice system.

      nd exactly because it is true that is the only thing you can say about my statement. You can't really find such differences, mainly because they do not exist.

      No, it's because "newspeak" is using duplicitous words for things, whereas "political correctness" means avoiding bigotry and rudeness. It's like saying you'd be hard pressed to find the difference between chocolate and aeroplanes, and then tlling telling me my argument is weak when I don't detail the differences.

    182. Re:Really? by fredprado · · Score: 1

      I don't know in which fantasy world you live, but you are completely out of touch with reality, my friend. Sure, there are a few exceptions but, as a general rule, if you want a good chance to have your funding approved either you are a hotshot with a big name or you say what politically correct people want to hear, and a lot of crappy pseudo-academics and incompetent researchers do not lose their shit exactly because they conform with politically correctness and produce results that are what people in power and vocal political groups want to rear.

      "Political correctness" is bigotry in its purest form. It does not in any way or form helps to avoid it, and it does work by forbidding disambiguous wording and by forcing duplicitous and favoring meaningless generalized words in their place. It is exactly the same as Newspeak and you are only unable to see it because you don't want to see it.

    183. Re:Really? by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 1

      if you want a good chance to have your funding approved either you are a hotshot with a big name or you say what politically correct people want to hear

      Ahahahahah, OK, I get it, you're annoyed that you can't get funding to promote your bullshit, and like a whiny teen, you're going to blame it on THE MAN being against you. It's not your fault, fred. It's not that you lack ability or are just too lazy. It's that THE SYSTEM is against you :(. Awww baby.

      "Political correctness" is bigotry in its purest form.

      OK, buddy. Lynching is a less pure form of bigotry than wanting people not to go around saying "nigger". Gotcha.

      You're an idiot.

    184. Re:Really? by fredprado · · Score: 1

      Nah. I am one of those guys who actually work for his money. I don't leech the government, I don't need the government and I am quite satisfied when the government does nothing at all to me, but nice ad hominem. Fallacies like this only show your idiocy and lack of argument.

      And yes, lynching, horrible as it is, is not quite as bad for society as policing thought, but that is unfortunately something beyond your limited capacity to understand.

    185. Re:Really? by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 1

      Ah, OK, so you're speaking from a position of complete ignorance about how academia works, and just making shit up to prove a point. Well done. Did you know capitalists ALL eat puppies for breakfast? Every last one. I read it somewhere on echo-chamber-for-my-worldview.com.

      And no one is "policing" you, ya paranoid little crybaby. You can say "nigger" as much as you want. But political correctness means you have to take responsibility for your actions, and that includes responsibility for the speech you choose to utter. And if you behave like a cunt, you'll be treated like a cunt.

      Which apparently is worse than lynching. Because deliberately nasty people shouldn't have their feelings hurt - only the targets of nastiness. Do you want me to kiss that swastika tattoo better, baby? Are you feeling all oppressed because nobody listens to your crackpot ideas? Aww :(.

      Now get off the government-created Internet, you useless leech!

    186. Re:Really? by alexo · · Score: 1

      I'm looking for examples of beautiful open source code in any language. If you know of any, please let me know.

      Try this repository.

    187. Re:Really? by fredprado · · Score: 1

      You prove time and time again that you are really an idiot. You are the crybaby whose sensibilities are so defiled by my saying all those evil words, but you can cry like a little child to your mother, err I mean government, and tell her I told you bad things.

      Your ignorance is shameful. Regardless of its origins which go back to private institutions as the MIT as well as the government, the Internet is almost completely private nowadays, and I pay for my access. I am leeching nothing. You, on the other hand, are not only a leech, you are a parasite, a disease that must be purged from our world, and eventually will. I will enjoy watching when it happens.

    188. Re:Really? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Thanks. Those are great books, but I couldn't find any source code there. Are you sure there is any?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    189. Re:Really? by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 1

      My sensibilities aren't defiled - but I would support those who are hurt by your pointless cruelty.

      As to the Internet, you speak like a true leech: ignoring the creators in favour of those who ride the coattails of greatness.

      Good to see a capitalist talking (but in very cowardly terms) about killing me. That's your idea of freedom, after all. And yet, even though you hate me and want to see me "purged", I still love you.

    190. Re:Really? by fredprado · · Score: 1

      My sensibilities aren't defiled - but I would support those who are hurt by your pointless cruelty.

      Sure they are. Cry some more, little leech.

      Good to see a capitalist talking (but in very cowardly terms) about killing me.

      Nah. I will only watch while the very system you wish for collapses around you and crushes you, and take pleasure from it. My idea of freedom encompasses the freedom to fail miserably and pay the price for it as you certainly will. Good luck!

    191. Re:Really? by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 1

      Sure they are. Cry some more, little leech.

      Could you build any more straw men?

      Hey, fred, you've wet your pants. "No, I haven't." Sure you have. Wet some more, little baby.

      See how stupid your argument is?

      Nah. I will only watch

      Now, like the coward you are, you're stepping down from a bold "must be purged" to a limp "I will only watch". At least stand by what you said, you slimy little weasel.

      while the very system you wish for collapses around you and crushes you,

      What are you jabbering on about? What system do I wish for? Are you suggesting that I will achieve it? You're just pulling random soundbites out of a hat. Pull yourself together, boy.

      and take pleasure from it.

      A sadist, too. Mother must be proud.

      My idea of freedom encompasses the freedom to fail miserably and pay the price for it as you certainly will. Good luck!

      I'm in my mid-30s and earnt enough money during the first "dot com boom" to last me a lifetime. I now study (mathematics) - and while I certainly do look for grant money, because that's what society has allocated it for, I don't personally need it.

      You know, you may be right. I guess it's remotely possible that I'll lose all rational sense and make some stupid investment decision involving absolutely ALL my money. But it's fairly unlikely. What I have, and what much less intelligent people like you lack, is an appreciation of what put me where I am - and a desire to give back to the system that lifted me up. I choose to be decent to those with a worse lot than myself, because I am capable of both logic and empathy.

      In brief, I'm more materially successful than you will probably ever be, and unlike you, I'm not a sociopathic, sadistic, bed-wetting dullard who - looking through your Slashdot posting history - does little more all day than sing the praises of capitalism as if it were a religion. So much hatred and so little to show for it. I feel sorry for you.

    192. Re:Really? by fredprado · · Score: 1

      I'm in my mid-30s and earnt enough money during the first "dot com boom" to last me a lifetime.

      And I am Bill Gates, little leech.

    193. Re:Really? by alexo · · Score: 1

      What do you mean? They only provide source, no binaries there, sir! (Although you can also get stuff pre-compiled.)

    194. Re:Really? by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 1

      Then I tip my hat to you. I am worth $2-3 million, plus the value of the house. I live more than comfortably off savings interest and investment income. When I made my biggest sale, "you" were earning around $12 million an hour. Congrats. I respect "you" for "your" work on malaria, too.

    195. Re:Really? by kualla · · Score: 1

      And it seems like the media is making a big deal of mass shootings, like they are getting worse.... It sure helps anti-gun groups with the media putting fear into their viewers. If these facts are left unreported in the main stream media, soon gun restrictions will be at recorded highs.

    196. Re:Really? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      It's not really code........

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    197. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every year it gets more and more risky for children to make a childish mistakes. Over things that aren't even real even. I have a story:

      When I was in elementary school I brought a small pocket knife to school because I thought it was cool. I wanted to show a kid I knew, and the kid freaked out and thought I was going to use it on him, running for a teacher. Needless to say the knife was taken by the teacher, and my parents called by the principal, but I never heard about the incident again after that.

      What do you think would happen to me if I had done that as a child today?

    198. Re:Really? by alexo · · Score: 1

      It encodes information in symbols. Namely: "a system of rules shared by the participants in an act of communication, making possible the transmission and interpretation of messages."

      Granted, it's not computer code but then you've been taking this conversation more seriously than I intended it to be.

    199. Re:Really? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'm kind of seriously looking for computer code.................

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    200. Re:Really? by kbx911 · · Score: 0

      marilize legajuana i say

    201. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you punish and take away people's means of non-violent stress relief, do not be surprised when they snap and resort to violent means.

      That's exactly why child-pornography ought to be legalized on the Web: let a few that we don't know suffer to save the many that we do know.

  2. what is happening to this country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Zero tolerance, complete risk avoidance, and neopuritanism while half the country cares more about what happens after you die than the encroaching totalitarianism.

    1. Re:what is happening to this country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I fondly remember playing Assassin when I was in school. God, but classes were so terribly boring, we'd do anything for a little entertainment. Assassin was a blast - "kill" your target, usually with an airsoft gun, and avoid getting killed in the masses between classes.

      So sad that the adults in the room have completely lost the ability to distinguish between fantasy and reality.

    2. Re:what is happening to this country by Goglu · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What is sad is that ***WE*** (my generation, in their 40s, who used to play Assassin) have lost this ability. What became of us???

    3. Re:what is happening to this country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No they don't. They REALLY don't. You have NO concept of the demise of religion in the USA. The few whackos who are left are picked up by the MSM and forced upon the masses as being "Christianity" or being "Islam."
       
      Nine tenths of the country cares about who won about tonight's singing "contest" while the Executives try to force the USA into another war.
       
      Amen.

    4. Re:what is happening to this country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The English are at fault. They shipped the puritans off to America and the criminals to Australia. The Australians are still thanking God on their knees each day for that choice.

    5. Re: what is happening to this country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just remember your fellows bullies they grow up, now they take control of school/gov/industry, now, you know what is happening. You let them grow and take control again... or are the revenge of the nerds that is in control today?

    6. Re:what is happening to this country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Zero tolerance, complete risk avoidance, and neopuritanism while half the country cares more about what happens after you die than the encroaching totalitarianism.

      Funny how, in general, it's NOT the ones worried about what happens after you die that are pushing for the bigger and bigger government that is the power behind that "encroaching totalitarianism".

      You want Social Security? YOU gave the government more power to be used against you.

      You want Medicare? YOU gave the government more power to be used against you.

      You want Obamacare? Single-payer? YOU are giving the government more power to be used against you.

      You want a big government (where everyone pays their "fair share" of taxes)? Well, YOU GOT WHAT YOU ASKED FOR. Don't blame your utter lack of foresight about the consequences on others.

    7. Re:what is happening to this country by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Doesnt it tend to be the folks who "worry more about what happens after you die" who tend to support gun rights most fervently?

      Just saying, try pulling this "arrest a kid for a gun app" crap in Arkansas.

    8. Re:what is happening to this country by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      It's in Louisiana.

    9. Re: what is happening to this country by tipo159 · · Score: 2

      'Assassin' is still played at my daughter's college. Nerf guns are used.

    10. Re: what is happening to this country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just for Saint Pete sake, ask her not to post a video of her shooting nerf Weapons or she will be jailed-tagged-blacklisted-charged for life.
      This are the times of our lives (use Queen music for background mood).

    11. Re:what is happening to this country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      assassin was out in the open, not the cowardly game this kid was playing

    12. Re:what is happening to this country by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      You got old. My father used to street race (the dangerous kind) and was a jackass when it came to his children driving, pretending that he never drove any way other than old-man-driving.

      More than 50% of Americans have tried marijuana with no ill effects, yet most of them now are for banning it. As if they could handle it, but believe nobody else can. It's a form of insanity.

    13. Re:what is happening to this country by DiEx-15 · · Score: 1

      Answer: It involves a hand basket and a trip to a lake full of fire.

  3. Oh good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    He said it was a result of him being frustrated and tired of being bullied.

    and what a better way to deal with this than let the police and justice system bully him instead

    1. Re:Oh good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      My thoughts exactly.

      You can't ignore it. We don't know at what time that game becomes reality. He said it was a result of him being frustrated and tired of being bullied. He said that he had no intentions of hurting anybody. We have to take all threats seriously and we have no way of knowing that without investigating and getting to the bottom of it.

      Ok, fine, I get that. You have to investigate it. That's not a problem.

      The problem is the criminal charges. All that does is tell others that they should not harmlessly lash out. They should keep things bottled up until they violently erupt.

    2. Re:Oh good by AlphaWoIf_HK · · Score: 1

      Ok, fine, I get that.

      I don't. That makes no sense. Zero tolerance is nonsense.

      --
      Da derp dee derp da teedly derpee derpee dum. Rated PG-13.
  4. YADOUS by hebertrich · · Score: 1

    Yet another display of unbeleivable stupidity. Though tasteless the app be , it's still a stupid game and frankly .. haven't we all something better to do than waste time on this total waste of time article ? Cops and school are bunch of idiots and so is the guy holding the cam .. moving right along folks :D

    1. Re:YADOUS by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Your post is also an unbelievable display of stupidity. Your solution to what is clearly now a pervasive problem in this country is to ignore it and "move along." Seriously? Sure, there is a lot of idiocy in this whole scenario, but when idiocy results in the harmless posting of a video on youtube that is one thing. The idiocy of arresting the kid is quite another. The first was a commission of error by a high school student and nobody lost their freedom. The second is an actual crime. A grown man in a position of authority has used that authority to take away the freedom of a youth to cover his own ass and appear "tough on crime." I fully intended to post contact information to this idiot so that we all could send him a note telling him what a criminal he truly is, but The Terrebone Parish Website (administration info in link, presumably) is down at the moment, so at least not everyone is irresponsible enough to see this and shrug it off with an air of irresponsibility.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    2. Re:YADOUS by Zumbs · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think this article is a telling display of a society moving in the wrong direction. A boy was being bullied and his cry for help (the video) has now lead to his arrest, putting him in an even worse situation. In a sane society, it would have lead to him getting help to tackle the bullying and get on with his life.

      --
      The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
    3. Re:YADOUS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cops and school are bunch of idiots and so is the guy holding the cam .. moving right along folks :D

      But where would the U.S.A. end up if it were a crime to be an idiot? Law enforcement would essentially be deadlocked.

    4. Re:YADOUS by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      It's not even that tasteless though. Did you never make a gun with your fingers as a kid and shoot someone? It's not much different

    5. Re:YADOUS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The student is charged for, quote: "terrorizing and interference of the operation of a school."

      Simply put, anyone but his attourney aiding this kid, would be aiding terrorism. So the best we can do is put him in Guantamo and forget about him, so as to not risking any more American Lives, if just by accident.Especially now, with the injustice done to this kid, statistics show heightened motivation for revenge.

      Next: Bullied people to be tagged for future culling, so as to maximize Homeland safety and peace.

    6. Re:YADOUS by Corngood · · Score: 1

      Already +5, but this. So much this.

    7. Re:YADOUS by markhahn · · Score: 1

      no, you are wrong. pretend or rehearsal assault is a serious mental problem. protective over-reaction is just a quantitative issue - not reacting at all, OTOH, would indicate a huge problem with the school.

    8. Re:YADOUS by hebertrich · · Score: 1

      I totally admit and agree that in this case the reaction of the authorities is totally out of order. totally without measure and common sense.
      the " let's move right along " is because of all the idiocy we see recently in the US .I mean .. teenage sweethearts getting jailed , people like the student here who has committed no crime , shot no one facing criminal charges , Iowa granting firearms carry licences to the blind , i mean the level of surreal idiocy we witness is what i am talking about when i say " let's move along " . It had became all the way too common for state attorneys to try to make capital trying to prosecute innocent people for crimes that they fabricate for their own advancement. He's done nothing wrong yet faces prosecution . Yet more idiocy. The US system is broken badly.
      The renewal and changes needed to make the US Government and Justice system , not to mention immigration , hjealth care etc etc regain it's credibility at home and abroad are too numerous to list here. The work required to put the US back on the track to sanity is incredible. My feeling is that the US politicians are way too busy getting breakfast at Tiffany's to fix anything in this country. It is out of despair and totally in irony that i written the comment . The situation is so sad that it's beyond what can be explained. What's worse is lawmakers stand by idle and watch the show of their idiotic lawmaking and smile back at us all .

      Frankly .. The founding Fathers of the Country would cry at today's America , I know i do .

      Sincerely your's

    9. Re:YADOUS by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      Fair enough. I suppose I shouldn't have called your post stupid, but it is - ironically - because we evidently feel the same way. I just get really over-sensitive when I think someone is saying something happens all the time so it is no big deal. When that something is the trampling of the rights of US citizens everywhere, I concede that it is happening all the time, but that makes it more egregious not less so, as I'm sure you would agree.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    10. Re:YADOUS by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Matches my experience. I got suspended for reporting that I was attacked by a group of 5 students. My report of the incident was considered a confession. The others didn't confess, so I was the only one suspended for fighting. So I've reported a bully once, and it made my life worse. I got in less trouble for the two times I hit first. Nobody reported those.

    11. Re:YADOUS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The idiocy of arresting the kid is quite another.

      It's not just idiocy. This action is every bit as illegal as the actions of school principals who send kids home for wearing NRA shirts in schools without dress codes.

      In a free country there is and can be no legitimate basis for such an arrest, and ANY right that can be asserted as reasonable in a free country is protected by the 9th Amendment as a right retained by the people.

      This is like arresting a child for playing with crayons because those crayons could potentially be used to put out somebody else's eye. There is a big difference between potential danger and actual. Should we arrest every child who has ever played with crayons because of the crippling threat they present to others in society?

      The arresting officer has clearly and indisputably violated his oath to uphold the Bill of Rights. As that oath is a precondition for being a police officer in every jurisdiction, the moment the officer attempted to execute the arrest, he instantly and permanently became a private citizen. As such, his action is not a legal arrest, it's criminal kidnapping. It is not within the legal authority of the government to grant either immunity or pardon for this action, or to retain this former officer in any position of public trust or responsibility, and any attempt to do so makes the officials involved accessories to criminal kidnapping and places them in violation of their oaths in turn.

      The other officers in this police department should have put a stop to this as soon as they found out it was happening, and some of them are likely to be found to be accessories or at least negligent, either of which disqualifies them in turn for holding any position of public trust or responsibility. The same is likely to be true for the district attorney in the district, if this situation is not corrected immediately.

      Discipline by the parents, or the school (if and only if the parents were unwilling or incapable or acting), might be reasonable in this case, possibly with some counselling, but not legal action by the government.

    12. Re:YADOUS by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      "It's not just idiocy. This action is every bit as illegal ..."

      You probably should have quoted me all the way up to the point where I said it was a crime. You would have only had to drag your mouse two more sentences. That being said, I share your outrage.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  5. We should make this app illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder how many kids have been tragically murdered by phone apps.

    So sad, we should make phones and apps illegal.

    1. Re:We should make this app illegal by someone1234 · · Score: 0

      And let school kids to bear arms, so they can fight back this threat!

      --
      Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
  6. I've heard enough! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Send this terrorist to Guantanamo.

  7. What... by Ruzgfpegk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So they don't think it's a problem if he's bullied, but if he plays a game where he does something about it (because no one else will ever do anything) he becomes the bad guy? And they still wonder why they have school shootings?

    1. Re:What... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is America - if you don't fit in there is something wrong with you.

    2. Re:What... by boarder8925 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Look at it as a life lesson: They don't want kids growing up to stand up to the bullies they'll face in adult life, so they don't let them do it as kids.

    3. Re:What... by RocketChild · · Score: 1

      If he felt bullied before, now he is really going to get fucked over by the ultimate bullies...media and law enforcement.

    4. Re:What... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes, but if your parents have insurance, you can get a pill to make you fit in better.

    5. Re:What... by hedwards · · Score: 2

      Bullying isn't something that schools care about. And neither is child abuse. In order to get the schools to care, you pretty much have to be beating the kids in front of the principal. It gets rather ridiculous as simply just seeing a bunch of belt shaped welts on a kid isn't enough to forward things for investigation, because that could just be corporal punishment. Well, hitting a kid with a belt isn't punishment, and leaving marks is definitely not punishment.

      As long as schools aren't held accountable for looking the other way and refusing to do anything, this bullshit will continue. If the reports aren't being investigated, then precisely why shouldn't students be permitted to take matters into their own hands? Is it really reasonable to expect students to keep reporting it even after it gets ignored the first dozen times?

    6. Re:What... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So they don't think it's a problem if he's bullied, but if he plays a game where he does something about it (because no one else will ever do anything) he becomes the bad guy?
      And they still wonder why they have school shootings?

      I was just thinking the same,
      what should that kid learn from all this?
      that the bullies gets the fun (of course for them this is fun), so better be a bully.
      maybe an armed one?

    7. Re:What... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't that how reality works? "Freaks and outcasts are defective and should be punished and reviled for not being normal".

    8. Re:What... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullying (i.e. unjustified coercion) is exactly how government came to be the most successful business in world history. It's no surprise that they consider the victims of bullying more of a threat (to their own agendas) than the aggressors. The bullies are promoting coercion, not fighting against it.

    9. Re:What... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In order to get the schools to care, you pretty much have to be beating the kids in front of the principal. It gets rather ridiculous as simply just seeing a bunch of belt shaped welts on a kid isn't enough to forward things for investigation, because that could just be corporal punishment. Well, hitting a kid with a belt isn't punishment, and leaving marks is definitely not punishment.

      This happened in Louisiana. There is corporal punishment in the public schools there. One of our poorest and most backwards states.

    10. Re:What... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It means if you're going to do the time, may as well do the crime. Why bother with all the B.S. of being penalized by the criminal justice system if you're going to dick around and get your jollies from a harmless simulation? May as well get notoriety and be locked up for a real reason and leave a path of bloodshed and carnage in your wake.

      Seems like the wrong message to send, but that's what punishing thoughtcrime leads to.

      Anyhow if you seriously believe most people eventually do things based on simulations, then based on flight simulators and other games like GTA, then many cities around the world should be smoldering ruins of vehicular wreckage instead of having a singular event like 9/11 happen. This is not the case, so harm coming from any simulated events is likely a very tiny miniscule fractional outlier. (You have better odds of being struck by lightning, being in a car accident, or maybe even winning the lotto.)

    11. Re:What... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That sounds about right: raising a generation of slaves.

  8. SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by lesincompetent · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We have to take all threats seriously [...]

    Of course you have to but no, an app is not a threat.

    1. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by imnotanumber · · Score: 1

      We have to take all threats seriously [...]

      Of course you have to but no, an app is not a threat.

      Of course not. I think that what got him in trouble was "... unwisely posted a video of it on YouTube".

      The video alone, without the app, could be seen as a threat.

      Of course, after some some clarification, things should not have escalated as they did.

    2. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do not threat, do, young Padawan. There is no threat.

    3. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by hodet · · Score: 2

      Ya, they must take it seriously, the kid should be down at the firing range with an AK47 taking it out on a target with a human silhouette.

    4. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by 0111+1110 · · Score: 3, Informative

      It is unfortunate that we live in a society where posting a game video on youtube is seen as "unwise".

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    5. Re:SubjectsInCommentsAreStupid by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

      And what would you told him how to handle it knowing far too many children have been murdered by children thinking and acting just like him.

      --
      Jack of all trades,master of none
  9. Idiots by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

    With all the school shooting we've had in the United States, it's just not a very good game to be playing at this time

    Yeah, except that the app itself tells the users "not to use real guns in the real world". I think it's actually a pretty good thing to play with at this time, lest the people forget.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
    1. Re:Idiots by Samizdata · · Score: 1

      With all the school shooting we've had in the United States, it's just not a very good game to be playing at this time

      Yeah, except that the app itself tells the users "not to use real guns in the real world". I think it's actually a pretty good thing to play with at this time, lest the people forget.

      I just feel sorry for the dev. They'll make a nice bit of cash as the Streisand effect kicks in, but it shan't be long until the petitions start and Apple pulls the controversial app from the store, so as to keep up their facade. C'MON, PEOPLE, THINK OF THE DEVS!

      --
      It's not the years, honey, it's the mileage. - Colonel Henry Walton Jones, Jr., Ph.D.
  10. Guns are bad by ArcadeMan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Stop with the stupid "right to bear arms" crap and stuff like this will not bother anyone. It's just a game on a display.

    And I'd say that 99% of the school shootings are due to people being harassed and bullied by groups, so teaching kids to be better persons and tolerate others would do a much better job than trying to catch oppressed people in the last stage of "I don't know what the fuck I'm supposed to do to get out of this situation anymore".

    1. Re:Guns are bad by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 0, Troll

      "Stop with the stupid "right to bear arms" crap and stuff like this will not bother anyone. It's just a game on a display."

      Sure. Why not join the party. We can stop with the stupid "freedom of speech" stuff, the stupid "right against unreasonable search and seizure", and while we are at it the stupid "pursuit of happiness" crap. You can stop bucking for Supreme Court Justice now; unfortunately there are no openings at the moment.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    2. Re:Guns are bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, it's just a game like you said.

      When I used to play Quake 2 online (Action Quake mod) the teams were usually geeks vs. bullies, we'd use custom skins with photos of the school bullies for one team, and our own faces for the other.

      Some of those matches were recorded too.

      How many people were killed as a result? None.

    3. Re:Guns are bad by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Stop with the stupid "right to bear arms" crap and stuff like this will not bother anyone.

      Buh? And also, buh? Nobody is suggesting that kids have the right to take actual firearms to school, so how on earth did you get from there to here?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Guns are bad by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      "And I'd say that 99% of the school shootings are due to people being harassed"
      100% of school shootings are due to a nutcase with a gun. Sorry but no matter how bullied you are or what names you are called that does not give you the right to shoot up a school. Lots of people including most of the people that probably post on slashdot where bullied at one time or another and did not shoot up a school.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    5. Re:Guns are bad by DarkOx · · Score: 2

      The problem is there is to much enforcement. It used to be that if someone was bullying you at some point you go fed up with it and just took a swing at them. You did not even have to win the fight, after that the other guy would at least get their may be unwanted negative consequences to picking on you all the time.

      Schools used to let this stuff happen a little bit in elementary and middle school grades; where students were unlikely to do serious or permanent injury to each other. This way by the time they'd reached high school most students had learned either first hand or observation of others that violence is rarely an optimal choice; but also how to interact with each other in ways that avoid so many conflicts. Its part of socialization.

      A few minor physical dust ups; I think are part of the socialization of little boys.

      That does not happen now. Some adult always steps in to thwart these grade school altercations, and the result is really maladjusted adolescents and adults that don't have a good cooping strategies and when they do get the point of "I don't know what the fuck I'm supposed to do to get out of this situation anymore" a selection of something life altering and out scale often gets selected.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    6. Re:Guns are bad by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      We've taken away the right to respond appropriately on the school grounds. If you give it back to your bully, you get in trouble. If you're going to get in trouble, might as well make it worthwhile. That's what we did.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    7. Re:Guns are bad by LMariachi · · Score: 1

      I think parent means stop bringing up the Second Amendment to defend this kid because it’s not the least bit relevant. He wasn’t bearing arms, he was bearing a smartphone.

    8. Re:Guns are bad by sjames · · Score: 1

      Nobody said anything about rights or claimed shooting the school up is justified. It's just simple psychology. If you abuse someone long enough and trap them sufficiently in their situation, they will crack up every time. And then right or wrong, you get school shootings. Kinda like when sick people beat a dog to make it mean.

      It's amazing how often the adults in the situation will condone the bullying for years but then when something happens they will disclaim all responsibility before the gun even cools. Yet they claim to be 'responsible' adults.

    9. Re:Guns are bad by sjames · · Score: 1

      Effectively, the adults lock the picked on kid in a pressure cooker and do nothing while the bully turns up the heat. They do it with zero tolerance policies. They refuse to recognize sore provocation as even a mitigating circumstance. Effectively the adults take part in the bullying.

    10. Re:Guns are bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      99% of school shootings? I hope we don't have enough mass-murders of children that we can get two significant figures on your assertion.

    11. Re:Guns are bad by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      I do not condone any action. You are saying it is caused by bullying which is a bad thing. I am saying that putting the blame on harassment for mass murder is just as dumb as blaming any other external cause. It is scapegoating.
      The more direct blame is on the parents. Why did they not know their own child's mental state and the acquiring of weapons. Of course they will not blame the parents because they lost their child.
      Why not blame the school as whole for allowing the bullying. Well that does happen but the results are busting kids for shooting people with pop tart guns. Zero-thought policies.
      "If you abuse someone long enough and trap them sufficiently in their situation, they will crack up every time."
      And that is the parents failing to provide the love, support, and safe environment for their child. Their home and family should be the escape for them. If a child is suffering that much it is the parents that need to go and move them to a new school or make sure they get the help developing the coping skills they need.
      Bullies are terrible it should not be allowed but bullies are also children and they show a failure on their parents side of the equation to not teach compassion and discipline to their children.
      In the end it all comes down to the parents or lack of them.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    12. Re:Guns are bad by sjames · · Score: 1

      The parents are required to send their kids to school. They are also required to both go to work to provide basic necessities for their kids. They are not allowed to hang out in the school to see what the situation is there, they have to rely on the supposed adults running the school to act 'en loco parentis' as the law says they do.

    13. Re:Guns are bad by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Kids still come home. Anyone that expects a school to care as much about their child or do as much for their child as they do is a fool.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    14. Re:Guns are bad by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      Maybe I was confused by the fact that I haven't seen anything to suggest that anyone was doing that in the first place. Maybe I missed it?

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    15. Re:Guns are bad by sjames · · Score: 1

      Are you a school administrator? You seem willing to blame absolutely anything or everything else for what goes on in school when the administrator is supposed to be in charge. He or she is there to see what is actually happening and to control it. The parent sees the kid at home, but not at school where the problem interactions are happening.

      Should the parent detect a problem, the school administor usually smiles and nods while the parents discuss it with him, promise that appropriate action will be taken, assures them it is no big deal, then does nothing.

    16. Re:Guns are bad by LMariachi · · Score: 1

      Hm, maybe it was a knee-jerk benefit of the doubt; I shudder to think he meant it the way you took it.

    17. Re:Guns are bad by Xarvh · · Score: 1

      But plenty of people are suggesting that weapons should be widely available, which in turns makes it easier for kids to illegally obtain them.

    18. Re:Guns are bad by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      Uhm ok... No ACTUAL weapons were used in the making of this story. So what does the fact it is easier for kids to illegally obtain them have to do with anything? Because the kid MIGHT get a weapon? That isn't a good enough reason to arrest him. So really the "right to bear arms" "crap" has nothing to do with this story.

    19. Re:Guns are bad by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The problem is there is to much enforcement.

      The problem is selective enforcement. When I got bullied by jocks, pushed around, punched kicked whatever, nothing ever happened to anyone if I reported it. When I fought back and blacked a kid's eye I got expelled. I guess they're preparing you for adulthood, which pretty much works the same way.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    20. Re:Guns are bad by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Nope not an administrator or teacher I have nothing to do with the school system at all. Parents are responsible for their kids. And since school administrators are getting kids arrest for playing video games and for "shooting" fellow students with a gun made out of a pop tart I would say your statement about them nodding and doing nothing is far from 100% factual.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    21. Re:Guns are bad by sjames · · Score: 1

      OK, so they nod and then do something stupid at the problem that avoids actual effort, thought, or even the slightest hint of taking professional responsability.

      I'd say no responsible parent would turn their kids over to the likes of them for any period of time, but it's the law and getting the kids taken away wouldn't be very responsible either.

    22. Re:Guns are bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      due to people being harassed and bullied by groups, so teaching kids to be better persons and tolerate others would do a much better job

      Dead wrong. The problem is having greater tolerance merely means the bullies have to push harder/longer before one of the bullied explodes in a nasty way. The solution is to punish the bullies (perhaps by letting one of the bullied fight the bully) before they manage to push someone over the edge.

    23. Re:Guns are bad by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I do not condone any action. You are saying it is caused by bullying which is a bad thing. I am saying that putting the blame on harassment for mass murder is just as dumb as blaming any other external cause. It is scapegoating.

      If there was no bullying, there'd be no shooting. "Scapegoating" is identifying the cause in a manner that doesn't scapegoat the person you wish to be blamed.

      Bullies are terrible it should not be allowed but bullies are also children and they show a failure on their parents side of the equation to not teach compassion and discipline to their children.

      The bullies don't bully in front of parents. What do you suggest parents of a bully do?

      In my son's kindergarten, they had a bully. My son reported a pinch. I talked to the teachers, and they knew the kid. He started with hitting, then went to biting. Apparently, he graduated to pinching because it was easier to do in view of teachers without getting caught. Parents think their children are angels. So, put the parents in jail and send the kid to foster home care? Or leave him to bully for years, refining his technique as he keeps getting caught? What's the fix?

    24. Re:Guns are bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been reading Tom Sawyer to my 10-year-old. Tom constantly gets into scraps with other boys (even his friends). After the first one of these fights, my son's comment was, "Wow, he's kind of an idiot." Kids these days ...

    25. Re:Guns are bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Odd how similar this is to what kids did in the old days, namely putting drawings or photos of their enemies on their dartboards ...

      I suppose this goes to show that kids don't change very much from one generation to the next.

      There must have been an awful lot of attacks with terrorist darts in those days ...

      We should probably just arrest anybody that ever touched a dart, and send them to that special place in Cuba, as a potential terrorist. You can't be too careful, after all.

    26. Re:Guns are bad by Samizdata · · Score: 1

      An ARMED smartphone....

      --
      It's not the years, honey, it's the mileage. - Colonel Henry Walton Jones, Jr., Ph.D.
    27. Re:Guns are bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The bullies don't bully in front of parents. What do you suggest parents of a bully do?

      I suggest taking into account the fact that a high percentage of bullies learn their behaviour from their parents/family either by seeing their parents/family bully, being bullied/abused by their parents/family, or most likely a combination of both. In many of these cases it is not for the parents of the bully to rectify the problem as they probably don't see a problem, (little Billy hit a little faggot nerd kid? So What?,) condone the behaviour, (You hit a little faggot nerd kid son, good for you,) or try to solve the problem with more abuse, (I got dragged into school to deal with your shit again, you're gonna get one helluva beating).

      Please do not think I'm saying the bully is not to blame, they most definately are, but they often have the idea that what they are doing is okay because they see members of their own family doing exactly the same things.

      Ever wondered just where bullies learn to hide their actions from those in authority in the first place?

      Captcha: parents

    28. Re:Guns are bad by Gibgezr · · Score: 1

      So kid comes homes, all depressed. Parents see depression and kid acting wierd, ask kid what is wrong, kid sez 'I am being bullied at school'.

      Then what are the parents supposed to do? They can't do much more than call the school and complain. In the end, it's the school administration that has to ACT on this...but they don't. They call meetings with the kids and their parents, they ask them 'did you bully Johnny?', they all claim 'NOPE, NOT US'...school gives vague admonishments at best (or partially/entirely blames depressed, bullied kid at worst), and nothig changes except the bullies realize nothing will ever happen, so they can be even more brazen in their bullying. The parents can't do fuck all except grab a baseball bat and go visiting the bullies, which seems like a horrible idea.

      Schools need to handle what happens at school; parents aren't even allowed to pop in and check on things at most schools.

  11. Solidarity by hammeraxe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think all his classmates should download the app, make similar videos and upload them to youtube just to show how ridiculous this is. They can't arrest them all.
    The guy is facing CRIMINAL CHARGES for fucks sake!

    1. Re:Solidarity by silas_moeckel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The only people that should be facing criminal charges are the school admins and police that were involved. The kid is 15. What moron make an interfering with a school a criminal law??? It's the inmates responsibility to attempt escape, POW 101 :)

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    2. Re:Solidarity by Morpf · · Score: 1

      I wont bet on the "They can't arrest them all." part. Sadly everything seems possible. Now the harassed student is even bullied by the state instead of the bullies being taken care of. If you ask me this seems a) totally insane and b) like a perfect way to force someone even more into a corner, leading to potentially even bigger problems.

      tl;dr;
      I am disgusted by this society punishing the victim.

    3. Re:Solidarity by Spiked_Three · · Score: 1

      yeah, they can arrest him, that is obvious.The law still allows stupid people to do stupid things, like make arrests for ridiculous reasons.

      but in most cases (but not all) you are still entitled to a trial by your peers, for the exact reason of preventing stupidness from becoming final.

      go to trial, with a jury, and tell the panzy ass teachers, administration, and poor excuse for a parent on the other side to lick your balls (metaphorically). If they then find you guilty, you will then realize you are living in a country where jail is the better place

      Bicycle helmet laws anyone? As far as I am concerned we overprotect already, and as much as I would like to claim that I switched from republican to democrat, stuff like this keeps me from committing to the party of overbearing regulation.

      --
      slashdot troll = you make a compelling argument I do not like the implications of.
    4. Re:Solidarity by richlv · · Score: 1

      heh. announce this one and let's see how many of his classmates are tough enough to try this ;)

      --
      Rich
    5. Re:Solidarity by dbIII · · Score: 2

      Bicycle helmet laws anyone

      Construction helmet rules anyone? Both are there for a good reason and shouldn't be bundled in with an over reaction to a game.

    6. Re:Solidarity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can't arrest them all.

      please, feel free to test that theory.. but submit your change of address at the post office, first.

    7. Re:Solidarity by gweihir · · Score: 1

      You think they cannot arrest them all? How naive are you? Of course they can! The US has the highest prison capacity in the world for a reason. (Which incidentally makes it the "least free" country on the planet in a very real sense. Quite an accomplishment.)

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    8. Re:Solidarity by MikeBabcock · · Score: 2

      Americans in general seem completely oblivious to their over-use of imprisonment.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    9. Re:Solidarity by Crudely_Indecent · · Score: 5, Interesting

      CRIMINAL CHARGES

      I'm wondering exactly what law he broke... Really, he had no weapon - just a phone. The next thing you'll hear about is some kid being arrested because he gave a dirty look at someone, because surely he was "thinking" of killing somebody.

      I hope a false arrest charge is brought against those responsible for this waste of public resources.

      --


      "Lame" - Galaxar
    10. Re:Solidarity by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      Construction helmet rules are put in place by private companies to avoid liability for stupid behavior by employees. If you don't wear your hard hat, they can kick you off the property and/or fire you, and if you sue them for an injury sustained while not wearing a hard hat in a hard hat area they've got one hell of a defense.

      Bicycle helmet laws are put in place by the state, and if you don't wear it they will fine you and potentially put you in jail. See the difference?

    11. Re:Solidarity by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      You think they cannot arrest them all? How naive are you? Of course they can! The US has the highest prison capacity in the world for a reason. (Which incidentally makes it the "least free" country on the planet in a very real sense. Quite an accomplishment.)

      No, they can't arrest them all, because we still live in a democracy. If one kid goes to jail nobody cares and the politicians keep doing what they're doing, but when a whole classroom follows along, all of their parents start making noise, and when parents start making that kind of noise, it attracts the attention of the news media, and that attracts the attention of the politicians, and that solves the problem.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    12. Re:Solidarity by c5402dc53929211e1efb · · Score: 2

      Someone should just kick the principle's teeth in and post that to youtube. Let the fucker know what bullying feels like.

    13. Re:Solidarity by markhahn · · Score: 1

      "uttering threats" is broadly defined. so keep your homicidal thoughts entirely to yourself.

    14. Re:Solidarity by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      TFA: "arrested for terrorizing and interference of the operation of a school."
      He didn't terrorize anyone. And I'm not sure how he interfered with the operation of the school. The article doesn't indicate this, but my guess is, he didn't actually interfere with the operation of the school.

    15. Re:Solidarity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bicycle helmets are only mandatory if you are a minor.

    16. Re:Solidarity by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The funny thing is when the studies show the number one predictor of recidivism is time spent in prison. Smaller sentences would reduce crime more than the longer ones. All long sentences do is create better criminals.

    17. Re:Solidarity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TFA: "arrested for terrorizing and interference of the operation of a school."

      I guess a loud sneeze during a quiet class could also fall into that category.

    18. Re:Solidarity by alexo · · Score: 1

      I think all his classmates should download the app, make similar videos and upload them to youtube just to show how ridiculous this is. They can't arrest them all.

      They don't need to arrest all of them. They just need to make them fear that they will be the one made example of.
      That's how you terrorize and control the population.

    19. Re:Solidarity by alexo · · Score: 1

      They can't arrest them all.

      please, feel free to test that theory.. but submit your change of address at the post office, first.

      See my previous comment.
      You are a living proof that the strategy is working!

  12. "We have to take all threats seriously" by kthreadd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No you don't. You should use your brain first.

    1. Re:"We have to take all threats seriously" by oodaloop · · Score: 0

      And if that kid ending up shooting the other one, and it turned out the police knew of this incident and didn't even investigate, that'd fine, right? No one would get upset at the police not doing their job and investigating a possible threat?

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    2. Re:"We have to take all threats seriously" by kthreadd · · Score: 4, Informative

      Except there was no incident. No one was harmed and there was no intention to harm. He was playing an augmented reality game, that was all.

    3. Re:"We have to take all threats seriously" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, investigate. How long could that take, a couple of hours? Why the fuck was the kid arrested?

      Seriously, the cunt that reported the kid should be arrested for filing a false police report.

    4. Re:"We have to take all threats seriously" by pablo_max · · Score: 1

      look at it from the police perspective. What if they do nothing. What if next year this kid really does do something? Who do you think will get the blame? The police will. So, they act, even though they know it is complete nonsense. Because they know that if this kid does anything down the line, they will be a scape goat for ignoring the obvious "warning signs".
      Crap I know, but that is how it could go down.

    5. Re:"We have to take all threats seriously" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That hypothetical event completely justifies ruining some kid's life, thanks for pointing it out.

    6. Re:"We have to take all threats seriously" by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      By that same reasoning I guess they had better arrest everyone who plays violent video games. It's the only way to be sure.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    7. Re:"We have to take all threats seriously" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you please explain what the police is meant to investigate? Or by "investigate" you mean "please lock him in a cell and throw the keys because he is scary"?

    8. Re:"We have to take all threats seriously" by kthreadd · · Score: 3, Informative

      look at it from the police perspective. What if they do nothing. What if next year this kid really does do something? Who do you think will get the blame? The police will. So, they act, even though they know it is complete nonsense. Because they know that if this kid does anything down the line, they will be a scape goat for ignoring the obvious "warning signs".
      Crap I know, but that is how it could go down.

      They should arrest him if he actually does something illegal. You don't arrest people because of "warning signs."

    9. Re:"We have to take all threats seriously" by TrekkieGod · · Score: 1

      And if that kid ending up shooting the other one, and it turned out the police knew of this incident and didn't even investigate, that'd fine, right?

      They did more than investigate, they arrested him. I'm not sure what the charges could possibly be.

      --

      Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

    10. Re:"We have to take all threats seriously" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No you don't. You should use your brain first.

      Suppose, for a moment, that the police care about their own future first, and the future of the kid they're arresting or the community at large second (if at all). Then it kinda looks like they are using their brains.

      They don't know whether the kid is actually going to shoot up the school in a couple years.
      * Suppose they don't arrest him now, and he goes on to shoot up the school; when the media digs into it, they'll see that the cops saw "clear evidence" that he was going to shoot up the school, and they'll go into their favorite narrative about these things -- how somebody "missed the signs" that they should have seen.
      * Suppose they do arrest him now, and he goes on to shoot up the school; when the media digs into it, they'll see that the cops made the right call a couple years ago, and pass by looking for someone else who "missed the signs".
      * Suppose they don't arrest him now, and he doesn't shoot up the school; big deal, nothing happens.
      * Suppose they do arrest him now, and he doesn't shoot up the school; big deal, nothing happens except a few people on the internet whining about jackboots and reason in defiance of all "common sense".

      What would you do? Gamble on being the scapegoat for the next media hysteria? or put up with a tiny minority's criticism that the general public will never agree with, because they're too busy panicking and calling it "common sense"? It may not be the most moral choice, but it sure looks like he's using his brain.

      We see this over and over again; from "nobody ever got fired for choosing IBM" to the ludicrous number of people in the Middle East who, when handed a bird with a leg-band and told "we found this, and we think it's an Israeli spy-bird", pass it up the line (in some cases all the way to the capital), instead of saying "it's a leg-band for tracking migration, you fools" and letting it go. If there's even the slightest risk that some future revelation will turn "the most reasonable choice" (at the time) into "a colossal screw-up anyone could have avoided" and possibly even cost you your job, the bureaucrat always chooses the safe option. IMO this is a huge structural problem of career employment in government -- we'd get along a lot better if almost all government positions were filled by random draft from the population, for a term of 2 or 3 years (perhaps right after college or between high school and college), the way some nations do their military, so that people would at least have the chance to do their job for the public good without having to fear for their future employment.

    11. Re:"We have to take all threats seriously" by jesseck · · Score: 1

      The parent that reported the kid is probably the parent of one of the bullies... so their child's safety was at stake. Nothing like a parent showing their kid another way to permanently fuck a life up.

    12. Re:"We have to take all threats seriously" by sharklasers · · Score: 1

      Some day that might just happen - I wouldn't be surprised if violent video games are eventually outlawed as a last resort to dealing with school shootings.

    13. Re:"We have to take all threats seriously" by 0111+1110 · · Score: 2

      It sounds like you cannot have a serious discussion period. This kid made a little video game. That is not against the law no matter what the characters look like in it. The cop in this case is a dangerous thug and a threat to us all and our freedoms. He belongs in prison or at the very least he should lose his job. I don't think we want to rely on the judgement of some mentally retarded cop as to whether or not people get arrested for thoughtcrime.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    14. Re:"We have to take all threats seriously" by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      It looks more and more like the war on boys.
      http://ideas.time.com/2013/08/19/school-has-become-too-hostile-to-boys/

      I want them to start suspending girls for playing with dolls and playing house. Clearly this will lead to teenage pregnancy. 100% of the girls that pregnant under the age of 18 have played with dolls or knew someone that did!

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    15. Re:"We have to take all threats seriously" by pla · · Score: 1

      And if that kid ending up shooting the other one, and it turned out the police knew of this incident and didn't even investigate, that'd fine, right?

      Do you see just a bit of grey area between "ignore" and "arrest"? Hmm?

      A parent complained. Fine. The police have a five minute chat with the kid, and maybe, if he sounds completely screwed up, ask for a psych evaluation. End of story.

      As presented, he did nothing wrong. This complete bullshit about "terroristic threats" needs to stop now - And "interference of the operation of a school"? Wouldn't that require, I dunno, actually interfering in the operation of a school or something along those lines? Taking a video with your cell phone, crosshairs or not, doesn't do that. Posting that video to YouTube doesn't do that.


      Now, in fairness, yes, sometimes we do complain when the authorities look the other way. When James Holmes actually did go to a shrink (several, in fact) prior to his attack, one of whom declared him a threat to the public who outright said he wanted to kill people, and began stockpiling weapons in the six months leading up to Aurora - Not quite the same ballpark as a 15YO playing a game with reality as the background decoration.

    16. Re:"We have to take all threats seriously" by gweihir · · Score: 1

      They should arrest him if he actually does something illegal. You don't arrest people because of "warning signs."

      You do, but not in countries where the law means anything. In totalitarian regimes, you arrest people for any kind of undesirable behavior.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    17. Re:"We have to take all threats seriously" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if next year this kid really does do something? Who do you think will get the blame? The police will.

      So what? Courts have affirmed time and time again that the police have no duty or obligation to protect anyone.

    18. Re:"We have to take all threats seriously" by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      look at it from the police perspective. What if they do nothing. What if next year this kid really does do something?

      Generally justice systems are based on the premise that you should punish someone only for actual, or attempted, wrongdoing-- not thought crime.

    19. Re:"We have to take all threats seriously" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was no incident because the school and the police did their jobs properly which is the whole point of this article. The boy's deluded fantasy started with a phone app and will eventually end up to be the next Connecticut shooter.

    20. Re:"We have to take all threats seriously" by SpeZek · · Score: 1

      Maybe talk to the kid, determine if this GAME represents novelty or intention? Talk to his teachers, see if he remotely poses an actual, tangible threat? Get the teachers to talk to his classmates? Lift one fucking finger before laying criminal charges on a child?

    21. Re:"We have to take all threats seriously" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So how do you deal with people who display warning signs?

    22. Re:"We have to take all threats seriously" by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      Without investigating, there's really no way to know if there's intention to harm or not, is there? I think criminal charges are not warranted, but I certainly understand the need to look at things.

    23. Re:"We have to take all threats seriously" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullies usually come from a crappy home full of verbal and other abuse, where they themselves are repressed and even violently beaten from time to time. Don't expect anything more from such parents, and don't be as naive and think they will do ANYTHING for the good of others.

    24. Re:"We have to take all threats seriously" by sjames · · Score: 1

      Look at it from this perspective: What if by clearly siding with the bullies the police really push this kid over the edge and he becomes the next unibomber because of them?

    25. Re:"We have to take all threats seriously" by sjames · · Score: 1

      That would be unfortunate.

      I AM upset at the police for not doing their job. It is not their job to arrest a kid for making a video. Arresting everyone and letting the courts sort it out is not investigation.

    26. Re:"We have to take all threats seriously" by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Obviously the crime is copyright infringement. He downloaded the app from a torrent site without paying for it.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    27. Re:"We have to take all threats seriously" by c5402dc53929211e1efb · · Score: 1

      And if that kid ending up shooting the other one, and it turned out the police knew of this incident and didn't even investigate, that'd fine, right?

      Yes.

      No one would get upset at the police not doing their job and investigating a possible threat?

      Who cares what a few retards think about anything.

    28. Re:"We have to take all threats seriously" by crizh · · Score: 1

      Absolutely the Police should investigate.

      They should investigate to find out if the kid is the victim of bullying (criminal assault) and then prosecute his tormentors for their violent criminal behaviour.

      I mean, seriously, what the fuck?

      This kid is acting out because he is the victim of a crime.

      A crime which in the UK can carry a sentence of up to six months for a single offence.

      Put down the doughnuts, get your heads out of your arses and prosecute the real criminals.

      --
      Trust The Computer, The Computer is your friend.
    29. Re:"We have to take all threats seriously" by crizh · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up +9000 - Able to see wood and trees...

      --
      Trust The Computer, The Computer is your friend.
    30. Re:"We have to take all threats seriously" by kthreadd · · Score: 1

      They didn't investigate. They arrested him and he's now facing criminal charges.

    31. Re:"We have to take all threats seriously" by kthreadd · · Score: 1

      If there are actually are warning signs, and I can hardly find playing a shoot-em up game to be a warning sign, then you send them to psychiatrists and have them look at it. You don't arrest them and have them face criminal charges.

    32. Re:"We have to take all threats seriously" by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      Look at what? When I was a kid we used to run around and shoot each other with rubber band guns and dart guns. Shoot I used to run a game of "assassin" in high school. Should we be investigated? No, we were just kids. Based on the story in the article, this kid did NOTHING to warrant a second thought (other than perhaps "hey, is there a problem and do you need help."

    33. Re:"We have to take all threats seriously" by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      Why. why do you automatically think that maybe this represents intention? Have you ever seen people throw darts at pictures of their bosses? Is your first thought "I better find out if this represents novelty of intention?"

    34. Re:"We have to take all threats seriously" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      look at it from the police perspective. What if they do nothing. What if next year this kid really does do something? Who do you think will get the blame? The police will.

      And then... nothing will happen. They don't answer to anyone, much less the citizenry.

    35. Re:"We have to take all threats seriously" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean the way they tell people who were actually threatened by people that "We can't do anything, until they actually harm you"...

      Remember folks, that's the police motto.... Or is when it's one adult against another...

      Now introduce a minor into the mix and all of a sudden it's mind nazi time.... Get a grip cops, go after the real bad people, you know, the ones who threaten violence that you pshah at and say you can't do anything until they do something?

      Since you are going to try and be pre-emptive about it, that means you are taking responsibility for every action that every person makes, and if you don't stop them before they do it, then you are equally responsible for said crime and get to do the time with them.

      It's either that, or actually do your fucking job, go after people who actually hurt someone or break a real law....

      Good God if you're in a position of power, you need to at least have a functioning brain, with a minimum 120 IQ, otherwise you're too stupid to function in the role you are trying to do, and should ask 50 people to thumb-squish your heads to death.

    36. Re:"We have to take all threats seriously" by AlphaWoIf_HK · · Score: 1

      Yes, it would be. That would be far better than reacting to the possibility of people getting hurt every single time.

      --
      Da derp dee derp da teedly derpee derpee dum. Rated PG-13.
    37. Re:"We have to take all threats seriously" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. Let's look at it from the police's perspective. Pretend for a second that you were a dumbass jock who wanted to be professional asshole when you grew up and finally jockeyed yourself into a position of power. Yes, I imagine someone like that would put his own paycheck over the freedom and well being of some stupid kid. Well done. You can empathize with police officers. Why exactly did we do that?

      Are we not the most intelligent strata of society? Why exactly do we give a fuck about the feelings of some asshole cop? Are you seriously asking me to give a shit about some lunkhead dipshit with no degree and a less that 100 k salary? Are we not superior? If a dipshit cop doesn't know what to do to save his job, WHY DON'T WE FUCKING TELL HIM?

    38. Re:"We have to take all threats seriously" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're in the age of pre-crime. Prevention is the name of the game.

      In the olden days, deterrence and punishment were the core principals. Nowadays, you need to prevent the crime before it might possibly maybe happen.

      The pre-crime idea is pervasive, you can see it everywhere from the overzealous bullshit in this story, overuse of SWAT against suspects in non-violent crimes, and the existence of the TSA.

    39. Re:"We have to take all threats seriously" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No no no - let them take the action, then they BECOME responsible for every crime that happens, and get to sit in prison with the criminals, I really like that idea, all cops / feds / judges / lawyers sitting cozy with Bubba Butt Buddy III...

    40. Re:"We have to take all threats seriously" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only on Slashdot do we have stories like this turned into debate club fodder. This was the authorities exercising their judgement that this kid seemed unstable and dangerous, in a pattern that echoed perpetrators of mass school shootings in the past. Now, maybe they overstepped their legal authority, I don't know. But to say it was like arresting anyone who played Call of Duty at home on their Xbox, you don't know what you're talking about.

      From what I can tell from the article this was an isolated event, how exactly does one draw a pattern of behaviour from an isolated event? If 'the autorities' are so keen on cracking down on pattern behaviour likely to reflect badly on their school/district then perhaps they should focus on the bullying instead. I would stake my next month's pay that that is not an isolated incident.

  13. Holy shit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Holy shit, he's got a gun.

    http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FingerGun

    Heaven help us if he makes a rectangle with his forefingers and thumbs... that one falls under wiretapping laws!

  14. App to simulate arresting him? by linebackn · · Score: 5, Funny

    Isn't there an app so simulate arresting him? That sounds like it would have been more appropriate.

    1. Re:App to simulate arresting him? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed

  15. Knee jerk reaction by mgandalf · · Score: 2

    It's a damned shame his life has to be ruined for something so stupid. Scare him, maybe. Charge him, definitely not.

    1. Re:Knee jerk reaction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a damned shame his life has to be ruined for something so stupid.

      You mean, growing up in the U.S.A.? But his parents are to blame for that.

  16. Ban the app by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A law banning an app that allows rendering of real people for FPS should be held Constitutional under the "clear and present danger" exception to free speech (shouting "Fire!", civilians wearing police uniforms, etc).

    As for this case, the kid should've been suspended for a few days and his name turned over to law enforcement watch lists. Not sent to prison.

  17. "We have to take all threats seriously" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then start with the bullies.

  18. False-positives + rare event = innumerate panic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "With all the school shooting we've had in the United States" pretty much sums it up.

    Suppose, if you will, that (given this game's availability) 99% of those who will eventually shoot up their school would play it.
    Suppose, further, that 99% of those who will not shoot up their school would not play it.

    Now if you're a typical school official, you'll read the above and "know" that seeing one of your students playing this game is a very clear indicator that person will, if not stopped, shoot up your school in the future.

    If, OTOH, you're someone who's competent at probability and statistics, you'll consider that, as school shooters are far, far less than 1% of students, that the vast majority of students playing this game won't shoot up the school.

    (Of course, that leaves aside the silly notion of criminal charges because we suspect you'll commit a school shooting in the future. Not only are the charges themselves unjustifiable, but the pragmatics of "Oh, here's a student who's so bullied and alienated that he's about to shoot up the school -- let's arrest him; when he comes back, I'm sure he'll be calmed down and will fit right in!" are mind-boggling.)

  19. Unsure of reality? by KeensMustard · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Are you an officer of the LAW?

    Are you unable to discern when computer games have become reality?

    Here's some helpful signs for our boys in blue:

    Scenario 1: It's quite dark, there are men wearing suits with bright flouro stripes. Jeff Bridges is there. COMPUTER GAME HAS BECOME REALITY.

    Scenario 2: You like to play starfighter. You have just beaten the high score, and a man in a hat is inviting you to go for a ride in his car that can fly. YOUR GAME IS ABOUT TO BECOME REALITY.

    Scenario 3: You are hacked into a computer. Is it calling itself joshua? Is it seemingly reluctant to play Thermonuclear War? YOUR GAME IS ABOUT TO BECOME REALITY.

    Scenario 4: Your life doesn't resemble Scenarios 1 - 3? You life is not a computer game.

    Sorry.

    Play Again (Y/N)?

  20. Pffff by sociocapitalist · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "The boy is charged with terrorizing and interference with the operation of a school."

    What's next? Arresting pre-schoolers who point a finger and go 'Bang Bang!!" ???

    Maybe if guns weren't so fucking easy to come by the US wouldn't have to arrest kids for being kids.

    Fucking idiots.

    --
    blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    1. Re:Pffff by PRMan · · Score: 4, Informative

      What's next? Arresting pre-schoolers who point a finger and go 'Bang Bang!!" ???

      What do you mean "next"? You missed that one?

      http://abcnews.go.com/US/maryland-grader-suspended-pointing-finger-shape-gun/story?id=18123294 (Warning: auto-video. Hit Mute first.)

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    2. Re:Pffff by horm · · Score: 1

      "The boy is charged with terrorizing and interference with the operation of a school."

      What's next? Arresting pre-schoolers who point a finger and go 'Bang Bang!!" ???

      You joke, but there was an incident in my region where a 1st or 2nd grade boy was suspended from school for doing just that. He had to undergo psychological evaluation and was essentially brainwashed into thinking he had committed a serious crime before he could be allowed back to school.

    3. Re:Pffff by sjames · · Score: 1

      Guns have been easily available in the U.S. since well before your grandfather's time. In the '50s nobody went crazy and started arresting kids for playing cowboys and indians on the playground even with all the fingers (and cap guns) going BANG BANG.

    4. Re:Pffff by ReallyEvilCanine · · Score: 1

      You should really pay more attention. Do try to keep up.

    5. Re:Pffff by Issarlk · · Score: 1

      The boy should be happy they didn't notice his weapon of mass destruction. A phone battery can explode and he very well could have used it to kill several classmates.

    6. Re:Pffff by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      Guns have been easily available in the U.S. since well before your grandfather's time. In the '50s nobody went crazy and started arresting kids for playing cowboys and indians on the playground even with all the fingers (and cap guns) going BANG BANG.

      And...what's your point?

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    7. Re:Pffff by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      The boy should be happy they didn't notice his weapon of mass destruction. A phone battery can explode and he very well could have used it to kill several classmates.

      They're probably saving that for the Fart Bomb...

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    8. Re:Pffff by sjames · · Score: 1

      Gun availability is no excuse for schools acting like kids going BANG BANG are public enemy number one.

    9. Re:Pffff by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      Gun availability is no excuse for schools acting like kids going BANG BANG are public enemy number one.

      It's not an excuse. It's a mentality - and a lack of intelligence / education / common sense.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    10. Re:Pffff by sjames · · Score: 1

      So why are you blaming the availability of guns a few posts up when the problem is letting drooling morons run schools.,/p>

    11. Re:Pffff by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      So why are you blaming the availability of guns a few posts up when the problem is letting drooling morons run schools.,/p>

      Because if guns were not so easily available then there wouldn't be so many random shootings and people would not be overreacting.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    12. Re:Pffff by sjames · · Score: 1

      So how do you explain people not overreacting that way when your grandpa went to school? The guns were just as available then.

      I'm going to stick with we should stop letting drooling morons run schools.

  21. terrorism? by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 5, Informative

    who the fuck was harmed? no one. interfering with school ops? when? how?

    The US has become a nation of fucking pussies. Thankfully it seems that a lot of under 25's are rejecting the fucked up views of their parents and grandparents. The late babyboom and near postboom generations have been a disaster in just about every way possible.

    1. Re:terrorism? by scotts13 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      who the fuck was harmed? no one. interfering with school ops? when? how?

      Indeed. Other than by the meddling actions of one parent, no one at the school would ever have known. No one was "terrorized" (other than this one student), the school was not interfered with. But NOW, we have an individual that know authority is capricious and unfair. Perhaps he will lash out...

    2. Re:terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      who the fuck was harmed? no one. interfering with school ops? when? how?

      No need to ask how or why, they do not require reasons.

      I was suspended in highschool for liking a facebook page. I did not visit facebook on school computers, it was during the weekend at my house. This happened months later.

      According to them it was "disrupting the learning environment".

      They literally had a guy in a chair for hours on end refreshing the facebook page, looking for more students to suspend. I wish we could have gotten new math textbooks that weren't falling apart instead of paying that guy to browse facebook all day.

    3. Re:terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ? My grandparents used to tell me how they would carry pocket knives at all times since they were old enough to wear pants and make farm ponds with a stick of dynamite and fertilizer. I think the majority of things they've told me that they used to do as kids is now illegal.

  22. What else do you expect? by pablo_max · · Score: 3, Insightful

    America is a country which values the right to have high capacity magazines for assault weapons over the freedom of speech.
    It it more important to ensure the blind can carry a concealed firearm than it is to ensure the children of the country are properly educated.
    It is more important to spend nearly 5% of the GDP on a military, not counting the illegal wars than to allow your fellow countrymen access to affordable health care.
    That is the very definition of a morally corrupted system.
    It is simply a fact. Most of the people simply do not care about what is going on in America as long as their personal situation is OK. As long as they can buy an iPhone 10s for 1$ on a 5 year contract.
    There is only one possible outcome here. America has been on this road since the 70's. Some argue since the end of WW2. It is only now, as things have progressed so far that the visible signs are escalating.
    I do not say that Americans are bad people, because I believe that they are, on the average "just folk". Just trying to get by. They are, unfortunately, a product of the system which produced them. That system, just didn't have their interests in mind.

    1. Re:What else do you expect? by carpefishus · · Score: 1

      I didn't need to read any further than this to know that what follows is not worth reading. "America is a country which values the right to have high capacity magazines for assault weapons over the freedom of speech." How about we value both as the second protects the first, amendments, that is.

      --
      Facts take all of the premium out of arm waving - T. Reynolds
    2. Re:What else do you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The right to carry military weapons ensures you will be able to retain that freedom of speech. Based on the amount of money spent, you're wrong about blind carry versus education. "Affordable health care" would happen if the government and employers would get out of the way and let the market place do its job on health care. If you have to pay for it like repairs to your car, you start shopping for the best deals and lower prices, and sellers (doctors/hospitals/etc) have to compete for what people are willing to spend. Do that and costs would go through the floor for basic medical services. And sure, we spend 5% on military, but what percentage do we spend on medicare, medicaid, social security, welfare, etc? Put it in perspective first. Well, if you are going to use straw horses, bad definitions and lack of context, you can call it whatever you want but it means nothing (just hot air). The road we've been on since the 60's and 70's is socialism and big government - hows that working for ya? You seem to think the country is pretty screwed up, so now you know what to blame. Americans used to be in control of their system. If you live in Oregon, you have a public initiative system, if you live in NJ you probably rarely vote. Unfortunately 9 million people live in NJ and only 2 million in Oregon.

    3. Re:What else do you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The right to carry military weapons ensures you will be able to retain that freedom of speech.

      The right to carry military weapons ensures you personally will be able to carry military weapons. Period. The reality is freedom of speech is retained only by those with the biggest and most weapons, and the willingness to use them. Others, not so much.

    4. Re:What else do you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't need to read any further than this to know that what follows is not worth reading.
      "America is a country which values the right to have high capacity magazines for assault weapons over the freedom of speech."
      How about we value both as the second protects the first, amendments, that is.

      How in tarnation is having guns gonna do that? You should the first motherf**ker who says he's against freedom of speech?
      Or do you still live in your fantasy world where the *right* to arms is necessary to overthrow the government if the government gets out of control?
      In that case, ask yourself: when is the government sufficiently "out of control" for you to take your arms and stop them?
      When they lie to the world to invade a country? When they imprison people off American soil so that your precious constitution doesn't apply? When they kill American citizens without trial, by decree?
      If you're even slightly honest with yourself, you'll realise you are never going to rise up against the government.

      Stop using that BS as an excuse to have weapons, and man up. You want your weapons for whatever reasons you want, but you ain't gonna overthrow the government with them. You did that once, but it ain't happening again.

    5. Re:What else do you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just to let you know, 5% of GDP is actually less than many European country's GDP, and where it's not less, it's about the same. That's why this is a stupid argument. Just pointing it out. I'm not saying it's not a lot, but when compared to others, it's about the same.

    6. Re:What else do you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dipshit, without the right to bear arms, we would have become serfs or peasants to a king 150 years ago.
      And why the fuck should I take care of your health care, you alchoholic, smoking, couch riding dumpster of medical funds?

    7. Re:What else do you expect? by letherial · · Score: 1

      I think its rather obvious by now, the second isnt protecting any of the other rights because all the other rights are eroding, but go ahead and hold on to your gun and bury your head in a hole while pretending everything is ok.

    8. Re:What else do you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a laughable dunce and lost all credibility after your left-wing spoon-fed idiotic first line.

    9. Re:What else do you expect? by Dasuraga · · Score: 1

      He said value over, because people do seem to care a lot more about the second than the first. There are tradeoffs for everything, and just because you value one right over the other doesn't mean you reject one. Even if legally, they're both on the same level, they have different values when it comes to the social perception of things. And that it was matters in the long-term, as that is what defines how much rights/whatever tradeoff we're willing to make concerning those rights. We seem much more willing to let go of the rights of the first than the second.

    10. Re:What else do you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is only one possible outcome here. America has been on this road since the 70's. Some argue since the end of WW2. It is only now, as things have progressed so far that the visible signs are escalating.

      How does this idiocy get modded up? I love it when people negatively generalize about the United States and prophesize its ruin when it's very clear they're out of touch with what's actually going on...

    11. Re:What else do you expect? by pablo_max · · Score: 1

      Which country would that be you jackass.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
      Seriously, pull you head out of your ass.
      You spend 6.8 TRILLION the entire EU spends 2.8.
      Hell, France is the next European country and they spend only 58 Billion...not trillion.

    12. Re:What else do you expect? by pablo_max · · Score: 1

      Seriously, what does having a 30 round mag have anything to do with the right to have a gun??
      In in what part of my post did I say people should not have a gun. Fucking retard.

    13. Re:What else do you expect? by pablo_max · · Score: 1

      So, enlighten us....what is going on?
      I mean, after all America commits war crime after war crime, tortures people and holds them forever without charges. Oh wait, are you saying that is what the founding fathers had in mind?
      Oh, let me guess....you are one of those "if ya donn like it, git out of murrica" retards. Figured.

    14. Re:What else do you expect? by camperdave · · Score: 1

      America is a country which values the right to have high capacity magazines for assault weapons over the freedom of speech.

      An assault weapon with a full magazine can speak volumes.
      br. Or as Scotty put it: "The best diplomat I know is a fully-activated phaser bank."

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    15. Re:What else do you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why are you mixing cost of things with rights?

      Rights fundamentally don't cost anything, they cost to take away, but if left to their own devices, you just have them. I have the freedom of speech, unless somebody tries to silence me. I have the right to bare arms, unless somebody tries to take them away from me (note, I don't have the right to have a gun, I'm still responsible for paying for it, but I have the right to bare it, if I can buy it). I have the right to not shelter troops, unless somebody forces me to. In fact, about the only right I have that costs anything is the right to a trial. But again, only needed if somebody else brings charges against me.

      Education, healthcare, they're nice to have, but they are by no means rights. They go on to the same docket as military, where do you spend your money and where do you not. None of them are rights though. And I'm sorry, but healthcare, I tend to think needs to be handled very differently, and what has been done everywhere in the world so far, doesn't work, because in all my travels, I've never met somebody from any country that was actually truly happy with their health care. It always costs too much and/or the coverage is lacking. Go to the UK, you pay out the nose via taxes, and god help you if you get cancer, cuz you're dead. Canada, don't get any non-critical injuries, as you'll be on a waiting list for ages, and your quality of life may take a massive hit. US, the problem really is just that it's expensive. Germany, if you can afford it, you buy private insurance because the state provided coverage is so bad and tends to run out of money at the end of the year. These are all statements from people who live in those countries, not my critique. I personally think dealing with health care more like you deal with your car is what's needed. You wouldn't use your car insurance to buy gas, it's an unneeded middle man, so why use health insurance to pay for a regular check up? Save insurance for catastrophic care, and allow health insurance to not pay out if you don't do preventative care. Harsh, yes, but by having people see what costs are, they'd do price comparison, and it would force prices down. Also, allow me to buy insurance in another state, why do I have to buy it in the state I live in. This adds costs to insurers to deal with all the bureaucratic bull shit. It's this semi-regulated crap that's causing the problems. Either fully regulate it, or don't, none of this partial crap. And education, the US needs to spend less sending people to college, and send more people to trade schools, like is done in most of Europe. I'm sorry, but going to college to get a BS psych degree and racking up 80 grand in student loans is well.....BS. And it wouldn't happen if not for federally backed student loans. No private sector would dare lend that. And why are people doing this? Because you have to go to college, even if it's a bull shit degree. You'd be better off going to a secondary trade school, it'll cost less, and it'll suit you better and you'll be left with less debt. But running everybody through a university, that's expensive.

    16. Re:What else do you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The right to carry military weapons ensures you will be able to retain that freedom of speech.

      Free speech zones, protest permits, the NSA, the TSA, the USA Patriot Act, constitution free zones, and a host of other nonsense all infringe upon our freedoms. When are these guns, which supposedly protect our freedoms, going to do something?

    17. Re:What else do you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm betting you don't even know what an "assault weapon" is.

    18. Re:What else do you expect? by Howitzer86 · · Score: 1

      America is a country which values the right to have high capacity magazines for assault weapons over the freedom of speech.

      The war on drugs didn't exactly help with our freedoms, why would a war on guns be any different?

  23. So bullying by s0nicfreak · · Score: 2

    i.e. assaulting other students, not just making "threats" but actually doing things, they let that slide. But pretending to shoot other students is an arrest-able offense.

    There is noting unwise about posting videos of a game on youtube. What was unwise was assuming the adults in the school - the people that are suppose to be educating these students, and who are basically raising them, since they are with them more waking hours than their parents - have half a brain between them.

    1. Re:So bullying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But pretending to shoot other students is an arrest-able offense.

      I'm sure glad it wasn't back in the 70's. I pretended to shoot my friends many times over, and was pretend-shot many times myself as well. We didn't have a $600 iPhone to do it though, so we made do with cap guns, or with our index finger if we were actually in school at the time.

  24. I'm Crushing Your Head! by Bob9113 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Imagine if he had been the kind of psychopath that would image -- and even trivialize -- crushing people's skulls.

    1. Re:I'm Crushing Your Head! by mynamestolen · · Score: 1

      Guys, you've gotta watch the vid. Mod up!!

      --
      work in progress
    2. Re:I'm Crushing Your Head! by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      I immediately remembered crushing heads from my youth ... we did that on the school grounds all the time after the Kids in the Hall did it.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    3. Re:I'm Crushing Your Head! by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      squish squish

  25. I thought you needed a gun to shoot someone... by jbssm · · Score: 1

    Dunno, perhaps if the USA stopped being a 3rd world country - in that regard - where everyone is allowed to go around with a gun, they didn't really had to be afraid that the student would do anything more than just play around with his iPhone game, would they?

    1. Re:I thought you needed a gun to shoot someone... by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      Let me see if I am following your logic.

      Outlaw all firearms. That worked well for illegal drugs and alcohol. So it will definitely work for firearms too.

      Since firearms have vanished from existence due to above law there will be no more school shootings. Angry kids will have to make due with bladed weapons.

      And when a school kid dies from knife wounds and it makes the national news everyone will behave 100% rationally and not overreact about it like they do now. Someone weilding an imaginary knife will not go to prison because that would just be silly, right?

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    2. Re:I thought you needed a gun to shoot someone... by felrom · · Score: 1

      Good thing Adam Lanza was too young to have a concealed carry license. That totally stopped him from shooting up the school in Newtown.

      Criminals follow the law! High five, buddy....!!!

    3. Re:I thought you needed a gun to shoot someone... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      if the USA stopped being a 3rd world country - in that regard - where everyone is allowed to go around with a gun, they didn't really had to be afraid that the student would do anything more than just play around with his iPhone game, would they?

      In fact, the third world countries in which one is allowed to go around with a gun tend to have substantially less gun crime than the ones which prohibit them. It's illegal to even pass through Mexican waters with a firearm, let alone to own one. That doesn't stop the criminals from getting them, not least from the US government. Sadly, our government has supported terrorists and coups and otherwise interfered with democracy across most everything that lies to the south.

      Gun ownership in the USA is rising, yet gun crime is falling. Not only is the total amount of gun crime trending downward, but the balance is increasingly falling towards suicide. While I'm not happy to see people killing themselves, I don't particularly care how they're doing it, and I don't really think it should be a crime to attempt to kill yourself unless you do it without regard for the safety of others. Since it's illegal to assist suicide in most US states and there is no legal means of taking your own life, it's absurd and really a violation of your right to life to force you to live by criminalizing suicide attempts. So in fact, gun crime in the USA is falling faster than is even acknowledged overall, and especially where guns are explicitly permitted.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:I thought you needed a gun to shoot someone... by Goody · · Score: 1

      Good thing Adam Lanza was too young to have a concealed carry license. That totally stopped him from shooting up the school in Newtown.

      Criminals follow the law! High five, buddy....!!!

      Yes, so let's eliminate all laws because criminals don't follow the law anyway. Makes sense.

      --
      Tired of being "punished" by the Slashdot $rtbl since 2002. I'm now over at http://soylentnews.org/ .
    5. Re:I thought you needed a gun to shoot someone... by jbssm · · Score: 1

      Good thing Adam Lanza was too young to have a concealed carry license.

      Yeah, I heard an unicorn gave him the guns, it obviously had nothing to do with the fact that it was easy for someone else to buy those guns and then for Lanza to just pick them and use them.

    6. Re:I thought you needed a gun to shoot someone... by jbssm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sure, it's hell to live in these backwater countries of European Union... we are obviously afraid to go out in the streets because you know guns are outlawed here so everyone is shooting everyone else around because of that, oh the humanity!

    7. Re:I thought you needed a gun to shoot someone... by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      No, this is the USA. Fake guns get you put in jail... but real guns are protected by the constitution and anyone can have as many as they want.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    8. Re:I thought you needed a gun to shoot someone... by felrom · · Score: 1

      I wasn't saying we need to eliminate any laws. I was responding to the previous poster's implication that more laws would solve the problem by pointing out one of about 50 laws Adam Lanza broke that day. None of those laws helped. More laws wont help either.

      Here's the best list I can find on the laws Adam Lanza broke:

      1. First degree murder of his mother.
      2. Illegal possession of the .22 he shot her with.
      3. Illegal possession of the 10mm handgun.
      4. Theft of the 10mm handgun.
      5. Illegal possession of the 9mm handgun.
      6. Theft of the 9mm handgun.
      7. Illegal possession of the rifle.
      8. Theft of the rifle.
      9. Illegal possession of the shotgun.
      10. Theft of the shotgun.
      11. Unpermitted carry of a handgun for the 9mm.
      12. Unpermitted carry of a handgun for the 10mm.
      13. Theft of the Honda registered to his mother that he drove to the school.
      14. Bringing the 9mm handgun into a school zone.
      15. Bringing the 10mm handgun into a school zone.
      16. Bringing the rifle into a school zone.
      17. Bringing the shotgun into a school zone.
      18. Discharging a weapon within the city to gain entry into the school.
      19. Forced entry into the school.
      20. First degree murder.
      21. First degree murder.
      22. First degree murder.
      23. First degree murder.
      24. First degree murder.
      25. First degree murder.
      26. First degree murder.
      27. First degree murder.
      28. First degree murder.
      29. First degree murder.
      30. First degree murder.
      31. First degree murder.
      32. First degree murder.
      33. First degree murder.
      34. First degree murder.
      35. First degree murder.
      36. First degree murder.
      37. First degree murder.
      38. First degree murder.
      39. First degree murder.
      40. First degree murder.
      41. First degree murder.
      42. First degree murder.
      43. First degree murder.
      44. First degree murder.
      45. First degree murder.

      Arguably you could add transportation of stolen property one time for each of the four stolen guns, but I'm not sure if Connecticut counts that as a separate charge from possession of stolen property.

      What additional law would have prevented this? Keep in mind that Connecticut already has a state level assault weapons ban, and that there was no one armed in the school to oppose him, so how long it takes to reload is unimportant, plus he had practiced to reload very quickly and even did mag changes before entering a new classroom to top off his ammo.

    9. Re:I thought you needed a gun to shoot someone... by sjames · · Score: 1

      More like lets eliminate laws against neutral things that might allow doing a bad thing. We can keep the laws against actually doing a bad thing.

      It's very simple really. It is not illegal to think about robbing a bank, it is illegal to ACTUALLY rob a bank. It is not illegal to think about killing someone, it is illegal to actually kill someone. Notably, if someone is willing to actually rob a bank in spite of the law, they would be equally willing to think about robbing a bank in spite of a law. BUT there are plenty who will think about it who will not actually do it.

    10. Re:I thought you needed a gun to shoot someone... by AlphaWoIf_HK · · Score: 1

      Why would they be afraid of someone shooting up a school due to an iPhone game simply because guns are generally legal in the US? That makes no sense to me. We need not react to every possibility where someone could get hurt; that attitude just erodes our freedoms.

      --
      Da derp dee derp da teedly derpee derpee dum. Rated PG-13.
    11. Re:I thought you needed a gun to shoot someone... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      What additional law would have prevented this?

      There are some countries where you must demonstrate a secure storage location to own guns. IF the guns were locked up, they might have been un-stealable. He'd have been able to stab his mother, and it'd have likely ended there.

    12. Re:I thought you needed a gun to shoot someone... by felrom · · Score: 1

      In the US, the fourth amendment prevents any law where you must demonstrate secure storage. Additionally, the crux of the issue in DC v Heller and McDonald v Chicago was whether the government could deny you the right to immediately access weapons to defend yourself in your home, either through impossible permitting schemes, bans, or requirements to be disassembled or locked up.

      At least in Texas, and about a dozen other states, there are laws that allow you to be charged if a minor gets ahold of your unsecured gun (some states require that he hurt himself or others with it, not simply gain access to it). As it relates to this case, Adam Lanza was 20, not a minor, and even if his mom had securely stored the weapons she also trusted him far too much with guns given his known mental state and probably would have trusted him with access to the secure storage as well.

      So while Ms. Lanza could have prevented Adam Lanza from gaining access to the weapons if she had taken a more objective view of her son's mental state, there isn't a law in this case which could have done it for her. Requiring demonstrated secure storage is illegal in the US on 2nd and 4th amendment grounds, and Adam Lanza was not a minor and thus not prohibited from accessing weapons in general.

      One additional question to ask is, "was Adam Lanza adjudicated mentally deficient, and therefore a 'prohibited person' under ATF definitions, thus making it a crime for Ms. Lanza to allow him access to weapons?" Initially, I would guess the answer is no. She took him to the gun range regularly and allowed him to fire guns in public. But, for argument's sake, assume he was a known prohibited person, and that Ms. Lanza was in violation of the law for allowing Adam Lanza access to firearms. All it would mean is that she broke the law, leading to the eventual death of 28 people including herself, and that Adam Lanza would have earned five more counts of prohibited person in possession of a firearm, which, unsurprisingly, still would not have deterred him from going on his rampage.

  26. Obligatory 1984 reference by jimbrooking · · Score: 1

    Another thought crime.

  27. Will be?? by pablo_max · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Seriously, what do you mean will be? They are fucked up. This, and the last generation have such an unbelievable sense of entitlement it is shocking.
    I am sure some of you have had the misfortune to interview some of today recent grads for a position. Most seem to expect 6 figures and to run the company in 2 years regardless of the fact that they have no useable skills or problem solving ability.
    There is a reason why there is so much pressure to increase the foreign work visas.
    When I was last working in the US, our company hired mainly engineer from Germany. We paid them more than they could get in Germany and they were happy for it. Our recent grad American applicants were asking for nearly 50% more.

    1. Re:Will be?? by hedwards · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sense of entitlement? You mean expecting to be able to find a living wage job and have college largely paid for by the government?

      They don't expect 6 figures and to run the company in 2 years, they expect to be able to find a living wage job. Unfortunately because of cheapskates like you, for a lot of them making 6 figures is what it's going to take to pay off college and buy a house in a reasonable period of time.

      It's always interesting how arrogant old people like to ignore the fact that when they were young, college was heavily subsidized and we hadn't figured out that it was possible to send jobs overseas rather than offering them up to the people at the bottom. What's more, there was little competition from other countries and the rich didn't expect to get all the profits of other people's work.

      They're fucked alright, but mostly because of people like you got yours and to hell with anybody else.

    2. Re:Will be?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Yeah, they do have a huge sense of entitlement. In big things and little things. They expect someone else to do lots of stuff for them. Little things like send you a spread sheet and expect you to do data cleaning on it. In part, because they don't know how to clean it up. Big things like just assuming that they get hired from an internship & a 100% raise.

      Read this. It may help you a bit

      http://www.waitbutwhy.com/2013/09/why-generation-y-yuppies-are-unhappy.html

    3. Re:Will be?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Speaking of arrogant, it's VERY arrogant to assume he isn't paying these people well when he NEVER said how much he's paying. If he's paying the German engineers $50k a year and the American kids want $75k that is far more than a "Living Wage" as you put it. Most of my life I made $20-30K and Have a Nice Car, a Fast Motorcycle, A small house, and that's with two kids and i'm very happy and safe and even have some extra weight i need to lose, so well fed. If you think a "Living Wage" has to me more than that you are greedy. Don't get me wrong, if you can make more than by all means do, but no one 'needs' it.

    4. Re:Will be?? by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 0

      This doesn't deserve a -1. Mod it up. It's a sensible counter to a drumbeat we are constantly hearing and this is an unfair score.

    5. Re:Will be?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When we agreed to take on $100,000 student loans, we were promised starting salaries of at least 60k.

    6. Re:Will be?? by hedwards · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's not arrogant that's somebody that lives in the US and knows how things work. In order to get a decent job they expect you to have 3-5 years of experience doing the job and that's for entry level positions. I highly doubt that you had to put up with that bullshit when you were entering the workforce.

      Around here $30k a year would barely cover the rent along with the bare necessities. The average rent around here comes out to over $12k a year. Want a car? You're looking at an additional $6k or so a year. Even the bus costs $1200 or more a year.

      It's arrogant people like you that perpetuate the notion that things aren't bad as they are. Wages haven't kept pace with inflation and gains in productivity in my lifetime. It's all well and good to complain about the current generation being "greedy" but when people are being asked to work harder and harder for less and less, then perhaps it's time to acknowledge that bending over isn't resulting in any improvements.

    7. Re:Will be?? by hedwards · · Score: 1

      That site covers maybe 5% of the people in that age bracket. In fact, I can't recall ever having met a single person in that age group that behaves like that. So, to suggest that it's common is pretty dishonest.

      What's more studying abroad is something that's much more common outside of the US and leads to more informed opinions. The reason the author of that site gets on it, is that people who have actually lived outside the US, know just how shitty it is to be an American right now. You work hard, probably don't get a raise. You get barely any time off and you're lucky if you get any sort of bonus at the end of the year.

      Meanwhile the people who own the company make out like bandits and you're lucky to be able to afford health insurance.

    8. Re:Will be?? by Kielistic · · Score: 1

      A collection of strawmen and glaring logical contradictions. You are correct- that is very indicative of the "young people are the worst" meme repeated throughout history.

    9. Re:Will be?? by Solandri · · Score: 2

      They don't expect 6 figures and to run the company in 2 years, they expect to be able to find a living wage job. Unfortunately because of cheapskates like you, for a lot of them making 6 figures is what it's going to take to pay off college and buy a house in a reasonable period of time.

      In 1950, the average home cost $14,500, the average income was $3,216. So the average home cost 4.5 years worth of income.

      In 2012 the average income was $51,000, the average home was $211,000. Or 4.1 years worth of income.

      If you think you need to make 6 figures to buy a house, clearly your expectations are too high.

      The high student loan debt is a direct result of decades of student loan assistance inflating the price of college tuitions. Unfortunately, schools are not a perfectly elastic market - which school you go to matters to a lot of people, so you cannot simply substitute a degree from a newly-founded college with one from Princeton or MIT. Consequently the supply is constrained. If you then dump a bunch of cheap money onto the people wanting to go to these schools, the schools will simply raise their prices to suck up that extra money. (And before those on the left go nuts over this, the correct solution is to instead dump that money into low-tuition public universities which compete with private colleges. That'll generate downward pressure on tuitions at private universities.)

    10. Re:Will be?? by hedwards · · Score: 1

      In the 1950s the spread of income was much smaller than it is today. Most people didn't need to go to college in order to make a decent wage and those that did go to college found that the government was picking up most of the tab. As recently as the 1980s the government was subsidizing the tuition to the tune of about 90%. Which meant that you could afford to work an entry level job at McDonalds during the summer and not have to work during the school year.

      Bottom line here is that if you exclude the top 10% earning households, the average drops substantially. They earned 45% of the money, but only made up 10% of the population. If you exclude the top 10%, that figure for average drops substantially making that house cost nearly 7 years worth of income. I don't have access to quality numbers, but you can't pretend like income distribution doesn't make a difference, because it makes a huge difference.

      It disturbs me a great deal when people like you trot out statistics that you don't understand to try and claim that the poverty that exists in America doesn't exist. Because it clearly does exist.

    11. Re:Will be?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit. I too have interviewed this newest crop of idiots and indeed they expect piles of money, little responsibility, and as much as they can get in the way of benefits. Why? Mommy and Daddy told them they were special and they have a degree. Big. Fucking. Deal. Newsflash, work hard and you get rewarded not hardly work. I work with a young guy like this now, he paid his own way through college, he helps support his family, and he works his ass off. He has already been promoted and he's been on staff for one year while many of us have our pay frozen - and I'm happy for him. He deserves what he's getting but the whiny bitches like you? Not a chance. Took on too much debt at college? Well why didn't you consider that before taking it on? You think the generations before you had it so much easier? Typical, it's how you and your's explain away your own failings. It couldn't possibly be your own fault, no never you. You were always patted on the head and rewarded for just showing up - that's not how the real world works and now you finally get a reality check. Crying won't change it but it's so so sad to watch you try.

    12. Re:Will be?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good thing you did research then huh? Or did you listen to the people who were selling you that education?

      Look, in my area where cost of living is sky high $60K is indeed a fair wage and maybe even a bit more for skilled work except that when kids show up they want near $100K and some of them demand more. Actually, many of them demand more. They expect to make more money than people who have been there, done that. They make truly ignorant statements like the tool above who bitches about "old people" and doesn't respect the experience that comes from actually having a few years under your belt. When a punk like that shows up and whines that our offer is too low and he can make more money "elsewhere" then hey more power to him - go somewhere else. When that company falters and he's jobless or they work him 60 hours a week maybe he will wake up. Ask for a fair salary, do the work, give some respect, and manage your money and time. Understand that the world doesn't work the way you want just because you stamp your foot and cry. Want to make a change? Make it better, don't whine. You took on that debt so have fun paying it off. You didn't have to do that, there are cheaper degrees, cheaper schools, and it's up to you to manage your money and your debts.

    13. Re:Will be?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not arrogant that's somebody that lives in the US and knows how things work. In order to get a decent job they expect you to have 3-5 years of experience doing the job and that's for entry level positions. I highly doubt that you had to put up with that bullshit when you were entering the workforce.

      Around here $30k a year would barely cover the rent along with the bare necessities. The average rent around here comes out to over $12k a year. Want a car? You're looking at an additional $6k or so a year. Even the bus costs $1200 or more a year.

      It's arrogant people like you that perpetuate the notion that things aren't bad as they are. Wages haven't kept pace with inflation and gains in productivity in my lifetime. It's all well and good to complain about the current generation being "greedy" but when people are being asked to work harder and harder for less and less, then perhaps it's time to acknowledge that bending over isn't resulting in any improvements.

      You young'uns are all whiners. I made due with $2 a week for my gasoline budget, why can't you, ya greedy brats.

    14. Re:Will be?? by Sabriel · · Score: 1

      Is that gross income, net income, or net disposable income? And it's nice that you've provided the average (mean), but what about the median and mode? What's the minimum and maximum?

      Say you've got ten people. One person makes $10k. Eight people make $25k. One person makes $150k. What's the average? $36k. If the base cost of living is $9k, what's the net disposable income? 1x$1k, 8x$16k, 1x$141k. What's the average? $27k. If the average home is $50k, the minimum home is $25k, and the maximum home is $1M, how many years will it take for the minimum income person to buy the minimum home versus the maximum income person to buy the average home?

    15. Re:Will be?? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Yeah, they do have a huge sense of entitlement.

      Yeah, they grew up with the stories from their parents about the booming '50s and good times. And find reality is much much worse than that. With inflation, I'm a millionaire, but still can't afford a car without months of planning at the least (or debt I avoid, which is why I made it through the "millionaire next door" plan). My parents left college with no debt. I did too, but I worked full time while in school full time, not what my parents did. Services dropped, taxes increased, and opportunities decreased. That's reality. Add that to the rose-colored glasses people see the past through and tell their children about, and that seems to explain most of the mis-set expectations.

    16. Re:Will be?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow - you exemplified what the poster above you was talking about amazingly well. Are you trying for satire or just trolling your ass off? It comes out the same either way, as your post spells out exactly how you do not have a clue.

      Grow up.

    17. Re:Will be?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anon due to mod points but seriously, fuck you. Entitlement has nothing to do with this.

      It is very expensive to live. Sure you can get away with 30k/yr but at that point you are merely existing and not living a life. How about you tell me how to live on 50-75k/yr and pay college loans, car payments (finance, insurance, maintenance and fuel) and pay for a house which also includes taxes, insurance, mortgage and utilities such as electric, gas, and internet/cable. Then have kids on top off all of that which entails buying ever shrinking clothes, doctor visits, food, toys, vacations and family outings, school, school supplies extracurricular activities etc. Then throw saving for college so hopefully you child doesn't have the same 20+ year post graduation financial burden you carried. Oh and when you have kids, is the household capable of smoothly running on one salary? Can you afford everything comfortably and have a stay at home parent? If not then have fun paying extra to ensure someone can watch your children. Classicly that is what grandparents are for but not every family has that luxury. This is why hard working educated parents aren't having kids until their 30's and only one or two. Meanwhile the ignorant uneducated masses are happly fucking away leaving a trail of children with no fathers and mothers who don't care.

      Entitlement indeed.

    18. Re:Will be?? by Gibgezr · · Score: 1

      Exactly. When my father got married he had an entry-level job as a bank teller, making a low wage for the time (think 'just over minimum wage' at that time). He bought a house; his mortgage payment was tiny compared to his wages, he could make his car payment and his mortgage payment each month on 1/4 of his monthly wage. Now, try to imagine someone working an entry-level 30K job and doing THAT now.

  28. The land of the stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And this country wields a nuclear weapon. Wonderful.

  29. Interference of the operation of a school? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can the local police really make a big fuss about something and then charge someone for all the big fuss he "caused"? Seems like with this recipe the police can turn something legal into something illegal just because they panicked before they got to the bottom of it.

    1. Re:Interference of the operation of a school? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Simple: Yes, they can. And if the guy talks back, they can add a few more charges. In reality, the police can charge any citizens they like with the police being morons. That is how a police-state works, you know.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  30. Games and reality by icannotthinkofaname · · Score: 4, Funny

    We don't know at what time that game becomes reality.

    That's a good question. To the end of answering it, I'd like to be the kid's defense attorney for this case, because I've played through all of the Ace Attorney games, and I'm looking forward to the new one coming out soon in English.

    This proposal is a simple one. If I am not allowed to defend the kid in court based on my experience with law video games, then they can't use video games to call him a murderer, so the prosecution has no case on those grounds. If I am allowed to defend him just because I've played some law video games, then we are unlikely to be able to make a decent defense case (but these are criminal charges, so reasonable doubt is a thing).

    If the kid can be a murderer because of a mobile game, then I should be able to be his attorney because of Phoenix Wright.

    --
    Let q be a radix > 1. I am in ur base-q, killing 10 d00ds.
    1. Re:Games and reality by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      We don't know at what time that game becomes reality.

      Actually WE do (we being everyone but the idiotic administrator.) The answer is NEVER.

    2. Re:Games and reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OBJECTION!

      Counsel must present evidence and/or have their assistant who can talk with the dead call up a busty ghost who is somehow associated with the case in order to prove to the judge that their claim is valid. You have 5 chances and we will repeat the same statements as many times as you want.

  31. And I have the solution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    He said it was a result of him being frustrated and tired of being bullied.

    Sue the school district. That's how you shut a bureaucrat up - lawsuits. Because HIS boss will be scared shitless of HIS job. And his boss more than likely reports to a politician.

    Kids, that IS how to deal with it. Don't suck it up. Don't get violent. Becuase sucking it up or getting violent just hurts you and allows the bullies to get away with it. (And for all of you who think that bullying made yo a better person, you are full of shit: you either weren't truly bullied, you are in denial or you had some incredible support from friends and family at the time (you were around Saints!) I was told that is was part of growing up and to suck it up - very bad mistake.

    Get a lawyer and go to college for FREE and have money left over for a nice house - all paid for by taxes of the bullies parents and everyone else. After all, bullying IS a society problem and what better way to get back at society than lawsuits against what ends up being the taxpayer.

    Vengence is green backed up by a court order and sheriff's deputies!

    1. Re:And I have the solution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, you need to get this under control. You're not living in an isolation bubble - these same assholes are ruining the rest of the world using the ship of n00bs as a weapon.

  32. Are you serious? by pablo_max · · Score: 1, Interesting

    How do you define "fallen dramatically"?
    http://edition.cnn.com/2012/10/17/us/violent-crime/index.html
    Seems to me that America still has WAY more crime, violent crime especially, than other 1st world countries.
    http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2012/october/annual-crime-in-the-u.s.-report-released

    1. Re:Are you serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Crime rates have been declining steadily over the period and last year's increase compares with a record low figure for 2010.

    2. Re:Are you serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Posts links saying violent crime has been falling for two decades, had one year where it was higher than previous year. Makes claim that violent crime is out of control in the US, almost complete opposite of article posted. Upvoted because it fits the "groupthink" and no one bothered to read article and think for themselves. /. once again proves that its readers on average are idiots.

    3. Re:Are you serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Reality check: according to most metrics, the U.S.A. can't really be considered a 1st world country.

    4. Re:Are you serious? by steelfood · · Score: 1

      "Fallen dramatically" over the past 20 years? There's no "fall" without time, and social changes are usually measured in decades.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    5. Re:Are you serious? by houghi · · Score: 1

      Lies, damn lies and statistics. I have no idea how each country makes them up, ur, collects them, but there are bound to be differences.
      Perhaps one says a barfight is a violent crime, perhaps another says it isn't.
      Perhaps there is a difference in carrying, threatening to use and using a weapon.
      Domestic violence can be seen in various ways when looking at it from statistics. And perhaps one country is more looking at solving that domestic violence and trying NO to arrest as many people as possible. That would make it an incident and perhaps not a crime.

      So even with identical situations, the outcome would be different.

      Most likely there are several reasons the numbers are different for different countries.

      Reminds me of when some people tried to compare what the best train service was in Europe. That was not really possible, because 'late' was different for each country. e.g. one said 10 minutes is late, another said 5 minutes. So a train would be late in one country, but not in another country. And this could be the same train 7 minutes arriving after the expected time.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    6. Re:Are you serious? by ducomputergeek · · Score: 1

      By whose measurement? It's almost impossible to compare the US and most of Europe because the two do not collect the same data. The best guess I've seen is that if you compared the US to the UK using FBI rates, that the US averages 466 violent crimes per 100k and the UK is somewhere around 750 per 100k.

      --
      "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
    7. Re:Are you serious? by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      And even that is complicated by the fact that the US has a really high murder rate, but that killing is overwhelmingly related to the drug trade. Your chances of experiencing violent crime in the US are tiny if you're not involved in that.

    8. Re:Are you serious? by wisnoskij · · Score: 2

      You cannot compare America to 1st world countries. That is not a fair metric.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    9. Re:Are you serious? by Americium · · Score: 1

      Seems to me that America still has WAY more crime, violent crime especially, than other 1st world countries.

      It may SEEM that way to you, but the data does not support your theory, it's a fraction the crime rate of other 1st world countries.

      Incidents in the year 2010 per 100,000 population
      Rape:
      U.S. 27.3
      UK (England and Wales) 28.8
      Australia 88.4
      Sweden 63.5

      Assault
      U.S. 250.9
      U.K. (England and Wales) 664.4
      Australia 766
      Sweden 936.6
      Scotland 1449.7
      source: https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/statistics/crime.html

    10. Re:Are you serious? by Zumbs · · Score: 1

      It should probably be noted that the legal definition of rape in Sweden is a lot more broad than in many other countries and that they have had a drive to get rapes reported http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics#Sweden. In neighboring counties the rates are:

      Denmark 6.4 (2009, 2010 numbers not entered)
      Finland 15.2
      Norway 19.2

      A large problem with getting reliable statistics on rape is also that many rapes do not get reported, e.g. Wikipedia states that "One of six U.S. women has experienced an attempted or completed rape", insinuating that the actual rape rate in the US are a lot higher than the reported rate. Similar arguments can be applied for assaults (in Estonia only 7.8 assaults were reported per 100,000 population!). As homicides tend to do get reported, it may be instructive to look at the rate of homicides per 100,000 population:

      U.S. 4.7
      UK (England and Wales) 1.1
      Australia 1.0
      Sweden 1.0
      Estonia 5.2
      (same source as parent)

      --
      The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
    11. Re:Are you serious? by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      Lies, damn lies and statistics. I have no idea how each country makes them up, ur, collects them, but there are bound to be differences.

      For instance, a murder in the UK is not reported as murder in yearly crime statistic reports if nobody is charged in court for the killing, and the murder is reported in the year it was charged and not the year it was committed.

    12. Re:Are you serious? by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      Indeed. The UK murder rate is far higher than national statistics claim because they don't add any murder in which nobody is charged in court.

    13. Re:Are you serious? by markhahn · · Score: 1

      you can get FBI UCR data yourself and plot it. violent crime peaked in 91/92 and is about half that value now (per-capita - though this normalization doesn't make much difference.) the interesting thing about the UCR data is that most of those numbers are "aggravated assault" - not a happy-fun thing, but the homicide rate is only a tiny fraction of the total. the robbery rate has stayed about half the assult rate since 1990, though before that they tracked closer. rape is also included in the violent-crime total, though it's obviously under-reported.

      homicide is probably the metric most relevant to this story. it has indeed fallen dramatically.

    14. Re:Are you serious? by gordo3000 · · Score: 1

      I can't say for all countries, but at least according to wikipedia:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_crime#United_Kingdom

      the UK and australia have far higher violent crime rates than the US (double in the UK relative to the US, and the UK is hte second most violent country to Australia).

      Now if you are talking about getting shot, it is far more likely in the US, but the UK and Australia more than make up for it with assault, robbery, rape, and other types of murder to make them far more violent.

    15. Re:Are you serious? by Soluzar · · Score: 1

      The only metric that counts is that it's the USA. The term "first world" was originally defined as being the USA and her allies, as opposed to the "second world" which was comprised of the USSR and other socialist countries. The "third world" was everyone else. The term "first world" was historically defined by relationship to the USA, so to say they don't count as part of it any more is... kind of a hard sell.

    16. Re: Are you serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's readily apparent that 'first world' doesn't mean what you think it does.

    17. Re:Are you serious? by ByronHope · · Score: 1

      However the US has almost 5 times the homicide rate of the UK and Australia. Most people would rather take a punch than a bullet.

    18. Re:Are you serious? by Sabriel · · Score: 1

      Did you notice in that link you quoted that the US and Australia define "violent crime" differently?

    19. Re:Are you serious? by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

      if you compared the US to the UK using FBI rates, that the US averages 466 violent crimes per 100k and the UK is somewhere around 750 per 100k.

      The problem with that is that the US definition of "assault" is the UK (and Canadian/Australian/NZ) definition of "aggravated assault". So the UK "violent crime" statistics are measuring much more than US "violent crime" statistics. The UK definition of "assault", otoh, isn't even Federally reported in the US.

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    20. Re:Are you serious? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      If they are counting "murder" then the UK statistics are correct. If they are counting "homicides" then the US statistics are correct. Part of the US statistics is about enforcing Christian values. Homicides are lumped together so that the suicide rate is hidden. Just like someone that kills themselves by getting drunk and driving into a wall at high speed is listed in statistics as "speed related" and "alcohol related" but "deliberate" or "suicide" aren't options. Yay obsessive Christian values forced on us.

    21. Re: Are you serious? by gordo3000 · · Score: 1

      Yes, so at the very least it is better to look at the UK, which defines it similarly though I don't have the legal definition of violence against a person and what that may include or exclude compared to assault in the US.

      It's never perfect comparing crime stats across countries but the standard talking point that the US is somehow multiples more violent is pretty obviously not true, else it would be hard to find a definition that flips the numbers so egregiously.

    22. Re: Are you serious? by gordo3000 · · Score: 1

      Absolutely, but the difference is more a beating with a bat or stabbed with a knife and alive vs shot dead.

      Luckily it's pretty easy to avoid being shot in the US as long as you aren't living in the in a city. At the very least this map will help you avoid it:
      http://m.theatlanticcities.com/politics/2013/01/gun-violence-us-cities-compared-deadliest-nations-world/4412/

      And to put this map in perspective, Chicago in 2012 made up about 4 pct of all gun homicides in the US (435 out of about 11k)

      On the other hand the violent crime in the UK and Australia are very diffuse. I looked this up before moving here, but they release crime stats for violence across the country and its quite similar.

      Not trying to defend gun violence in the US. It's pitiful Chicago is so bad, but my only point is crime stats are complex and each type of crime isn't de facto more prevalent in the US simply because of our gun statistics, and even our gun statistics say a lot more about inner city gang violence (which exists in the UK but has fewer guns) than a generally more violent culture vs similar countries.

    23. Re: Are you serious? by ByronHope · · Score: 1

      Fair points, and it's similar in Australia, certain areas are more violent than others. Conservative regional areas, some indigenous communities (where alcohol is allowed) , outer suburbs and anywhere alcohol is served can be dangerous. Though with alcohol, the same can be said of most countries. However US gun violence is not limited to gangs in the inner city, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10256057/US-teenagers-shot-Australian-baseball-player-because-they-were-bored.html

    24. Re: Are you serious? by ByronHope · · Score: 1

      I should add, violence in Australia and to a lesser extent, the UK is more cultural than driven by poverty. The levels of poverty seen in the US are very rare in Australia and the UK. You're unlikely to be mugged or robbed here, more likely get in a fight drinking.

    25. Re: Are you serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While there are lots of gun deaths that are not hang violence, the last number the CDC put out I saw was 8900/11000 are gang related gun deaths. It at least puts the breakdown in perspective.

    26. Re:Are you serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The UK murder rate is far higher than national statistics claim because they don't add any murder in which nobody is charged in court.

      The UK murder rate is far lower than national statistics claim because they add in any murder in which somebody is charged in court even though the murder was from a previous year.

      Those two roughly cancel out, once you bring in the fact that in nearly** every murder case, someone is eventually charged.

      **95%ish if I remember.

    27. Re:Are you serious? by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      I'd like to see something backing up the contention that the UK clears 95% of murder cases. If so, they have the best investigative police on Earth.

      As for the fact that they report murders for the year they're charged rather than the year they're committed, that simply means a given year's rate is more representative of crime in previous years rather than that of the current year on average. It doesn't mean crime rates are actually lower than reported. It just means an accurate reflection of a given year won't occur until a later date.

    28. Re:Are you serious? by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      One major problem is that people compare the UK murder rate to the US homicide rate, which further skews the real picture.

    29. Re:Are you serious? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      As a wise man once said, "can't fix stupid".

  33. Back in school... by geogob · · Score: 1

    we used to run around the school yard with wood sticks and make pew pew pew at schoolmates and - oh god -.even towards teachers.

    Obviously we had to turn all out to be serial psychotic killers that shot everyone out our schools.

    1. Re:Back in school... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      When I was 15 I had a gun that I'd used for about six years and so had most of the other boys and some of the girls in the class. It would be a bit hard to go postal with a bolt action .22 rifle though so people didn't worry about it so much. IMHO I think it's the "what if the iphone was a semi-automatic pistol" reasoning that's making people go insane over the issue - the real answer is to make it a bit harder for anyone to bring concealable multi-shot weapons to school instead of going apeshit over a game.

    2. Re:Back in school... by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      We used to bring dart guns to school. I made a special double barreled one, still got it around here someplace.

    3. Re:Back in school... by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      we used to run around the school yard with wood sticks and make pew pew pew at schoolmates and - oh god -.even towards teachers.

      Obviously we had to turn all out to be serial psychotic killers that shot everyone out our schools.

      Worse than that: you became a /. poster.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  34. It's almost like they WANT more shootings. by VortexCortex · · Score: 5, Insightful

    With all the school shooting we've had in the United States, it's just not a very good game to be playing at this time." The boy is now facing criminal charges for terrorizing and interference of the operation of a school.

    So, instead of just counseling the lad, and maybe talking to teachers and investigating the bullying, we're not going to fix the situation, but make an example out of the kid for doing the equivalent of making a "gun" with his finger and saying "bang". In fact, the over-reaction by the school will just ensure that the very kind of people who actually DO shoot up schools will not go to the grownups for help for fear of being jailed as a terrorist for their thoughtcrimes.

    Will you scared little fuckers actually do anything I want if I drum up threats of your woman and children being harmed? Of course you will. School Bus Drivers kill more kids in accidents than school shootings do. You Fucking morons are so easy to control. Keep the environment, make more examples to make the environment worse and thus gain more control through fear. We've got you to acclimate children to not walking home without supervision, despite child predator numbers being at an all time low, and acclimated to wearing RFID tags and getting retinal scans for no good reason.

    1984's big brother is OK so long as he's "protecting" kids from harm, not oppressing adults? Proitp: Your indoctrination starts when you're yet young. The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world. Soon we'll have you implanting microchips in babies that ping a wireless network, so they don't get lost... And brining your kids up to be the model dystopian citizens. Fools.

    1. Re:It's almost like they WANT more shootings. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Two years ago 17,000 people tried to illegally get guns. They lied on the forms you fill out and they failed the background check to get said firearm. The government prosecuted a grand total of 32 of those people that year.

      Fast and furious sold 2000 guns to people who couldn't pass a background check, the ATF told the stores to go ahead and sell the guns anyways. The only repercussions is Brian Terry got killed, and the whistle blower for the program got fired.

      How can you justify more laws and more regulation when everything is going fine. You HAVE to force situations to happen and then yell that the current laws, which are not enforced, are not good enough and "its for the children". Hell, you have most of /. screaming for major limitations on freedom of speech as well whenever they can as well because they have been convinced that if certain people express their opinion the end of the world will come about.

    2. Re:It's almost like they WANT more shootings. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are you implying that they want to get more shootings simply because they arrested this boy?

  35. Mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    None of the "brainless fuckers" posts consider that when a mass school shooting does occur, the first question that everyone asks, after the casualty lists and shooter's identity and background are published, is:

    How did this happen? Didn't the authorities have any warnings about this kid?

    And if the answer to the second question was 'yes', you wouldn't to be one of the said authorities who had that information and did little except to file it away and express concerns to others in private. And it's not just the legal or publicity repercussions. You'd feel like you had the blood of many kids partly on your hands because you were part of the problem for not acting as a responsible adult.

    That's where the mayor and police are coming from. Not saying they're right, but you have to respect their side of the argument and respond to those, not just call them stupid for confusing a video game with guns. What should be done with the kid who was using the app?

    1. Re:Mod parent up by crizh · · Score: 1

      How did this happen? Didn't the authorities have any warnings about this kid?

      I'm willing to bet in 100% of cases, or as close to 100% as makes no difference, the authorities were fully aware that the kid in question was the victim of bullying.

      Or to put it another way.

      WAS THE VICTIM OF SUSTAINED AND REPEATED CRIMINAL ASSAULT.

      I'd also not be surprised if their response to this knowledge was to do Sweet Fanny Adams.

      Frankly I think that ought to make them legally culpable for the subsequent actions of said victim of criminal assault.

      --
      Trust The Computer, The Computer is your friend.
  36. Next: normal FPS games by gmuslera · · Score: 1

    Even doom 1 could be banned with the same arguments, or at least, any fps where you play with (and kill) friends. Luckily no company (yet) had the great idea of making an fps where you can put your own face in your character (as far i know). And why not include any game where you kill people/monsters/whatever with guns, even if are 2d platformers? America's Army and any other where you play soldier are excepted because is ok to kill in that case.

    1. Re:Next: normal FPS games by PRMan · · Score: 1

      When I was in college some guys modded Doom to make it the college campus. I didn't have a problem with that. Then they started talking about which teachers they wanted to shoot. That was a little dark. I told them to knock off talking about killing teachers (I was an RA). It IS a bit of a slippery slope, but pointing a finger and going "bang, bang" should NOT be an arrestable offense.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    2. Re:Next: normal FPS games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then they started talking about which teachers they wanted to shoot. That was a little dark. I told them to knock off talking about killing teachers

      Sounds like someone has been brainwashed by the NWO, as long as these gun games don't end up becoming reality, no one should care.

      If this ludicrousness continues, what next? banning the holodeck because it's too real? give me a fucking break!

  37. A threat is a threat by jeorgen · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Well, if you would send a letter to someone saying they will die, then that it is most obviously a threat. If instead, you would send a drawing, showing them dying, it would still be a threat. If you publicly or in a way that at least can bee seen by the persons depicted, post a video of them getting shot, that is still a threat. Now, I am not familiar with this app, and it might be that it does such an unrealistic job as to it not being something that can be taken seriously, but if it does a good job, and somebody decides to post it or send it so that it gets the attention of the people in the film, well then it is a threat. Think like this: If "three fingers Joe" of the mob posted the same video, I think it would be pretty clear to see that it is a threat.

    1. Re:A threat is a threat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You make a good point. I'd go to clarify like this:

      Using app itself without intent for others to see what he was doing: fine
      Using app and then posting to youtube without any context: questionable - is this 'marking' his 'victims' or just joking around with an app?
      Using the app and then posting to youtube with at least some implied context of humor- bad taste but not illegal

      I don't know what the case was in this particular instance, but I can get how uploading a video of these hits was at least potentially threatening.

      Even so, a threat from a teenager probably isn't legitimate and teenagers dont think things through. We cannot put all these things to trial and we definitely shouldn't be trying them as adults. Instead we should be ounseling on appropriateness of the action and counseling on the root case. We've gone from never correcting kids on anything for fear of being offensive or getting sued to just throwing them in jail when they do inevitably screw up for lack of boundaries.

    2. Re:A threat is a threat by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      He isn't being charged with threatening anyone. Legally threatening someone would be considered assault in most states so long as the threat is both credible and it is possible for it to be immediately carried out.

      The reason for this is simple. Talk is just talk and even we cannot build enough jails to hold something like the 80% of the population that makes some kind of vague threat to someone at some point in their lives.

      If the kid has a gun in his hand and says, "I'm going to kill every last one of you" that would be simple assault in most states. But if he says the same thing without any immediate means to carry it out and it doesn't seem credible then it is not asssault in most states.

      I think they really need the new terrorism laws to go after someone for making non-credible threats that anyone can see is just talk. Lucky for people like you they do have such laws now. Just be careful what you say...oops did I just threaten you? I guess it could be seen that way, right? Someone is pounding on the door. I'm just going t

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    3. Re:A threat is a threat by westlake · · Score: 1

      Think like this: If "three fingers Joe" of the mob posted the same video, I think it would be pretty clear to see that it is a threat.

      It's rather a pity that George Orwell didn't live long enough to see the geek in full flower. Posting a video to YouTube that can plausibly be seen as a threat is not a "thought crime."

    4. Re:A threat is a threat by Animats · · Score: 1

      Well, if you would send a letter to someone saying they will die, then that it is most obviously a threat.

      It's hard to judge how serious it is.

      I own a domain in .com for which a private school in the UK has the same domain in the .co.uk namespace. I used to have a catchall email address for that domain, before spam made that useless. So I would occasionally get misaddressed mail for students at that school, all of whom had addresses within the school domain.

      So one day I get an email: "I am going to kill you tonight". It's not addressed to me, but to a student at the school. This was shortly after Columbine, so I thought I should do something. I was able to reach the headmistress of the school by phone. They had to wake her up for this; it's the middle of the night in the UK. I read her the email. She immediately knows who the student is, tells me he's 12 and it's not a serious threat, and says she will deal with it. The impression I get is that the student responsible is going to get a major chewing out, but there's no talk of police involvement.

      If it had been a US school, there probably would have been a SWAT callout.

    5. Re:A threat is a threat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You are fucking retarded.

    6. Re:A threat is a threat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey fuckhead! You're going to die! (of old age, eventually)

      Is that still a threat, you dumb, shortsighted, fucking pinhead?

    7. Re:A threat is a threat by AlphaWoIf_HK · · Score: 1

      No one was harmed. No one was threatened. It's highly unlikely that anyone would have ever been harmed.

      We have people like you to thank for the TSA. You are a coward.

      --
      Da derp dee derp da teedly derpee derpee dum. Rated PG-13.
    8. Re:A threat is a threat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Drawing someone dying, even animating it or recording and editing a video of it, is not a threat, and is protected "speech".

    9. Re:A threat is a threat by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      if you would send a letter to someone saying they will die, then that it is most obviously a threat

      Yeah, damn oncologists.

      Think like this: If "three fingers Joe" of the mob posted the same video, I think it would be pretty clear to see that it is a threat.

      Quite possibly, I haven't seen the video. But if "three fingers Joe" says that his Manhattan isn't dry enough, and he remembers the time "Sleeps With the Fishes Freddy" made a non-dry Manhattan I would interpert that as a threat too. If any 15-year-old kid said that I would think it was just him being stupid and thinking he was funny (exceptions for the sons of Mafia dons I suppose).

      (IANAL) But I thought an illegal threat requires proximate means, plus the illegality of the act being threatened, plus in some cases a sense of immediacy (real or implied), plus a reasonable inference that the act will be performed.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    10. Re:A threat is a threat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, legally, it is not -- at least, not until we had terrorism laws.

      I could post right now that I'm going to kill you, detail how I was going to do it, and promise you that the bore of my gun would be the last thing that you would see before you die -- and I still wouldn't be up on conspiracy to commit charges, because I don't know who you are, don't have the means to locate you, and don't have any firearms.

      With terrorism laws, however, the ability to charge someone with a crime for doing something from 'selling wolf tickets' (as I would be if I threatened you as above) to doing the crushing-head-skit-thing has become fantastically easier, to society's detriment.

  38. Different perspective... by jonnythan · · Score: 1

    Playing the game is one thing. The kid wasn't arrested for playing the game.

    Imagine you're a 15 year old high school kid. You just saw Newtown happen. You get a link in your email from a classmate and hit Youtube to see a video some other kid you don't know using this game to "shoot" you and a bunch of your friends in the hallways.

    What do you think? How do you feel?

    Playing the game and posting the video are two very different things. Posting videos of you "shooting" your classmates calls for some sort of action. That is messed up.

    1. Re:Different perspective... by mynamestolen · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes it needs action as you say and the action is called counselling, listening, fixing the bullying problem. You Americans live in a fucked society. There, I've said it again. Damn, I'll lose karma.

      --
      work in progress
    2. Re:Different perspective... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      What do you think? How do you feel?

      I don't know what kind of treatment this particular kid got, but in all likelihood, they're getting only a tiny taste of what they've participated in making others feel. When you seriously start to consider violence to yourself or others because it's preferable to going back to school for another day, something is very, very wrong. I've been there. I was bullied every day for years and years because I didn't fit in and I had no one to teach me to stand up for myself.

      Playing the game and posting the video are two very different things.

      The first will never change anything.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Different perspective... by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      Posting videos of you "shooting" your classmates calls for some sort of action. That is messed up

      No it isn't. It's just kids being kids. It's 100% harmless. Let me get something through your head. A VIDEO GAME IS NOT REAL. Did that help?

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    4. Re:Different perspective... by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      You get a link in your email from a classmate and hit Youtube to see a video some other kid you don't know using this game to "shoot" you and a bunch of your friends in the hallways.

      If it was me being shot... I would think, "WAY cool, what app is this and where can I get it?"

    5. Re:Different perspective... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There, I've said it again. Damn, I'll lose karma.

      But you will gain it back from the Europeans and anyone outside of America who understands that their education and law system has gone to the dogs.

      I'm probably also going to get moderated down for bashing america as well. Can you even win when up against fascists?

    6. Re:Different perspective... by AlphaWoIf_HK · · Score: 1

      What do you think? How do you feel?

      100% irrelevant.

      Posting videos of you "shooting" your classmates calls for some sort of action.

      Why? Who was physically harmed? No one. Was it even remotely that someone was about to be physically harmed? No.

      You are a coward.

      --
      Da derp dee derp da teedly derpee derpee dum. Rated PG-13.
    7. Re:Different perspective... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How often does someone lose karma when they say they will?

  39. The Major is right though by sharklasers · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately the Major is right. He appears to sound level headed enough to know that this is probably just a teenager venting, as does everyone, and that's all there is to it. But at the same time he's stuck between a rock and a hard place - given the fucked-up state of the US, if he lets it go and the kid DOES shoot up the place, then things won't turn out well. There's enormous pressure on him to process this by the book because school shootings are such a high-profile issue these days.

    Putting myself in his shoes, I think it's a fucked up situation is all, and I hope the charges are dismissed quickly once it's clear that if the kid really wanted to shoot up the school, he'd do it with a gun and not resort to an FPS overlay.

    1. Re:The Major is right though by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      if he lets it go and the kid DOES shoot up the place

      This is where your reasoning fails. This kid is no more likely to end up shooting someone than anyone else. You may as well arrest everyone who owns a squirt gun or who plays violent video games or who has ever used the word "gun" in a sentence. If the cop's reasoning is as you describe then he is a fucking moron.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    2. Re:The Major is right though by gweihir · · Score: 1

      The Major has to have the backbone to accept the tiny, tiny risk of this kid actually going mental. That is called "leadership". Seems nobody knows anymore that power _must_ come with responsibility and willingness to accept it, or it gets perverted beyond all reason.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    3. Re:The Major is right though by zwarte+piet · · Score: 1

      If he lets one go and people die, then he's not eating right.

  40. Thought Police? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is now the age of the "Thought Police" (read the book "1984" - if you don't get it).
    They are now prosecuting him for this thoughts and what was in his imagination.

    There was no physical crime. The use of the 'app' was still just an extension of his imagination.

  41. O’er the land of the free & the home of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Well, it must remain allowed to buy and wield actual weapons, but it's good we can at least prohibit toy guns. Not free and brave enough for those.

    Next up: arresting people for driving under intoxication because they have been drinking non-alcoholic "beer". After all, that's a way of simulating/threatening to drink real beer.

  42. How does this help? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In what universe does putting this kid through the legal process associated with criminal charges make him a more productive member of society?. I don't see any possible positive outcome to this action.

  43. "interference of the operation of a school" by mrspoonsi · · Score: 1

    Is there a law on the books specifically about interference of the operation of a school? If so, it is such an open ended law, imagine an 8 year old in class being a little disruptive (perhaps chatting to friend), should that child face criminal charges?

    Ah the word terrorizing, let me guess, once the other kids found out they were running around screaming in terror? what no? then it is not terrorizing, it might be making a nuisance, but definitely not terrorizing.

    The constant involvement of police (or the threat of) in school business, that will lead to:

    1) an army of robot citizens, with little or no thought of being free
    2) those who are not robots, a strong resentment of law enforcement (people have a judgement of what is fair and what is not).

    1. Re: "interference of the operation of a school" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mission accomplished.

  44. Terrorism as domestic crime? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When terrorism was added as a domestic crime lately, the proponents promised this sort of thing, normal activities and minor infractions, would not be raised to "terrorism" thus "infamous" and/or "felonious". Oops. So much for that.

    JJ

  45. In other news by gerardrj · · Score: 4, Funny

    A 7 year old was arrested for terroristic actions after tossing an airplane across the classroom and it hit the wall, knocking a "teacher of the year" plaque slightly askew. The stunt reportedly tossed the airplane without any reaction from classmates. When one of the students relayed the story to her parents they decided to call the police to warn of the anti-social behavior. When asked, Police Chief Marny Logan said "We had to take it seriously, you never when he'll switch from paper airplanes to real ones. We can't teach kids that it is okay to fly aircraft in to buildings."

    In other news: using chalk to draw in the street is found to increase the risk of future graffiti crime by 43%. Children who stick objects in their nose will one day use a straw and accidentally snort cocaine.

    --
    Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
    1. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other news: the attorney for a defendant accused of stealing several iPhones and Androids unveils a novel legal defense that 'all information was meant to be free', and that the smartphones are the prototypical information-carrying devices for our age; so there was no theft by his client, maybe infringement at worst. The judge, who reads Slashdot and Techdirt every day, agreed to dismiss all charges.

      Wow, that was fun and clever, wasn't it? Want to read some more?

    2. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reader note: These stories are true and are not made up.

  46. I'm crushing your head! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://youtu.be/PM5_dgKDsrc

  47. The school admins and police are insane by mysidia · · Score: 3, Interesting
    • They cannot distinguish fantasy or fiction from reality. --- We don't know at what time that game becomes reality.
    • Cannot conduct affairs appropriately due to psychosis or Subject to uncontrollable impulsive behavior --- "You can't ignore it"
    • Impulsive reaction to fictional threats; therefore, the officials are a hazard to themselves and others --- "He said that he had no intentions of hurting anybody." "We have to take all threats seriously"
    1. Re:The school admins and police are insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay so perhaps we can do better than jail and have them all put in the nuthouse for years. That'd cut down on Zero Tolerance insanity alright if grossly unresonable judgements were taken as the signs of insanity they are. Even if they suspended the kid they'd still be wrong but not as grossly disproportionate. Well that or investigate them for another kids for cash scandal.

  48. Fucking idiot cops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a thought - so every police officer, government agent and even the president needs to be arrested and prosecuted for thinking about killing people daily...

    There was no threat, no intent, nothing... It's a video game with enhanced reality as a backdrop.

    Morons
    Idiots
    Too stupid to live, and yes I do mean the cops.

  49. actually.... by Xenious · · Score: 2

    I'd like to see this go to trial and see if they can really get a conviction. It would be very cool if they fail and then get sued for damages and compensation.

    --
    -Xen
    1. Re:actually.... by tutufan · · Score: 2

      Unfortunately, it's far from clear that the defendant would prevail, and he would be seriously harmed even if he did. I personally know of a kid that now has a juvenile record for something even more innocuous than this incident, but that was also twisted into something terror-y by some seriously vicious adults. It's kind of like the whole Satanic Ritual Abuse thing (remember that?). It'll keep going until we finally decide as a society to call bullshit.

    2. Re:actually.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you have any idea of the immense anxiety that would be felt by a teenager in such a situation? That's a lot for some kid to go through for you to see a 'cool' trial.

    3. Re:actually.... by geek · · Score: 1

      I'd like to see this go to trial and see if they can really get a conviction. It would be very cool if they fail and then get sued for damages and compensation.

      Yeah really cool. In the meantime the kid misses out on his high school education, is traumatized for life due to incarceration as a juvenile and his parents go fucking bankrupt on attorneys fees and the state billing them for their kids room and board as ward of the state.

      Sure would be fucking cool.

    4. Re:actually.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... they fail and then get sued for damages ...

      How does one prove that being treated like a criminal is wrong? Especially given the US mantra of 'tough on crime'.

    5. Re:actually.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is every lawyers dream. To defend a case this easy it's pretty much a free win and free damages for the defendant. How is this any different than a kid pulling out a water pistol and squirting people? It's actually even less since no one even got wet!

  50. I'm squishing your head by iceperson · · Score: 1

    I remember as a kid "squishing" the heads of people with my thumb and index finger. Who knew I was committing terroristic threats...

    1. Re:I'm squishing your head by celle · · Score: 1

      "I remember as a kid "squishing" the heads of people with my thumb and index finger. Who knew I was committing terroristic threats..."

          Actually it was assault and battery and probably worse if they passed out.

  51. These stupid fucking assholes by shiftless · · Score: 0

    I wonder if the thought ever occured in these idiots' pea brains, that possibly their stupid overreaction to bullshit like this is what causes dudes to go crazy and blow shit up/kill people? Yeah that's right, keep arresting and harassing and intimidating and acting out of an "abundance of caution" and guess what, one day you will drive some kid over the edge! This kid already admitted being bullied and hating his life, and you think the solution to that is to arrest him and bring him up on charges? Fucking asshole idiots!

  52. Shooting finger guns at each other is meaningless by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    The kids that mowed down their class mates wouldn't have been A-OKAY upright citizens had they simply been prevented from pretending to shoot people in very childish and innocent little games.

    That isn't and has never been the root of this issue.

    What offends me the most about these sorts of rules is their stupidity. We are being dictated to here by lowbrow lackwits that sadly have the power of the state to compel us to obey their latest stupid thought.

    The issue is not kids playing silly little games. The issue is that a certain segment of the human population is stark raving loony. Just as some are stupid or some are going to die at age 5 from a brain tumor... some are just mentally broken. There's nothing you can do about it besides find them and watch them for violent tendencies. And not goofy little games but vicious, cruel, and sadistic acts. You see that, you isolate them. If you can come up with a way to cure that sort of thing... fine. But in the meantime... watch and isolate. Because plan B in the old days was just killing them. Which sounds cruel until you remember that left to their own devices they tend to put axes through people's heads for no reason.

    So... long story short. This stupid game has nothing to do with the school shootings. Stop messing with kids over this stupid crap unless your intention is to declare your own stupidity.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  53. Bingo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The parent that reported the kid is probably the parent of one of the bullies... so their child's safety was at stake.

    Hold it a minute. Why do you suspect that their child's safety was at stake?

  54. Super by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    More insanity.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  55. America is what it is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its'n not surprising, not anymore.
    They are teaching their boys that is the way to do:
    Punish you because "we America" see martians/chemicals/WMD... even when there not exists.
    Just look what America do in other countries.
    It's The Old-New American Way.
    It's not trolling, is the way we see you America today, don't like it, then CHANGE Now.

  56. Re: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So they investigated and went to the bottom of it, and they supposedly knew it's not a big deal. But their conclusion is WTF, putting a minor to the court for this? America police fucked up once more.

  57. Age by nurb432 · · Score: 2

    While i disagree with the topic being a crime, being underage does not somehow magically exclude you from being a criminal. Criminal behavior has no boundaries.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well Americrap must be different then, outside of Americrap there are countries where the age of criminal responsibility ranges from 12 - 16 in Europe.

    2. Re:Age by crizh · · Score: 1

      To the best of my knowledge, in Scotland its 10.

      If you don't know that violence is wrong by age 10 something has gone badly wrong.

      --
      Trust The Computer, The Computer is your friend.
    3. Re:Age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While i disagree with the topic being a crime, being underage does not somehow magically exclude you from being a criminal. Criminal behavior has no boundaries.

      Clearly neither does common sense, as demonstrated by the much older adults that feel arrests need to be made for a fucking cell phone game.

      I'd imagine if some kid brought a PS3 to school, "armed" with COD Black Ops and a "tactical" dualshock controller, he'd be considered a goddamn terrorist.

      Don't worry about your kids futures, parents. At this rate, anyone "armed" with a brain will be behind bars soon.

    4. Re:Age by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was playing Mortal Kombat 2 in Arcades at age 10 and I never freaked out at the fatalities, This was an 18 rated game here in the UK and I never killed anyone or have violent thoughts, we have far more violent horror movies and no one ever speaks about banning them. Why do games get the flak?

      I have come to the realization, It's the damn newspapers!

  58. Scare him? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Why? He did NOTHING wrong. The fact you even suggest this makes you as sick as the ones that want this kid in jail ( and destroy what is left of the next generation )

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Scare him? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact you even suggest this makes you as sick as the ones that want this kid in jail

      That OP is really sick, isn't he?

      (Memo to OP: banning certain types of video games is one of many 'third rails' on which there is no room for moderates on Slashdot. You are either with the herd or you are an absolute, total, f****ing brainless totalitarian thug who should be locked in a prison cell with sex offenders).

    2. Re:Scare him? by AlphaWoIf_HK · · Score: 1

      (Memo to OP: banning certain types of video games is one of many 'third rails' on which there is no room for moderates on Slashdot. You are either with the herd or you are an absolute, total, f****ing brainless totalitarian thug who should be locked in a prison cell with sex offenders).

      I don't believe they should be locked away for having that opinion, but I do believe people who think we should ban certain types of video games (Who suggested that, anyway?) are authoritarian imbeciles; no truly free country would do such a thing.

      --
      Da derp dee derp da teedly derpee derpee dum. Rated PG-13.
  59. Reality by OnlineAlias · · Score: 1

    "We don't know at what time that game becomes reality." I think this guy should speak for himself. I certainly know, and this isn't it.

  60. You know what I bet they don't take serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actual bullying, despite how harmful and dangerous it is.

    Because doing something about the real problems in society is more difficult and takes hard work.

  61. Re:Wait, wait! by 0111+1110 · · Score: 5, Informative

    At the very least, the posting of the video constitutes a death threat, which demands justice.

    No it does not constitute a death threat. A death threat is, "I'm going to kill you now, AC". A video game is just a video game now matter what the pixels may or may not look like.

    Let me say that again. AC, I am going to murder you sometime very soon. I own a gun. An assault rifle. I am going to kill you with it. This IS going to happen. So you might want to prepare a will or something. Perhaps flee whatever country you live in as well. Just to be safe.

    The only problem is that I have no idea who you are and no way to find out and I don't actually own a gun. Do you see why threats are required to be credible and why the person making the threat is expected to have some realistic means of carrying it out?

    --
    Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
  62. OMG1! Call the Copz! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just saw the most horrifying video on youtube of a young, geeky guy targetting random people on the street with simulated massive head trauma.

  63. mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, instead of just counseling the lad, and maybe talking to teachers and investigating the bullying, we're not going to fix the situation, but make an example out of the kid for doing the equivalent of making a "gun" with his finger and saying "bang". In fact, the over-reaction by the school will just ensure that the very kind of people who actually DO shoot up schools will not go to the grownups for help for fear of being jailed as a terrorist for their thoughtcrimes.

    You're accidentally not modded +5 yet, and I seem to have misplaced my modpoints.

  64. Re:Shooting finger guns at each other is meaningle by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

    Umm that is illegal now as well. The using your finger to shoot someone is. Well at least shooting them with a pop-tart.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/18/student-suspended-for-pop-tart-gun_n_2903500.html

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  65. Not a free speech issue by xyourfacekillerx · · Score: 1

    He can't interfere with the operation of a school. Those laws are applied hundreds of times each day by schools across the country. That's why you can get sent to the office for being disruptive. At the very least, that's what this is, it is disruptive. And also possibly intimidating. It's not much different when gangsters drive past you with the the trigger-finger gesture. Be honest. Would you feel threatened if your classmate were drawing pictures of you dead? Don't lie. Would you feel threatened if your classmate celebrated images of your fictional death by sharing them with others? Liar. Yes you would. That's why this kid is getting punished, and he should be.

    Something else to think about: Some people respond to apparently credible threats to personal safety with preemptive violent strikes of their own. ...

    1. Re:Not a free speech issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you were a bully, you'd be actively causing it, even though you'd probably justify it, and you know what? Nobody is going to do anything about the bully despite how bad the victims of the bullying feel. Which is threatened. Intimidated. Despaired.

      And yet what is going to be done about that?

      You're right, this isn't about free speech, it's about actively dealing with a situation in a constructive and reasonable manner. But no, we have these half-measures that do nothing to solve the causes of the problem.

    2. Re:Not a free speech issue by c5402dc53929211e1efb · · Score: 1

      You should be executed. Sorry, there's no room left on the planet for degenerate idiots like you.

    3. Re:Not a free speech issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So... If someone that gets bullied makes a video like this to express his feelings of what they are doing he should be sent to jail...
      But if bullies constantly harass someone every single day with small comments and rumors they might get sent to the principal?

      What do you think causes the most harm? Someone getting psychologically harassed every single day for a few years or someone appearing in a spoof video once because someone felt mistreated by them?

      Something is seriously f***ed up here..

    4. Re:Not a free speech issue by AlphaWoIf_HK · · Score: 1

      He can't interfere with the operation of a school.

      He didn't.

      Would you feel threatened if your classmate celebrated images of your fictional death by sharing them with others?

      How I would or would not feel in such a situation is irrelevant to the fact that preserving individual liberties is more important than not hurting people's feelings.

      --
      Da derp dee derp da teedly derpee derpee dum. Rated PG-13.
  66. Zero tolerance, zero thinking, harms children! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From TFA: "God Bless Louisiana"- There is the problem right there. They are fucking retards.

    This kind of zero-tolerance, zero-thinking policy HARMS THE CHILDREN.

    IT HARMS THE CHILDREN!

    The people who had this kid arrested should, themselves, be locked up along with anyone who supports zero-thinking policies. They are worse than pedophiles!

  67. No wonder they have a bullying problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clearly the kids learned by watching them. Arresting students for noncrimes just because they can, sounds an awful lot like bullying to me. You know they wouldn't dare do that if he was a celebrities kid, or on the football team (of course then he would stand a good chance of getting away with rape). Hell even if he was legally an adult with poor judgement they wouldn't - my opinion on the matter is that juvenille courts are kangaroo courts. They care only about power and abuse those without it a sure sign of sociopathy and corruption.

  68. more guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And this is why there should be more guns. .. if any one tried to bulky him he could shoot them. ..

    Problem solved the nra way...always more guns

  69. Status of the gun control debate: by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

    1) Use a phone to simulate shooting someone: Get arrested
    2) Buy a gun that can actually shoot someone: A-okay!

    'merica.

    1. Re:Status of the gun control debate: by markhahn · · Score: 1

      there are differences between possessing the means to commit a crime, publicly threatening a crime, and actually committing a crime.

  70. Maybe do something about bullying? by dbc · · Score: 2

    Maybe address the cause of all the anger and frustration?

    1. Re:Maybe do something about bullying? by platypusfriend · · Score: 1

      I guess I should have read all of the comments before I posted, huh?! I said something to the same effect. School bullying is often the root cause of school shootings. So, stop the bullying if you want to stop more of the shootings.

  71. um by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Major Wolfe of the local police said, "You can't ignore it."

    Yes you fucking can-

    1. Re:um by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, maybe you cant ignore it... But you can f***ing keep it from escalating into ridiculousness like this...

      If you are worried then send him to a mandatory counseling session(s) not prosecute him for something that not even a real crime!

  72. Terrorized with a cell phone! by kawabago · · Score: 1

    It sounds like everyone knew the activity was harmless except the police. How can you terrorize someone with a cell phone?

    1. Re:Terrorized with a cell phone! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can you terrorize someone with a cell phone?

      By calling them and threatening to kill them?

      Quite close to posting a video of yourself strangling them on youtube, actually.

      Which is pretty much what he did.

  73. Louisiana is home to ignorant people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ignorance and stupidity explains the absurd response to
    the student's playing a video game.

    Unfortunately, while ignorance can be "fixed", stupidity
    cannot be changed.

    The best solution is not to live in a backward place like
    Louisiana.

  74. Kids are dumb by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

    Kids does dumb but mostly harmless thing. Lets ruin his life by arresting him and throw him into adult prison. Either he will become a real criminal, or will become

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  75. The Victim Has Leveled-Up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So instead of being bullied by other school students, he's going to be bullied by law enforcement, school officials and the court system. The safety of the bully must have been in jeopardy.

  76. Kids? by Jadecristal · · Score: 1

    And all these fucking idiots wonder why I don't want children. Seriously?

  77. no violence by nten · · Score: 2

    I blame the complete lack of tolerance for violence in schools. Ask someone who graduated in the last ten years about the fights they got into at school. Now ask someone 20 or even just 10 years older than that the same question. It was a relatively rapid change where occasional fights were the norm, to being unthinkable. I don't know if it was us applying rules that made sense for schools where kids brought shivs, to schools that didn't have anything more than normal scuffles, or just the general risk aversion society has developed. Parents teaching their children to always walk away from a fight didn't help. In an adult life that makes sense. If someone is violent you get out of there. You will probably never see that person again and it doesn't matter what impression you make. School is a lot more like prison. If your kid walks (or worse runs) away from a bully, he will see that bully again tommorow, now having the left the impression of weakness. My parents taught me it was ok to defend yourself, and I figured out on my own that the best method for deterring a bully is hyperescalation. From k-12 I can count on one hand the number of times it was necessary, but today I would have been expelled. So today we are forced to tell our children to take the beating or to continually run and hide, because of the intelerance of our schools for violence.

    --
    refactor the law, its bloated, confusing and unmaintainable.
    1. Re:no violence by crizh · · Score: 1

      WTF?

      If schools were so intolerant of violence there would be no bullies!

      Bullies exist because of a TOLERANCE of violence.

      Idiot.

      --
      Trust The Computer, The Computer is your friend.
    2. Re:no violence by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      Bullies today rarely use violence, so they can operate without any expectation of punishment.

    3. Re:no violence by crizh · · Score: 1

      How?

      If they lacked the ability to resort to violence they would be utterly powerless.

      --
      Trust The Computer, The Computer is your friend.
    4. Re:no violence by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I reported that I was attacked (in school, long ago). They took that as a confession and suspended me for fighting. The 5 guys that ganged up on me denied it. So it was one against 5, they didn't even get a warning.

      There is a zero tolerance policy that has the opposite of the intended effect. Nothing I could do would have stopped that bullying, I got beat up often, and harassed on a daily basis.

      When I switched schools, the first person that bullied me a little got a concussion. I wasn't bullied after that.

    5. Re:no violence by supercrisp · · Score: 1

      I suppose you don't read the news. The most recent example is the girl who killed herself after a gang of her classmates spent a year tracking her down on social media to write things like "why don't you kill yourself." Ostracism, hateful words, those things are very powerful. Sure, violence. But you don't need violence to be a bully.

    6. Re:no violence by bogjobber · · Score: 1

      Oh, please. I graduated from high school ten years ago, and I saw plenty of violence. A girl in my brother's class (middle school age) got her ass kicked by a group of two or three kids, went home and grabbed a baseball bat. She came back and beat them so bad one of the kids ended up with permanent brain damage. How's that for hyper-escalation? One of my friends back then was constantly harassed and bullied, stood up for himself, and got his ass beat nearly every day because of it. This wasn't little kids shoving each other waiting for someone to start something, he got a thorough ass-kicking on a regular basis. Despite it being obvious what was happening, the administration wouldn't give any of the kids responsible more than in-school suspension. Care to guess how successful his education was?

      A school is a place of learning. You want to teach a kid how to fight then put them in Krav Maga. School should be a safe haven. Any sort of violence or threatening behavior should warrant a harsh and immediate punishment. There is no place whatsoever for violence or intimidation, and anyone advocating such is completely fucking insane.

      Criminal charges are an absolute joke in this situation, but that doesn't mean the kid didn't do anything wrong. He should have been taken aside and informed why what he did was a stupid idea, and possibly given detention or some other sort of mundane punishment. But anyone claiming that schools should be perfectly fine with violence, or (in your case) openly advocating such behavior to "toughen them up" needs to have their head examined. I hope you never have to deal with telling your kid to stand up for himself and then watch him get brutalized.

    7. Re:no violence by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      I can only assume you are completely out of touch with reality if you truly believe that.

  78. Re:Shooting finger guns at each other is meaningle by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    I'm sure it is... and its the product ignorant minds because that sort of behavior is not what caused students to get gunned down with REAL weapons.

    There is no correlation OR causation between that behavior and actual violence.

    Absent any link, why would you ban it? You can find a reason but it won't be substantive.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  79. But not the bullies, right? by platypusfriend · · Score: 1

    Do we have a bigger school shooting problem, or a bigger bullying problem?

  80. 'Thinking the 'wrong' thoughts'... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... is apparently a crime nowadays... thanks to your unelected Jewish masters...

    Cue some Slashdot ignoramus modding me down so that eventually I can't post any more - and they'll actually pat themselves on the back and say "See? Nobody else says that Jews run our country, so they can't!", not seeing the irony - anybody else who dares speak the truth about the eternal Jew is ALSO modded down until they are banned from posting - can't have those unpleasant truths getting into your minds, can we?

    There would be no bullying if we had freedom of NON-association, because all the nice, decent kids would be able to get AWAY from the bullies. But then, the poor, hard done by Jews can't allow freedom of NON-association either, because they know that MOST people would choose not to have anything to do with them, given a choice (and a media that isn't owned by Jews..., who have brainwashed people into thinking we must protect the poor Jews...)

    www.nazigassings.com

    Did 6 million really die?

    Who benefits from the lie that is the 'Holocaust'?

    You'd think Jews would be PLEASED if somebody was able to prove that fewer than 6 million Jews were killed during the Second World War - but instead they put people IN PRISON for merely 'saying things Jews don't like' - i.e. questioning their impossible Holocaust lies...

    1. Re:'Thinking the 'wrong' thoughts'... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... is apparently a crime nowadays... thanks to your unelected Jewish masters...

      Cue some Slashdot ignoramus modding me down so that eventually I can't post any more - and they'll actually pat themselves on the back and say "See? Nobody else says that Jews run our country, so they can't!", not seeing the irony - anybody else who dares speak the truth about the eternal Jew is ALSO modded down until they are banned from posting - can't have those unpleasant truths getting into your minds, can we?

      There would be no bullying if we had freedom of NON-association, because all the nice, decent kids would be able to get AWAY from the bullies. But then, the poor, hard done by Jews can't allow freedom of NON-association either, because they know that MOST people would choose not to have anything to do with them, given a choice (and a media that isn't owned by Jews..., who have brainwashed people into thinking we must protect the poor Jews...)

      www.nazigassings.com

      Did 6 million really die?

      Who benefits from the lie that is the 'Holocaust'?

      You'd think Jews would be PLEASED if somebody was able to prove that fewer than 6 million Jews were killed during the Second World War - but instead they put people IN PRISON for merely 'saying things Jews don't like' - i.e. questioning their impossible Holocaust lies...

      As a proud member of the International Jewish Conspiracy, I just want to let you know that we don't care. I still get my checks every month and make my selection for world leaders when appropriate. You can go ahead and complain all you like, but that's just the way it is.

      If you were smart, you'd convert. Then you could get the horns surgically implanted on your head and actually have a say in how the world is run. Because us Jews are the chosen people. And you're not. I love how well we've done. We're only 1 in 400 or so of the people in the world, yet we run everything. We control the currency, the culture and the governments of the world. We make sure you only get coupons for things you don't want, because we don't like you. We fuck your wife when you're not home. We make sure to take the last parking space right before you get there. Because you aren't a Jew like me. We fix the Super Bowl. We plant steroids on A-Rod. We adulterated your corn flakes. We make you dance. Dance, motherfucker! Please.

    2. Re:'Thinking the 'wrong' thoughts'... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That last paragraph needs a few "We do!"s in there.

    3. Re:'Thinking the 'wrong' thoughts'... by neminem · · Score: 1

      I really wish I had mod points.

      Also, how do I join? I'm a Jew, but I've never gotten any money, or been given any particular power, as a result. (Though I did once get a lawyer to fix something for me pro bono, but that was less being a Jew, and more my mom being really good at knowing people and getting them to do things for her, even if many of those people are from her local temple.)

  81. Welcome to America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...where you only take terrorism seriously when it's a downtrodden, bullied kid with a virtual gun. Forget the bullies, ignore the pleas for help, just wait until they do something vaguely interesting and prosecute them. After all, if they were normal they would have been the bullies.

  82. Doh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    don't you know that it is the bullies who NEVER EVER get punished.

    A huge part of the art of bullying (that is passed down through the generations) is the ablity to escape any punishment whatsoever.

    Those who are bullied get punished by those who should know better (Teachers, Parents, Police) because they take the easy way out.

    I hope this kid sues the school and the local PD into Oblivion.

    How many kids have to die before the powers that be take notice.
    The scars on my wrists are evidence of my youth and being bullied. Two of those who did the bullying to me have served Life Sentences for Murder. They got exactly what they deserved.

    1. Re:Doh! by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      I guess you are one of the lucky ones whose bullies got what they deserved. In my case, I eventually couldn't take it anymore and fought back against one of my bullies. But I was duly punished for fighting back after a year of bullying, and the bully was allowed to continue to bother me for the rest of the year and now he knew that I could not fight back because authority was on his side.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  83. Next finger banging will be an arrestable offense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I may not mean the dirty kind but I suppose that one could be a felony as well.

  84. Political Correctness gone haywire by Yahma · · Score: 1

    The idea of political correctness in this country is so warped that thought crimes are now punishable by jail sentences & convictions. Most schools now implement a 'zero-tolerance' policy. These politically correct zero tolerance policies are designed to prevent bullying, but in fact do the opposite. At my nephews middle school, the principal stated on the first day of school that if anyone were to attack a student, the student could not fight back. Fighting back would result is severe disciplinary action (ie. zero tolerance) against both students and that the proper response was to lay on the ground (while presumably being beaten unconscious) and wait for help to arrive. Political correctness has become so extreme that even the right to self-defense has been eschewed.

    1. Re:Political Correctness gone haywire by bussdriver · · Score: 1

      Not the best way to present it; however, it is not entirely bad policy. Laying on the ground is extreme. Self defense shouldn't be allowed as a justifiable excuse. Sure the punishment should be less but "self defense" should be punished. A true defense wouldn't involve any counter-attack; only defensive moves. Actual education on Ghandi might help people understand; he could be described as militant in his non-violence tactics. Americans are not taught about Ghandi or MLK in any meaningful way... or most of history or geography either.

      It is an extremely common rationalization; abused all the time from small fights to full blown wars. Self defense can even be used when you started a fight... Trayvon Martin comes to mind. No, you don't have a right to self-defense. No, the 2nd amendment isn't it either. Children barely have rights (which were only partially granted in recent times.) It's a traditional cultural belief, that's all. Now if you think the punishment is worth defending yourself then by all means take the lesser evil.

      Zero Tolerance == Zero Brains

  85. They're coming for you next Mark McKinney... by IcyHando'Death · · Score: 1

    .. now that they recognize the obvious threat represented by videos such as this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAknnmy_i9k

  86. Arrest Everyone At The Movie Theater! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Movie-goers are all criminals. How dare they watch simulated violence.

  87. Re:Wait, wait! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The message here is that "my way", being "the new American way" is unreasonable and is so far removed from the freedoms and rights this country was formed on, it's become a grotesque parody.

    Enjoy the police state that you so admire. I hope one day you are on the wrong end of this brand of "justice". Maybe it will wake you up.

  88. This by crizh · · Score: 2

    The real problem in our cultures is the total abdication of responsibility by the authorities for the criminal violence perpetrated daily in our educational institutions.

    Every child learns that they can either get away with committing acts of violence against others or that society will tie itself in knots to avoid protecting them from criminal violence.

    Is it any wonder the victims of violence take the law into their own hands when our most important laws are actively ignored by those who ought to be enforcing them and protecting the rest of us from those that would break them.

    Almost every problem our societies have can be traced back to acts of violence that are being tolerated by those that should know better and are committed by those that have been trained by our educational establishments to believe are acceptable.

    Assault is a crime.

    An extremely serious crime that we should never tolerate. Effectively enforce that one law and almost all the other serious crimes would disappear overnight.

    --
    Trust The Computer, The Computer is your friend.
    1. Re:This by Belial6 · · Score: 2

      No, while schools don't throw every kid who assaults another kid in jail, there are punishments for it. The problem is that the punishment for the victim is equal to the punishment for the aggressor. The chronic aggressors don't care about the punishment, and thus it is not a deterrent. Thus, the victims are in a worse situation than if the schools had in fact abdicated any responsibility. The bully now has the weight of the schools authority to add to his own violence to abuse the victim.

    2. Re:This by crizh · · Score: 1

      Surely a school authority's responsibility is to punish transgressors and protect victims?

      If they are failing to do so systematically as you suggest then they are abdicating that responsibility.

      It does not matter what mechanism this takes, it matters what the result is.

      And the result is that victims remain unprotected, they may even be punished for being victims, and the criminals remain largely unpunished.

      That is unacceptable and needs to change.

      --
      Trust The Computer, The Computer is your friend.
    3. Re:This by Fjandr · · Score: 2

      And if you defend yourself in school, you're punished to the same extent an aggressor is.

    4. Re:This by crizh · · Score: 1

      I can't tell if you are replying to me or the Grandparent.

      Based on what you said below I assume you are replying to me.

      I which case try reading what I posted again.

      It was a reply to almost exactly your point which I felt I had quite effectively rubbished.

      --
      Trust The Computer, The Computer is your friend.
    5. Re:This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's called a "zero tolerance policy". Children are punished for being "involved" in a fight. "Involved" can mean being held down by two other people while a third beats you. Everyone is punished equally, therefore, by bureaucratic logic, the school administrators have CYed their A's and no parents have a right to complain.

    6. Re:This by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Surely a school authority's responsibility is to punish transgressors and protect victims?

      In a prestigious private school, I reported my bullies, and I was sentenced to detention (my report was considered a confession) and the bullies (it was a group) all agreed that nobody in the group did anything, so without proof, they were let off without even a warning. They got worse after that.

      The problem isn't the government or unions, it's the parents and schools. A very very conservative private school was worse than when I was at public school, so it's not a union or liberal/conservative thing.

      St. Mark's School of Texas, if anyone's wondering.

    7. Re:This by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      And if you defend yourself in school, you're punished to the same extent an aggressor is.

      This is to prepare the children for adulthood, where the defendant is punished far worse than the aggressor. If an aggressor shoots and kills an unarmed defendant who was complying 100% with the aggressors demands, and then a week later the same aggressor shoots and kills a woman who was selling him a stereo, then that aggressor will get 15 years in prison and probably be out in 5.
      On the other hand if a defendant shoots and kills an armed aggressor and saves the lives of multiple other people in their place of business, the defendant goes to jail for life. What kind of message are we sending here? I guess the message is that criminals and bullies can feel safe from retaliation from innocent citizens, and that they can operate with impunity without fear of reprisal or danger to their selves or their safety.
      At least it is a consistent message from school to adulthood.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    8. Re:This by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      I was replying to Belial6. If I'm understanding you correctly, you believe it's alright for schools to punish someone defending themselves with exactly the same repercussions as the person instigating violence against them? If so, we fundamentally disagree. I do not condone the enforcement of "lie down and take whatever someone else wants to give you." There are times when it is simply not possible to extract yourself from a situation where someone else is intent on inflicting physical harm. Believing otherwise is simply sticking your head in the sand.

    9. Re:This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      St. Mark's School of Texas, if anyone's wondering.

      "Producing martyrs since 1953."

    10. Re:This by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Founded 1906

  89. Dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The parents and arresting cops should be euthanized. Cull the stupid. Problem solved.

  90. Creator is an accessory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I surely hope the game's creator is brought up as an accessory, too. Seeing that the whole point of the game is to do what he did, you don't get it both ways.

    1. Re:Creator is an accessory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's bring in the platform provider, if they hadn't made the platform, then the game's creator wouldn't have been able to make it.

      Obviously they're at fault.

      And they have the deepest pockets.

  91. libtards projecting their own surrender on others by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Brought to you by the same care-bear mental-deficients who wont allow teachers to be armed in schools and leave the students completely defenseless.

    Interfering with Operation of a School - I wonder which fricken retard came up with that one to frame the kid with.

  92. Freddie Wong by Joshua+Fan · · Score: 1

    http://www.youtube.com/user/freddiew He must be lined up for the death penalty then.

  93. Lo-tech version by istartedi · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty sure at *some* point in my childhood I drew a picture of somebody I didn't like with a knife through their head or something. This was standard fare when I was growing up. Either that or you drew farts coming out of their butt. If you wanted to shoot somebody, you used your finger.

    The absolute *worst* thing that could happen is going to the principal's office. That'd be if you actually said something like, "I'm going to kill you" more than once or started a real fight with punches and stuff.

    Getting this kid involved with the juvenile justice system? Absofuckinglutely insane. They'll victimize him an order of magnitude more than the school bullies were bothering him. This kid should have had a private chat with a guidance counselor. I'm absolutely ashamed to be middle-aged now; because the twats that are damaging this kid are probably a part of my generation.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  94. dumb as fuck government. by Xicor · · Score: 1

    next thing we know, they will be charging 5 year olds with felonies for farting on eachother. heaven forbid we disrupt the school system playing a game.

  95. Alternative ways to deal with bullying by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

    http://www.bullies2buddies.com/
    http://bullies2buddies.com/resources/free-manuals/
    "This manual will teach kids why they are being picked on and how to make it stop without anyone's help and without getting anyone in trouble!"

    --
    A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
    1. Re:Alternative ways to deal with bullying by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Ha ha ha ha. That shit is funny. Ever get attacked by groups? When you don't pee all day because you are afraid they'll corner you in a bathroom? "Just be their friend" doesn't work. Changing schools was the only thing that worked, and when someone started picking on me a little, I gave him a concussion. Nobody at that school messed with me again.

      Oh, and one of my bullies was the child of a school administrator, so the one time I took someone's advice to report the bullying, I was put in detention for fighting. Nothing happened to the bullies. This was at a prestigious private school.

    2. Re:Alternative ways to deal with bullying by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Oh, goody, a blame the victim campaign against bullying. That will help. In this case, they are already punishing the victim to the full extent of the law.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    3. Re:Alternative ways to deal with bullying by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

      See my other comment here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4214133&cid=44856279

      It includes one testimonial about groups:
      ""A child was sent to me who had been teased by a whole group of children as a result of an incident at recess. I took him through the steps that I learned from Bullies to Buddies and within 15 minutes this child was able to go back to class and continue learning. The teacher was amazed at the transformation. I was able to teach the whole class the technique, which resulted in more time on task and more learning. The students got along better and the learning environment became more pleasant and enjoyable for everyone. Izzy is a master of making this learning fun and easy to teach.â -- Malda Burns, Rockdale Elementary School Counselor, Rockdale, Texas"

      I don't know how long ago you deal with a bully that way, but these days you might be arrested and jailed for assault for intentionally giving someone a concussion in school. Times have changed. Also, maybe nobody messed with you, but did you lose out on other relationships that you will never know about based on people's perceptions of you? (Maybe not in many schools, but consider what the implications would be in the workplace...)

      Also, as Izzy Kalman points out, fighting back can work, but only when you are absolutely sure you can defeat the bully. Also, what if that bully had a gun or knife, or a friend who did? Once you take a swing in response to bullying (whether verbal or physical), it could be seen as "self-defense" by the bully to seriously hurt you. These things are tough calls sometimes.

      Yes, you stopped the bullying that time. But words leading to endless rounds of violence also are how gang wars and endless vendettas can get started. Other aspects:
      http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/31/living/bullying-fight-back/index.html
      "This type of "superior force" advice shows a lack of appreciation for the complexities of the bully-victim dynamics of today's world, where bullying often takes place in new arenas, such as on the Internet. Sure, if a victim fights back and flattens his bully, the bully tends to back off. But what if the bullies are hiding behind computer screens? What if the target is physically incapable of taking down the bully, which is more often the case?
      The truth is that there are many bullying situations in which the victim cannot simply beat up the bully and end the problem. The very nature of bullying renders victims fearful, frozen and incapable of defending themselves. According to bullying researcher Dan Olweus, bullying is characterized by three factors: 1) It is repetitive (not a one-time event in the hall, but a regular ongoing problem). 2) It is unwanted (not two-way teasing where both parties are having fun, but instead a situation where someone is on the receiving end of taunts and aggression). 3) It takes place in the context of a power imbalance (a bigger kid against a smaller kid, or multiple kids against a single kid, or a kid with more social capital against a kid with less social capital).
      When multiple kids are targeting one child, the situation can feel completely overwhelming. ..."

      Nothing works for every situation. For example, Izzy Kalman says his approach requires the "bully" to be reasonable emotionally stable -- which is almost always the case, but not 100% of the time.

      BTW, Izzy Kalman's approach does not work by reporting bullying. In fact, he generally discourages reporting as just something that will escalate the problem (except if the bully is extremely unstable or causing significant physical harm).

      Here is the core of his approach:
      http://bullies2buddies.com/how-to-stop-being-teased-and-bullied-

      --
      A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
    4. Re:Alternative ways to deal with bullying by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      I don't know how long ago you deal with a bully that way, but these days you might be arrested and jailed for assault for intentionally giving someone a concussion in school.

      He hit me first, sort of teasingly, the way bullies start, measuring you to see if you'll take it or tell or whatever. So I knocked him down hard, and his head took a bad bounce on the floor.

      Also, maybe nobody messed with you, but did you lose out on other relationships that you will never know about based on people's perceptions of you? (Maybe not in many schools, but consider what the implications would be in the workplace...)

      In the workplace? I'd quit, sue, and retire. Bullying is either sexual harassment or assault. Either taking place in a workplace is not tolerated one bit. But both are allowed, and in fact encouraged, in school.

      Nothing works for every situation. For example, Izzy Kalman says his approach requires the "bully" to be reasonable emotionally stable -- which is almost always the case, but not 100% of the time.

      I'm curious why you are supporting that approach so much. I've been bullied, and the approach you advocate doesn't work. The truly sociopathic can't feel (or even understand) the victim's emotional state, so "don't be bothered" is not going to help.

      Nothing works for every situation. For example, Izzy Kalman says his approach requires the "bully" to be reasonable emotionally stable -- which is almost always the case, but not 100% of the time.

      Right. And I've been bullied by the "catch and mutilate cats" bullies that are budding serial killers. They aren't in a reasonable emotional state. Most bullies I've encountered aren't. The *only* thing I've found that worked was to beat them up. Yes, it can get me in trouble, but no bully would ever report their own beating. Even when I was the one in the wrong (yes, I sucker-punched one once - and it worked to stop the abuse).

      You don't have to be strong to take them down. Just go for the groin (even works on girls, they have the pelvic bone and lots of nerves in the same area, not quite as effective, but still works).

      My sister saw what bullying did to me, and she saw someone getting bullied in 6th or 7th grade, and beat up 4 large guys. There were hundreds of witnesses, and the teachers said "they deserved it". Cut down on their bullying after, too.

      His method doesn't work. I tried variations multiple times, and it didn't work. He's assuming "teasing" is bullying. Bullying includes much more than that. Much like actual rape victims are offended by Julian Assange's charge of "rape" for lying for sex (one woman I know who was offended by the definition, as it reduces the meaning of rape everywhere broke bones fighting off her attacker, oh no, Julian "raped" someone by promising monogamy, and not delivering), calling getting teased as "four eyes" bullying is funny, and pretty sad. Getting your underwear ripped off on a regular basis through weggies isn't quite the same thing. The bullied got together, and I remember telling the guy that was getting the weggie targets to cut his underwear. When pre-cut, the underwear would rip before bearing load, so it wasn't nearly as funny, and looked more like a hollywood weggie, not a bloody-from-friction-burns weggie that leaves scars.

    5. Re:Alternative ways to deal with bullying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My agreement is with AK Marc on this one, when I was bullied at school there was very little in the way of teasing, much more in the way of assault. There was a culture of "no one likes little boys who tell on others" so the teachers were completely uninterested in hearing about the bullying episodes, the bullying continued until I left high school.

      Four years after I had left school and had lived in a few rather unsavoury parts of town, I happened to cross paths with a former bully on the street. He recognised me before I recognised him and decided it was time to rekindle our old relationship, I disagreed and put him in hospital. I still see him from time to time, the difference being that now he will cross the street to get out of my way, bully effectively dealt with.

    6. Re:Alternative ways to deal with bullying by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

      To answer your curiosity of whay I encourage people looking at this approach, I'd be curious what your reactions to these three examples of the difference between two approaches to handling negative comments:
      "Victim Proof School for Kids (part 2)"
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_JVojbfNV0
      "Victim Proof Your School for Teachers"
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ei7CzlyPJTQ
      "Golden Rule in the Workplace"
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7j3GLS9aKo0

      That said, nothing works everywhere. Still, Izzy Kalman says it is rare that physical violence among humans (at least related to schoolyard bullying) is not preceded by some kind of verbal escalation beforehand. If you can prevent the escalation, you probably can prevent the violence.

      Anyway, it can be fun to try what Izzy demonstrates at home, He goes into more details on his CD and book, but basically, you get a friend, spouse, child whoever, and say you are going to play a game. The game is they are going to insult you and you are going to make them stop. If they stop, you win, If you give up, they win. The first time, try to disagree with them like he shows, getting upset, and so on. The second time, say it is OK if they think that, and so on, also like he illustrates. See which one they win and which one you win.

      Note that as Izzy explains, you need to do these techniques 100% of the time, and you will still experience some teasing, showing, and so on. If you do them 95% of the time and get upset the other 5%, the cycle will continue because the bullying is being randomly reinforced (see operant conditioning).

      Anyway, different things work in different environments. Sounds like you grew up in some tough situations. I could believe that what might work in most typical schools with typical bullying won't work in some with a certain kind of entrenched macho culture (without a lot of other changes).

      Another relate video:
      "Victim-proof your School demo"
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Txz_BtJV_w

      Maybe these techniques would not have worked for you. As Izzy says, when serious physical injuries are involved, you may need to do something else. But they may still work for most bully-victim relationships. One pilot study of that, but it still needs more validating research:
      http://www.psychologytoday.com/files/attachments/2610/pilot-study-the-bullies-buddies-program.pdf

      --
      A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
    7. Re:Alternative ways to deal with bullying by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Note how the totally incompetent authorities have absolutely twisted terrorism legislation to the maximum in order fabricate charges for a thought crime. Everyone was warned how that anti-terrorist legislation would be twisted and voilà we see it in action. What exactly are the authorities trying to achieve, is it arrest for arrest sake just to fill quota's, is it just a publicity thing to get elected, is it just a bully carrying on their bullying preferences targeting a victim, seriously what the fuck is in those sick people's heads.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    8. Re:Alternative ways to deal with bullying by AK+Marc · · Score: 1
      The videos address mild teasing. That's not bullying.

      Still, Izzy Kalman says it is rare that physical violence among humans (at least related to schoolyard bullying) is not preceded by some kind of verbal escalation beforehand. If you can prevent the escalation, you probably can prevent the violence.

      Yeah, like the school where I was assaulted by a group on the first day, some in the group I didn't even have a class with, so didn't meet before they assaulted me.

      His advice is not bad for stopping teasing, but teasing isn't bullying.

      Those who have been repeatedly assaulted are offended by the assertion that a small amount of name calling is bullying.

  96. Valuable lesson taught. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well they certainly taught this kid a lesson - the bullies will always win.

    What could possibly go wrong?

  97. Re:Wait, wait! by amiga3D · · Score: 2

    I'm thinking that posting the thing was a bad idea. Maybe some kind of warning was defintely in order. Talk to him and explain that his response to the bullying was in it's own way just as bad. Jail? You're fucking crazy. Talk about over reaction. What the hell ever happened to common sense. I remember when I was a kid and we did bad stuff my Dad told me where I went wrong and backed it up with a belt. Nowadays this is called child abuse and instead we throw them in jail or trank them on drugs. Big improvement....not.

  98. ehmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is just fucked up...

    Take all app's like this and check how many of those people actually did something violent and then you take a random selection of the population and compare the percentage between the two groups...

    My suspicion is that the percentage will be the same between the two groups.....

  99. second punch by nten · · Score: 1

    My parents also explained to me that retaliating against a bully would get me in trouble, because the bully's punch caught the corner of a teacher's eye, and the second punch (mine) would occur after the teacher was looking. It happened that way once, but usually the teachers didn't notice either their attack or my retaliation. Teacher's aren't superhuman, they can't be everywhere, and bullies pick their time and place carefully, kids have to handle some of this on their own, even though we wish they didn't.

    --
    refactor the law, its bloated, confusing and unmaintainable.
  100. Well said. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For years I've been saying the same thing, but not quite as succinctly.

  101. teabag = rape? by witherstaff · · Score: 2

    But this used augmented reality and a cell phone so it's just like the real thing. It's a good thing he didn't virtually teabag anyone he "shot" or he'd be charged with rape also.

  102. Freedom of Speech by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

    He made a video.

    I thought USA had some kind of freedom of speech thing going, Like a constitution or something.

    --
    Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
  103. Re:Wait, wait! by Freeman-Jo · · Score: 1

    That's depend of the point of view on who is sitting on the bench judging. Say certain type of cartoon/animation maybe OK in Japan but not in the US. I don't even play something like GTA and I agree with you that posting a video game shouldn't be consider a death threat, but then again we are suppose to obey the law written by people who don't understand anything they written about. In the worse case they have some type of incentive to write the law in a certain way. The way I look at this issue why the punishment doesn't fit the crime or why certain kids have to be single out for certain crime why other don't? So, it's not okay to to express yourself in a certain way even if it may violate the freedom of speech but nobody get hurt, but it's okay to beat the crap of other? If he get charged with interference of school operation, then I have to wonder if beating up classmate doesn't? Why doesn't the students who bullied other students get charge with this crime also? Or is the bulling behavior considered normal school operation?

    --
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- If picture worth a thousand words, how many megapixels is it? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
  104. OH NO!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I shot my son and some of his friends in Call of Duty,, I may need an attorney!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  105. They do know when the game becomes reality by Horshu · · Score: 1

    They use the game as a pretext to search his backpack in the mornings, ala the airport, and when he's got a gun in the backpack, it's become reality. If he has normal stuff and a phone in the bag, it's just a video game.

  106. Soo... by malkavian · · Score: 1

    Actual phychological and physical harm (bullying) is ok.. But god forbid you make a drawing of a video to sate your frustrations (or map a photo onto a game avatar, you know, like we used to put pictures on a dartboard).. That's illegal, terroristy and you need to be locked up for that!

    Step 1) Someone is found to be bullying, punish them.
    Step 2) See a lot of this kind of behaviour vanish.

  107. Double standards! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >We don't know at what time that game becomes reality.

    Better ban first person shooters and other violent video games, too!

  108. Sounds like the School has the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "We don't know at what time that game becomes reality."

    mabey you should figure that out before you start arresting people.

    Here is a hint: niether guns, nor bullets, nor any other object weapon or not, magicly jumps out of video games

    Who are these people to educate our children? Can't we do better?

  109. Welcome to the USSA by mschaffer · · Score: 1

    Nyet. Your freedoms have been suspended...including thought.
    Show me your papers and your phone.

  110. When I was a kid.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can take a gun into school and shoot if off and not even get in trouble. We had a shooting range in the basement!

  111. re game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And too think back in the 80's we WERE playing "the assassination game" in the high school

    using water pistols and the little yellow ball guns
    and water balloons one time ( they made good "hand grenades" )

  112. So much wrong by nickmh · · Score: 1

    There is so much wrong with this and most of it is not with the game player!

  113. Dear America by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    You are all insane. At least please stop trying to tell people in other countries how to live their lives. We don't want to be as crazy as you. Seriously - criminal charges, terrorism?

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:Dear America by stenvar · · Score: 1

      (1) If you think the US is unusual, you're probably simply unaware of the level of insanity in your own country.

      (2) We tell nobody how to live their lives. You people choose to buy our products, listen to our music, and watch our movies.

      We do send in our military when (a) you threaten our economic interests or (b) you start killing people in large numbers; as long as you don't do either, we don't give a f*ck how you live.

    2. Re:Dear America by AlphaWoIf_HK · · Score: 1

      We do send in our military when (a) you threaten our economic interests or (b) you start killing people in large numbers; as long as you don't do either, we don't give a f*ck how you live.

      In other words, our government wants to be the world police. Sending in the military for either of those things is something I find unacceptable.

      --
      Da derp dee derp da teedly derpee derpee dum. Rated PG-13.
    3. Re:Dear America by stenvar · · Score: 1

      Sending in the military for either of those things is something I find unacceptable.

      I find (b) unacceptable. For (a), it depends on the situation.

  114. Re:Wait, wait! by chihowa · · Score: 1

    So you're saying that one day, maybe even accidentally, this kid could have loaded real bullets into his phone and actually shot people with it?

    --
    If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
  115. I'm ashamed to be an American right now by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    Common sense is totally dead in this country.

    1. Re:I'm ashamed to be an American right now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take a good look at yourself and your skill set. Other Americans are ashamed that you're an American, so we agree on this point.

  116. The real story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... terrorizing and interference ...

    People were terrorized because a boy carried a phone!

  117. Reminds me of when I was a kid. by CODiNE · · Score: 1

    I loved playing DOOM, also playing around with a level editor. One day I realized my school would make a sweet level. You could have doors on all the rooms and lower level monsters for the "students" and a boss in each room, with the hardest monsters in the office as the VP and principle. You could theme the monsters a bit and have some as jocks in the locker rooms, fast ones on the track. Plus the layout of the buildings would be great for running and hiding.

    Then I realized. People are idiots. If I put out a mod of my own school surely I'd get in a lot of trouble. So I never made the map. Besides if some sick puppy used my map and then actually did a school shooting I'd never be able to live with myself.

    Sad that things have gotten this way.

    --
    Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
  118. bullying? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, *he* is bullied, and *he* is arrested, for his response to that bullying?

    If that is the case, he's been betrayed by the adults who are purportedly there to help him. Being arrested, especially when you're young, is no joke. It has a profound effect on the mind. This is really bad.

  119. In my gradeschool years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kids and I would make toy guns of cardboard and duct tape. We'd spend hours crafting the things, play with them for a minute, and then begin crafting more, with better design, more attention to aesthetics, commenting on each others' ideas. The activity was 90% sitting at a table with glue, colored paper, and popsicle sticks. Eventually a parent/teacher complained and were were banned from this type of arts and crafts.

    After that we played on the blacktop - dodgeball, wiffle ball, etc. It was on the blacktop that I was thrown into a metal slide, which gashed my face. It was on the blacktop that I was hit with a plastic baseball bat repeatedly. It was on the blacktop where I tossed a milk crate into the air and incidentally hit another boy in the head.

    Blacktop wasn't banned. Nor should it be. Experience life, it truly can't be stifled.

  120. "We Don'tKnow At What Time Games Become Reality... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "We Don't Know At What Time Games Become Reality..." says the Idiot Cop. Reality is when real guns loaded with real bullets are brought out. Nitwits playing (not training) with real guns but without real bullets is not real shooting, but is real stupid and so is chargeable for showing lack of the discipline the right to bear arms is defined to require.

        Idiots with raving imaginations but without basic powers of common sense or judgment who are allowed to occupy positions of responsibility and wield powers to arrest who are the greatest threat We The People of the United States face. They spend all their time imagining "abuses" of Liberty, and imposing by acting on their imaginations. We need to put those Idiot-Authorities in jails.

  121. So they should have taken it seriously by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

    Instead of this farcical response they should have gotten him help, fixed the underlying problem, and prosecuted the adults who were aiding and abetting the bullies (just speculating about that last part but does anyone doubt it?).

  122. What would happen in a sane society by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

    In a sane society the bullying would not have happened because schools would be places for learning.

    1. Re:What would happen in a sane society by hazah · · Score: 1

      No, that'd be another delusion all together. Where there's life, conflict will rise. A sane society figures out how to deal with it properly.

  123. I could have been charged with rape... by thecorrectline · · Score: 1

    For drawing a penis over Mrs. Lochky's photo in 3rd grade by this logic.

  124. Re:Un-reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck you. Oops I've let myself in for rape charges - lock me up throw away the key.
    Or perhaps just tell me not to be an unpleasant jerk.

  125. Re:Wait, wait! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FBI is on its way to 0111 1110's house in 5...4...3...

  126. I Hope Nobody Runs My Nuclear Blast Simulator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The United Nations Security Council would have them stuffed into a duffel bag and rendered for interrogation. Oh wait.. only the US does that. Haha! Nevermind.

  127. Way to miss the entire point of the things by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Fuck liability - the real reason is cutting down on head injuries. How on earth did we end up with a bunch of useless weasels that look at the issue from such a sociopathic angle as the one described above?

    1. Re:Way to miss the entire point of the things by AlphaWoIf_HK · · Score: 1

      How did we end up as a society that puts safety above all else?

      --
      Da derp dee derp da teedly derpee derpee dum. Rated PG-13.
    2. Re:Way to miss the entire point of the things by dbIII · · Score: 1

      We didn't. People with agendas just like to pretend we did. Most of the "keep the kiddies safe" stuff is really "if I don't do this I look like a bad parent".

    3. Re:Way to miss the entire point of the things by AlphaWoIf_HK · · Score: 1

      We didn't.

      Maybe not always, but people do get molested just for trying to get on a plane. Just because something makes people safer (which is where the TSA and bike helmets differ) doesn't mean it should be done.

      --
      Da derp dee derp da teedly derpee derpee dum. Rated PG-13.
    4. Re:Way to miss the entire point of the things by dbIII · · Score: 1

      That's a very good example of an agenda, especially things like the TSA funnelling money to Rapiscan for a device that probably doesn't work. Meanwhile bike and construction helmets get used whether there is a law or not because they cut down on the number of head injuries.

    5. Re:Way to miss the entire point of the things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay let me set this one straight, hard hats for construction are there becuse there is a real danger of heavy/hard things falling onto a worker's head from height. Bicycle helmets serve little purpose than to ensure emercyncy responders don't have to scoop up moosy brain scattered on the road by a cyclist involved in an accident.

      I have previously worked as a cycle messenger in a very busy city, battling traffic on a second to second basis, and have cycled in the same busy city for almost 25 years. I've had my fair share of accidents, (most of them the fault of a car/taxi/bus/truck driver,) not once have i ever sustained a head injury.

      I know some old messengers who have had accidents that involved the head, those who did not wear a helmet are missed and remembered well. Those who wore helmets, to a man, are now wheelchair bound, one of whom is now a quadraplegic as a result of a broken neck caused by the rebound of the helmet when it hit the tarmac.

      Preventing head injuries is all very well but does nothing to prevent the other injuries that arise from such accidents and also gives drivers a false sense that things will be fine if they hit a cyclist 'cos they're wearin a lid'. There is enough of a problem with motorists not repsecting the road space of cyclists without making it seem that as long as they've got protection on their head they don't need to be given the appropriate room.

      I personally would prefer a quick checkout than a lingering decline in a chair and that is MY choice to make, and if a driver kills me in an accident it would be much better that they face 'vehicular manslaughter' charges than the 'dangerous driving' or 'driving without due care and attention' charges that usually result when there is a non-fatal car and bicycle accident here in the UK

    6. Re:Way to miss the entire point of the things by dbIII · · Score: 1
      Ah - the "give me convenience or give me death" argument of those who think themselves immortal. Personally a bike helmet has saved me a few bruises from minor prangs and I got concussed once when my old helmet came off when I was scraped off the bike by the mirror of a passing car.

      Preventing head injuries is all very well but does nothing to prevent the other injuries

      It's the "low hanging fruit" where a lot of difference can be made with a very cheap device. Good helmets are not much more than the same polystyrene foam used for packaging and some sort of shell designed to stop it falling apart in daily use. Older hard shelled designs were found to transmit a lot of force to the skull without absorbing much in high impact situations which is why the foam is used now - it breaks apart instead of your head. Those wheelchair bound guys you are describing showed that the old designs were not good enough.

      With all that said, the medical statistics that led to lobbying for bike helmet laws say a lot more than anecdotes from either of us.

  128. Who is the bully here? by reboot246 · · Score: 1

    I say the school, the administration, and the police department are guilty of bullying an innocent boy.

    There's no common sense anymore. Zero tolerance will be the end of our civilization.

    If you send your child to a public (government) school, you're guilty of child abuse.

  129. Be careful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a relative of the original finger shooting 6 year old (google Mason Jammer) I can safely say you should always take outrages with a grain of salt. The media and his mom spun it as a case of political correctness run amok, but what it really was was garden variety first grade rebelliousness mixed with a short attention span. IE disruptive behavior of the completely mundane sort. It does make a compelling story for those with the right biases though, doesn't it?

  130. Re:Shooting finger guns at each other is meaningle by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

    Sure there is.
    If a kid that at one time made a gun from a pop tart kills someone the administrator that didn't punish him will be blamed for missing the warning signs.
    If he suspends or puts a normal kid in jail for playing nothing bad will happen to the administrator.
    Punishment for under reaction no punishment for overreacting means that it is only logical to overreact.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  131. Now he goes to gladiator school. by ralphaostrander · · Score: 1

    And learns how to really bang.

  132. thousands of people should go to that school by ralphaostrander · · Score: 1

    .And do the same thing and post it,are they going to arrest everyone.

  133. FFS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FUCKING ASS-BACKWARDS AMERICAN FUCKTARD HILLBILLIES.

    That's all. I use caps whenever I want to, fascist Slashdot pigs.

  134. Re:Wait, wait! by ZosX · · Score: 1

    You are going to kill AC? Please god do us all a favor!

  135. so I guess by stenvar · · Score: 1

    From this I gather that playing cowboys and Indians with real-looking plastic guns is somehow frowned upon these days?

  136. Bullied by other children, then bullied by the Man by dozr · · Score: 0

    Sure, the school will not address the bullying that is upsetting, harming these children, you get abused by your peers and then when you vent, non violently, you get abused by the people that are supposed to protect you from the bullies. A lot of schools have zero tolerance policies for fighting. You get bullied every day you stand up for yourself.... and you get suspended and/or expelled yourself. The administrators cover their asses with "it takes two to fight". The bully gets detention(but if he is in a sport the coach comes pulls them out of detention) with you, so that when you get out of detention it gives them another chance to bully you some more. And so on and so forth, absolving the admins from any responsibility.

    Now they call the cops and have you arrested, for nothing.

  137. Sweet Brown meets Major Malcolm Wolfe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, has anybody run the video footage of Major Malcolm Wolfe from the first link and run it through this app, and then added some music to it and done the "ain't nobody got time for that" treatment? I think Major Malcolm Wolfe needs a very harsh lesson in the difference between fantasy and reality. He also needs to grow a pair and also use that brain of his to make a judgment call instead of hiding behind zero-tolerance, and making a mountain out of a molehill. Shit we used to do this stuff with Wolfenstein and Doom back in the day...

  138. Re:Shooting finger guns at each other is meaningle by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    its never happened before.

    There is no evidence to link one behavior with another.

    End of any rational discussion on the issue.

    If you want to have an IRRATIONAL discussion on the issue, then I counter with "poptard * unicorn = rainbow"

    Which is about as sensible as things get if there is no interest in little things like evidence, logic, etc.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  139. Face Raiders-ish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So you can be arrested for playing fucking Face Raiders now?

  140. you're helping! by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

    I'm sure this kid will thank the police for correcting his mistake and this will in no way solidify any resentment of authority figures he has due to figures of authority not stopping the bullies like they should. thanks for doing such a great job!

    The "Land of the Free" has become an ironic title and we are all to blame for having let it get this far.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  141. "We have to take all threats seriously" by cas2000 · · Score: 1

    what threat? i didn't see any threat, or even the faintest hint of one.

    a threat is when you tell someone "i'm going to beat you up / kill you /etc".

    drawing pictures on a photo does not qualify.

    even if it is done on a *gasp* computer.

  142. Re:Wait, wait! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A} it isn't a police state to arrest someone who makes threats of violence. b) if you are going to NOT let the kid rule by terrorizing gthers, then it is most merciful to him to erect walls that he will not cross. Arrest is a little late, but better late than later. C) if you ARE ging to let the kid rule by terrorizing others, then other kids will see this and conform to the new society. Very quickly you will have gangs and gang wars and dead kids. That has been onging in certain cities for some time now. (detroit, Miami, NYC, San francisco, LA).

    Sometimes -- especially with teens in their brain-formative years, a little authoritarianism goes a long way towards maximizing the freedom of all, including them, themselves.

    I am posting theis, because it looks like you bombed the post And replied--therefore you might actually look back tosee if I answer you.

  143. Careful where you point that thing! by Cyfun · · Score: 1

    Next we'll have people in schools getting arrested for point their finger in a menacing manner, which I honestly can't wait for because it will likely include many teachers.

    --
    In Soviet Russia, dot slashes YOU!
  144. Breaking a postive feedback loop between V & B by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

    Izzy Kalman's approach is more complex than "blame the victim". In most cases, "bullying" emerges from an interaction of "bully" and "victim" (generally in the context of some community). In practice, "victims" have the most at stake in changing the situation and also are most able to intervene for themselves. While it is great to create caring communities where people respect each other in all ways, in practice humans have a certain back and forth of joking with and about each other and so on. Conventional anti-bullying campaigns run the risk of destroying communities and relationships out of some theory of how to fix them. They can actually make the problem worse (like encouraging tattling, where accusing someone of bullying can become a new form of bullying, etc.). According to the testimonials on his site, Izzy Kalman's approach works in practice, when most zero-tolerance and also tattle-promoting strategies don't work well. His approach works by breaking the feedback loop between bully and victim by the victim not responding in ways that gives the bully encouragement to continue. There are exceptions to this; Izzy Kalman suggests a few where his strategy does not work like where the bully is very emotionally unstable and violent, and then yes, you would need to bring in higher authorities including potentially law enforcement. But in general, Izzy points out that getting picked on now and then is part of community life; the issue is whether that escalates into bullying, and that mostly is under the "victim's" control -- as much as that might not sound "fair" in some ways.

    Where I might fault Izzy Kalman is not talking about how poor nutrition from junk food (lack of omega 3s, artificial colors and flavors, lack of phytonutrients, lack of vitamin D, etc.) may be leading to more violence and other anti-social behavior in our society. Also, the spread of computers, while not necessarily causing violence directly itself, takes away from time spent learning to interact with other human beings. And there are probably other similar factors as well (economic stress, failing communities, two-wage-earner families or single parents, etc.). I'm also all for teaching emotion coaching and conflict resolution and all sorts of other things that some anti-bullying efforts due. Also, I'm all for alternatives to compulsory schooling, where conventional schooling forces random children to spend all day with each other whether they want to or not (so children can't avoid conflicts that are escalating). But, as much as one can make people saying intentionally hurtful things less frequent, I feel Izzy is on to something in breaking the positive feedback cycle where negative comments spin out of control as the victim responds in ways that encourage the bully to keep going.

    Here is one example testimonial:
    http://bullies2buddies.com/evidence-testimonials/does-bullies-to-buddies-work/
    ""Bullies to Buddies is the most effective anti-bullying program I have encountered in my 14 years as a school counselor. It gives victims the tools and strategies necessary to handle difficult situations, thus increasing their self esteem. Parents are thrilled and some of them are practicing the skills with their children. The teachers and aides feel relieved that they no long need to handle every tiny little tattle or situation. This saves an enormous amount of time in the classroom and children find that they have more time to play. The teachers not only used the strategies of Bullies to Buddiesâ in their classroom but also with their husbands, children and exes." -- Vickie Kolb, School Counselor, Brandon Valley School District, Brandon, South Dakota"

    In the case for the original article, maybe if the "victim" had learned these skills of managing these situations, then things would not have escalated to the point where the "victim" was pretending to kill people using a phone? Maybe the bullying would have never got that bad if the vict

    --
    A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
  145. freedom of speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    According to this article it may soon lead to some sort of rape-like sexual charge if we tell somebody fuck you, or go fuck yourself.

  146. If it was your kid that got popped by jerud · · Score: 1

    In the video cap. Would you be thinking about how this kid is being treated unfairly? Or would you be worried for your child's safety? He says he was bullied. Maybe he was, maybe that was a convenient thing to say when he got in trouble. Maybe I'm getting old but I don't think putting a video online of you simulating killing people is ok. If this happened I'd hope they dealt with the bullying but I'd also be very concerned about that behavior. Maybe having 3 kids in school has made me over protective but a video like that would scare the hell out of me.

  147. Justice system is going to crap by jbee02 · · Score: 1

    I can understand the need to investigate but unless you find evidencevthat he intended to actual go on a shooting, you shouldnt be able to arrest him. He didnt commit a crime.

    1. Re:Justice system is going to crap by lpq · · Score: 1

      I wanted to vote yours insightful, but wanted to respond to next,

      so +Insightful.

  148. Finger gun by Jitu+Kali · · Score: 1

    So what..!! what about the kids who plays with those toy gun and everything they sell in toy stores.. What the fuck happen to this timeline.. soon to point a find will be to point a gun even if you show your buddy something in the public, people will start laying down accused you shooting with your finger in the public.

  149. Crush Individuality by StoneyMahoney · · Score: 1

    Glory To Arstotzka!

  150. Re:If it was your kid that starred in a film? by lpq · · Score: 1

    Welcome to living in a society with free *speech*.

    Was you kid physically bullied? No. Where they even teased by classmates (in this case, unknown)?
    Absent any provable damage other than the "feeling" you get when you go to a theater and watch a movie where all the kids in the movie are killed by the end in the movie, you think scary things should be grounds for action against the scary thing?

    Um...where do you draw the line: Generally, when there is actual damage.

  151. So what happens to the guy who created this app? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I want to know why the child who played the game, that he was able to download on his corporate sponsored iPhone, Android, Windows Phone, and not the creator of the app that suffers. Frankly I would blame the person who created the app more than the kid who used it. Frankly I don't see why it's the kids fault. It's not, he chose a particular method to blow off his frustration and gets chastised for it? I think playing a game, is far less severe, than joining say a boxing club, or taking up wrestling, because those two sports the intent is to cause physical discomfort and possibly harm. Yet it is OK for a student to take up wrestling, but not OK for a student to play an IMAGINARY game where he targets the BULLIES that are making his life miserable to begin with. So did the bullies who inspired this kid to use the app get punished or reprimanded? Of course not, because it's the bullies who in the end become the politicians who create these sorts of F#*$ed up regulations in the first place. Makes me sick to my stomach really!

  152. Hysteria by jbgeek · · Score: 1

    Amazing the level of hysteria and hoplophobia creeping into American society. I really fear for the future of our country.

  153. Ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When I was in High School in the 80s, we played "The Assassination Game." This involved getting a target assigned to you (another kid who was in the game) and you had to shoot them with these guns that shot little plastic disks. We all packed everywhere we went, because you never knew when your target would show up (or when your assassin would show up). It was fun. No one died. I myself got shot by (what we'd call now) a drive-by shooting. I lost the game, but have survived with a cool memory. Now if we tried that game we'd probably end up in jail.

  154. Thought Crime by Dabido · · Score: 1

    All people who post to this thread are under arrest for thought crime. Please report for reNeducation. Excuse me. Knock at the door ...

    --
    Sure enough, the cow costume was hanging up next to the superhero outfit and sailors uniform. (S,Spud)
  155. The kids bullying him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While the boy scared some people perhaps and may be punished, I bet nothing happens to the bullies and harassed and harried the boy. The real villians escape again.

  156. Ignore the bullying by TheDarkener · · Score: 1

    It floors me how the school can not, at the VERY LEAST, sympathize with the kid and try to fix the issue of the initial bullying. But it seems like they're all still quite tied up in the whole...GO WILDCATS! GO SCHOOL SPIRIT!! WOOOOO!!!! bullshit that runs the school system. Now I want to download the app and go to the school, and "shoot" the ones who put him in juvie.

    Now, am I going to get arrested for suggesting that?

    --
    It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
  157. Re:Really? Punish the victim? Teachers are bullies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The school administration is now liable for this person cracking in the future. They have punished the victim. There's a huge chance the victim will react to this unfairness in later years if not sooner. How DARE these "adults" damage a victim like this!? Their action is no different than telling a rape victim that she "invited it."

    FACT: The school administration has no interest in solving anything, only in creating conformity through ALL MEANS POSSIBLE. Is that evil? You be the judge.

  158. As a proud expat all I need to say is: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'Merica! F*ck Yea!

  159. Keep it virtual by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

    The police shall then use a mobile app that simulates an arrest and the judge shall use another mobile app that simulates a trial.
    A video shall then be posted on youtube where bars are overlayed over the kid's picture to simulate prison.

  160. Unless the following are true, there is no case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did the app user at any time make the 'target' aware that he had been 'shot' in effigy? If not, no terrorism.
    Did the app user at any time make a threat to a third party by demonstrating how easily he could ACTUALLY shoot the 'target'? If not, no terrorism.
    Can't threaten if you don't tell.

  161. Pew pew pew! by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Clearly a terrorist!

  162. A bit of perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "With all the school shooting we've had in the United States..."

    In the last 20 years, there's been just under 300 people killed in school shootings...

    To put that in perspective, there were 728 people killed by "personal weapons" (hands, feet, etc) in 2011 ALONE...

  163. Litigation Nation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I agree with most that arresting this kid is pretty dumb, but let's face that we live in litigation nation. If the kid posted those pictures on youtube and then later shot someone (remote as the possibility might have been) many people would be asking why the authorities didn't read the tea leaves... In litigation nation, authorities often have to go to extremes to cover their asses.

    So yeah while it may it seem popular to blame the "incompetent authorities" (and they may even be incompetent), the general society owns some of the blame. For every oversight, undersight, or mistake made by someone in power (because humans in power can never legally make mistakes) there are plenty potential litigants looking to cash-in usually to the tune of large sums of money.

    I'm not coming against the authorities being reasonable, I'm just saying we need "reasonable" from all sides to make good policy and achieve good results.

  164. Bullying? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I remember High School, and praying my bullying teacher would get cancer. Boy was I scared when she had to get treatment!

    But, Jesus once revived a neighbor kid who fell off a roof (folks sleep on the roof, in the holylands. Much cooler, free of insects...)
    and had the kid swear he was NOT pushed by Jesus!

    Since then, I use my powers in productive, healing ways, for cars, trucks, computers, animals, people, and to get STUFF!

    But, every once in a while, you learn of a very bad dude having a very bad day!

    Yes, that was MY doing, many times in concert with about a million others who have THE POWER OF PRAYER!

    Bullies, beware!

  165. Exactly. It's a thought crime. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He couldn't have been interfering with the operation if it wasn't discovered until it was on YouTube!

  166. Look, the po-po have explained this to you already by Medievalist · · Score: 1

    Major Wolfe of the local police said, "You can't ignore it. We don't know at what time that game becomes reality."

    Cops can't tell the difference between games and reality. Give Major Wolfe some credit for honesty!

    Also, they can't tell the difference between a gun and a taser. Sorry about that.

    C'mon, people, it's hard to find PhD rocket surgeons willing to violently suppress peaceful demonstrators for craptastic pay. Cut the PD some slack!