Possible Motive Emerges In The Connecticut Shooting

[Jaysyn]

[popeyespappy]

[Jaysyn]

It is amazing how many people don't know that if you tell someone you are going to kick their ass and they believe it you have committed a crime.

Yep. Technically what the crazy little shit did was "Assault with Deadly Weapon".

[Shell B]

Wikipedia says this about assault with a deadly weapon, which a knife is.

Aggravated assault is, in some jurisdictions, a stronger form of assault, usually using a deadly weapon.[5] A person has committed an aggravated assault when that person attempts to:

cause serious bodily injury to another person with a deadly weapon [6]
cause grievous bodily harm to another person, such as rape or kidnapping
have sex relations with a person who is under the age of consent
Aggravated assault can also be charged in cases of attempted harm against police officers or other public servants, or for bodily harm stemming from the reckless operation of a motor vehicle. The latter is often referred to as either vehicular assault or aggravated assault with a motor vehicle.

You have to actually try to hurt someone for it to be assault. Sorry, but, while the kid is committing a crime, he is not actually hurting anyone. He's just making his mother, who also whores for attention, afraid. Of course, she says she is afraid, but who really knows? In the kid's defense, mom could be utterly full of shit.

[Jackie]

Nope. As far as the law is concerned you are incorrect. What you seem to think is assault is actually battery.

It is amazing how many people don't know that if you tell someone you are going to kick their ass and they believe it you have committed a crime.

Hold on now. Do not confuse grey areas with real threats. Of course we can and do say things we don't actually mean, but that does not mean people don't ever make threats that are serious and should be treated like physical assault.

You can avoid in most cases mere confusion by either, avoiding it even as a joke, or make the joke so over the top that it is obvious to everyone. But threats do not deserve the same treatment say as other types of speech. Just like we can say the word fire, and say "fire" describes flame. But we cannot yell fire in a theater if there isn't one.

More current anti stalking laws and anti abuse laws are based on the ability to treat threats as assault.

Now having said that, I also agree that people CAN jump the gun and take something out of context.

But to say all speech should be treated the same just because we value freedom of speech is absurd. There is always a difference between regulation and ban.

When there is a credible threat, contact or not, and that threat is known to be real, and not simply lip service, I think law enforcement has every right to investigate. I never said however, that law should assume guilt either.

Most of the time when a threat is said and police are called MOST OF THE TIME it is credible and should be taken seriously. That is not to say we should become a society that spies on each other either.

But I do think it is perfectly acceptable to consider aiming a knife at anyone, WHEN IT IS CLEAR THEY ARE BEING SERIOUS, to consider it assault.

Now if you want to talk about degree of punishment as a result, that is when circumstances should be taken into account. Just like we don't treat mere distracted driving that kills someone the same as we do drunk driving.

[Jaysyn]

[quote='Shell B' pid='376922' dateline='1356034685']
Wikipedia says this about assault with a deadly weapon, which a knife is.

Aggravated assault is, in some jurisdictions, a stronger form of assault, usually using a deadly weapon.[5] A person has committed an aggravated assault when that person attempts to:

Key words are *attempts to*. When they actually do it it goes from assault to assault & battery.

[Annik]

Key words are *attempts to*. When they actually do it it goes from assault to assault & battery.

This is how cops take it. In their eyes, attempt = threats. Not saying it's right, though. :/

[Shell B]

He didn't attempt to do shit. He was trying to intimidate his mother. I'm not claiming that I know the entire situation. What I am saying, is that she is completely in the wrong for treating her child as if he is already a lost cause at 13 when he is doing something that TONS of kids do without ever growing up to kill anyone. It's a leap that no loving mother should ever make. Besides, I know this type of mother. Make her a little less eloquent and we would call her white trash mommy.

ETA: I don't mean that she should not perhaps have suspicions that he will grow up to be like that, but to whore him out for page views with his picture on the article? No.

[Annik]

It's one of the failings of our legal system.

[Something completely different]

Wait a second.


If I researched this correctly, all one needs to do when buying a firearm in the US, is to bring an ID and to fill out a questionaire?
Which literaly asks: "Do you have mental health issues?"
And there is hardly ever a backgroundcheck done to check if the answeres given were true? And the purchesor doesn`t have to bring any medical records nore is he required to undergo a medical check if he is in the mental state to responibly own and operate a firearm?

If before bording a plane one is asked if one is a terrorist, which terrorist would answere "yes"?