http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23188875

I think Ima shoot up a kindergarten

And watch the blood of the innocent rain down

And eat the beating heart of one of them.

Not if I get there first 😉

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/justin-carter-is-this-for-real

Need help?

Are you handy at crowd control ?

If you make words illegal your in a whole world of trouble. If its just your actions that can be illegal its eaiser.

Intent is nothing without action, but thats not how they upset public see it and politions pander to them and then pressure to change the law.

Thanks for the offer, but I like to work alone~ besides, there might not be enough hearts to go round 😆

Trimix – Member

Intent is nothing without action

But also, saying something isn’t a declaration of intent. Like Justin Carter there, the comment was never to be taken seriously.

I have weapons of mass destruction and could launch them in under 30 mins (and billions of gallons of oil)

That should get there attention

wat

A suitable punishment would be to ban them from the internet… not easy that though.

If you make words illegal your in a whole world of trouble. If its just your actions that can be illegal its eaiser.

Depends some words are banned as they are an incitement to commit crime or they are a hate crime

Intent is nothing without action

Conspiracy is intent without action

That said it is ridicolous to charge this person with anything

His threat was non specific and clearly meant to be taken as a joke – albeit not a very good one.

If we start locking up people for making bad jokes where does it end?

A long time ago when the interweb was all green fieldsscreens and dial up,most of the people (in the UK) floating about online were academics and big business types ( who,to be fair have there own additional support needs). Then the land of the free made it easy for every redneck and their second cousin to log on via free local calls dial up. IMO that’s where the first Troll types started,now with access being so cheap and easy ,they are international and available in all flavours. 🙄

Junkyard – lazarus

Conspiracy is intent without action

Well, conspiring is an action.

In that we agree at some point we will commit a crime but we need not have done any act to further that plan

Me – Shall we own him with bombers
You – Yes

I am not sure what action we have done in this example but we have just conspired.

The bloke in Newcastle though was a little more specific and went after named people (verbally, over the net). His is the more interesting case to me; the Justin Carter one is just stupidity on the kids part compounded with stupidity on the part of law enforcement.

Junkyard – lazarus

I am not sure what action we have done in this example

The conspiring was the action in itself- thinking about owning someone with bombers isn’t an action but talking about it with the intention of doing some righteous owning is.

I am not clear who we’re going to bomberise though. Is it enfht?

They should just freeze the universe and be done with it… the slightest molecular movement has the potential to overthrow everything we hold dear.

Yes, yes I read all that.

What tyres for baiting people in teh intwerebs?

They should just freeze the universe and be done with it… the slightest molecular movement has the potential to overthrow everything we hold dear.

sounds like you’re planning some kind of worldwide attack involving chemicals, molecules and global water supplies…. careful now…. because:

Is conspiring an action? – i dont know technicaly or legally – google says it depends as some laws require an overt act

overt act (from the French adjective ouvert, open), an open act, one that can be clearly proved by evidence, and from which criminal intent can be inferred, as opposed to a mere intention in the mind to commit a crime.

I assumed you had to do more than just plan though I guess the extent of the plan must also matter
i guess if we pick a target, arrange to meet, get my bomers out the loft and buy a ticket to meet you then acts have taken place. i assume if we just discuss it is it not all just a “hypothetical” owning. i guess like everything it is shades of grey – this case IMHO is pretty clear though as he did nto really mean it

I am not clear who we’re going to bomberise though. Is it enfht?

No way can we knock sense in to that poster – if I had agreed would it have been a crime?

Me – Shall we own him with bombers
You – Yes

VILE LYCRA LOUTS OPENLY PLOT BOMBINGS ON INTERNETZ

(expect a knock[i]smash[/i] at the door shortly)

The conspiring was the action in itself

So, thought crime, then….

The trolls that post crap over memorial pages can do jail time for all I care but Justin Carter’s case is different, he should at most be doing a small number of community service hours and probably not even that. I’m surprised no one’s stepped in with the bail money though (although if he commits suicide is the bail money forfeited?…)

If we start locking up people for making bad jokes where does it end?

Well I’m screwed.

toxicsoks – Member

So, thought crime, then….

If it’s all thoughts, it’s not a conspiracy, it’s just you talking to your imaginary friend.

what action have we done other than express our thoughts to each other?
I still see no action – lets kill x – we still need to actually do something to make that real surely for it to be a crime .

Lets rob a bank – am i really in a conspiracy if anyone answers yes to this even if we never ever mention it again or meet?

Junkyard: “Inchoate Offence” is the term you are looking for:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inchoate_offences_in_English_law

Criminal threat?

I’d guess it would be judged individually to be criminal or not depending on context and the threat in question!?

If it’s all thoughts, it’s not a conspiracy, it’s just you talking to your imaginary friend.

Phew, that’s a relief. Praise jesus!

Junkyard – lazarus

what action have we done other than express our thoughts to each other?
I still see no action – lets kill x – we still need to actually do something to make that real surely for it to be a crime .

Expressing your thoughts isn’t conspiring, starting to work towards committing an offence is.

“I’d like to own David Cameron with bombers”
“So would I”

Not a conspiracy

“Let’s own David Cameron with bombers”
“Good idea, first we need to find out where he is and how we get there, and also which bombers are heaviest…”

Becoming a conspiracy. But where do you draw the line? Intent to actually do it I suppose.

Does the first paragraph make sense to anyone else?:

The gamer called Carter mentally disturbed on a public wall

Edit: ok, mind embolism, I get it. In fact now I now can’t see how I couldn’t have got it. I thought it meant the gamer was called Carter. D’oh.

there’s some horrific use of their, there and they’re in this thread

for that reason I am out..

their, there, they’re Poor Yunki …have a lie down with your blankie

😀 JY

Inchoate offences are defined as situations where an individual who intends to commit an offence does an act which is “more than merely preparatory” in the offence’s commission.

So still needs more than saying it

But where do you draw the line? Intent to actually do it I suppose

I guess you actually have to do something real beyond simply discuss it but where the line is drawn is hard. However it is miles away from what this guy said as he clearly did not mean it and I will kill anyone who says differently [ Mine is worse] and is still someway short of an actual “real” threat as clearly neither of us actually mean it.

(expect a knock smash at the door shortly)

Back door? 😉