Autistic Boy Charged with Making Terroristic Threats in Stick Figure Drawing

[kpete]

Autistic Boy Charged with Making Terroristic Threats in Stick Figure Drawing
Teen drew two stick figures, one with gun



Shane Finn, 14, is an autistic eighth grader with the mental capacity of a third grader. He did something not unknown to kids around the world. He drew a stick figure of himself shooting his teacher. He is now an accused terrorist in Georgia.

The childish drawing included the helpful labels “me” for the figure pointing the gun at the other figure, labeled “Hartman.” Hartman was not amused and, despite the fact that Finn has only 75 IQ, Finn was charged with a terrorism felony.

We seem to have become a society where any infraction must be expressed in criminal terms, even when committed by a child (here). Even sketching a gun can get you suspended, here. Once again, the question remains the judgment and professional responsibility of the prosecutors in advancing these charges. If a 14-year-old autistic boy is now considered a terrorist for a drawing, we have lost this fight.

more:
http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/dpp/news/14-year-old-autistic-boy-charged-051210
http://jonathanturley.org/2010/05/14/autistic-child-charged-with-terrorism-over-school-drawing/#more-23045

[Posteritatis]

1. Another decisive victory in the War on Terror, albeit for the other side. (nt)

[Occulus]

3. Exactly. The Taliban won the war years ago.

This sort of reaction is exactly the result they were looking for. This sort of behavior is the "why" of terrorism in general. The hilarious part- in a sad way- is how pissed off rightwingers get when you point this out to them.

[Oregone]

6. You mean Al Queda, right?

The "war on terror" isn't supposed to be aimed at the Taliban.

[Occulus]

56. Sorry. It's all a blur at this point.

I'm baffled by the bullshit. Mea culpa.

[KansDem]

72. If we really wanted a "wat on terror," we'd been in Saudi Arabia right now...

After all, they're the ones who attacked us on 9/11.

[Oregone]

74. Or taking out BP

:)


Ah yeah...its only "eco terrorism" when these bastards are attacked. Protect the wealthy

[Newest Reality]

2. Embrace the Newthink! It is ++Good and Bound to get Better!

[Oregone]

4. Gitmo future inmate

[Echo In Light]

9. No rights! No trial! Held indefinitely...the american way!

[Mojeoux]

76. once, when my kids played with fire, we had the local fire marshal come

to talk to them.
With a cold emotionless face, the first thing he said was....

"May I please speak to the children outside and alone?"

Then he came back all smiles and the kids were kind of dazed and he said,

"These kids say they love you and don't want to see you burnt to death!"

He told them that if they kept playing with fire they could literally get locked up as a public danger. They were so blown away, they never messed with matches again. In high-school my daughter wrote about it as a turning point in her young life.

He then told me that he has witnessed some heinous things done to kids and sometimes it's not just curiosity about fire, some kids seek release from torture.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

5. Preemptive fuck you to anybody thinking of agreeing with this hysterical BS.

You know who you are.

[moriah]

19. If you're counting people who think people are getting hysterical about the word "terroristic"...

... then fsck you right back and HAND.

No, I don't think the kid is likely guilty of breaking the law as the statute is written. But "terroristic threatening" statutes have been on the books for decades, and have very little (if anything) to do with modern "terrorism" as people think of it since 9/11. It's essentially making a death threat or threat of serious bodily injury with the purpose of scaring someone.

http://law.justia.com/georgia/codes/16/16-11-37.html

"A person commits the offense of a terroristic threat when he or she threatens to commit any crime of violence, to release any hazardous substance, as such term is defined in Code Section 12-8-92, or to burn or damage property with the purpose of terrorizing another or of causing the evacuation of a building, place of assembly, or facility of public transportation or otherwise causing serious public inconvenience or in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience. No person shall be convicted under this subsection on the uncorroborated testimony of the party to whom the threat is communicated."

"Terror" in these statutes is not "War On Terror" Capital-T Terror, but terror as in fright.

Since I don't think the kid had the intent of scaring his teacher into thinking he was going to shoot him, I don't think he's guilty of breaking the law -- the teacher got his panties in a twist over nothing IMHO. But I do think a lot of other people are getting their panties up in a twist and thinking this has to do with the "War On Terror" when if a kid had drawn that same picture 20 years ago and the teacher got uptight over it, he would have been charged under the exact same law.

[MadHound]

35. Umm, no, he wouldn't have been,

The kid would have probably gone to the office, his parents called in, and some patient adults would have explained to the child that this was an inappropriate way of dealing with the frustration he felt towards his teacher. His teacher would have also been pulled aside aside and been talked to about the stupidity of such overreaction, what was going on in the classroom, the dynamic going on between teacher and student, and the student would have possibly been transferred into a different, more suitable classroom.

You're correct, it isn't about the War on Terror, it is about the hyper-hysteria that adults get into ever since Columbine and other school shootings, zero-tolerance being taken to the nth degree. Good lord, if I were in school today and drew up some of the same things I did back in the seventies when I was in school, I would still be behind bars. Kids tend to express their frustrations etc. through drawing and writing, and many of those can be quite scary and violent. Teachers, administrators and the public at large used to recognize this fact and deal with it in an appropriate manner without going overboard. Now however everybody has a collective hissyfit, comes down on the kid like a ton of bricks and ruins that kid for a good portion of their life.

[Angry Dragon]

7. If it has gone this far

then it is Georgia's responsibility and obligation to charge Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and others for their use of air waves into Georgia promoting the use of force and violence.

[sandnsea]

8. Or Hartman needs a blow-dry

:shrug:

Why does this kind of stupid only happen in this country.

[Lance_Boyle]

10. 'making terroristic threats' is *NOT* a 'terrorism charge'

It's a crime that's been on the books since long before anyone flew any planes into any buildings. And it's not an outrageous charge to apply to someone who threatens violence against another.

Whether or not conflating the term "terroristic threat" with "considering someone a terrorist" was deliberate, it is unhelpful.

[moriah]

16. Thank you.

I was pretty much saying the same thing.

[Flaneur]

41. It's still ridiculous.

[gratuitous]

11. This is series!!1!1!Eleven!

Yeah, it's ridiculous on its face to be considering charges against a 14-year-old autistic kid. However, in these here United States of America, awash in firearms and the myth of redemptive violence, it's extremely possible that even young Shane could get his hands on a gun and carry out the intent of his drawing. Even with his disability, he's certainly internalized the lessons our society teaches so carefully about the power of violence to resolve any dispute.

[mitchum]

12. What type of SPED teacher would get bent out of shape by that?

An unprofessional one lacking any knowledge or insight

[gratuitous]

13. If I had to guess, and I must guess

The teacher is constrained to report this to all proper authorities or jeopardize his or her teaching certificate. We have decided to take the judgment away from teachers in the classroom and hand it over to the most wet-your-pants scared elements we can find so that any incident can be jacked up into an "ohmigodwe'reallgonnadie" emergency. I'm not 100% sure who all makes a buck off this arrangement, but I'm pretty sure someone does.

[proud2BlibKansan]

79. +1

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kctim]

27. The type

who hates rights, freedoms, choice and just got back from an anti 2nd Amendment rally?

[moriah]

15. Uh, waitaminte on the outrage....

Haven't "terroristic threatening" laws been on the books for decades? Not having anything to do with "terrorism" insofar as the type of terrorism people think about after 9/11, and not where the person would be called a "terrorist", but simply meaning a death threat?

Or am I just completely out in la-la-land?

Looking at the Georgia statute they would have to prove that he intended to make his teacher feel his life was endangered. I kinda doubt they're going to be able to prove that in any case. But I don't think this has to do at all with "terrorism" in the modern sense of the word.

[Leftist Agitator]

22. "I kinda doubt they're going to be able to prove that in any case."

Why is that?

This is a pretty clear-cut case. The kid made a death threat against his teacher. Also, autistics often have a propensity for violence.

Given that the threat was made and that the kid's disability predisposes him toward violent acting out, I would say that the teacher has every right to feel that his life has been endangered.

[moriah]

29. Was the threat credible?

Did the teacher have reason to believe that the kid had access to a gun besides him drawing it in the picture? While I know some 14 year olds have access to guns, would he honestly believe that the parents of an autistic child would have a gun that their child could access? Pretty much asking for a dead kid there, since it'd likely be really damn difficult to teach an autistic child how to respect firearms.

Also, while I've seen a lot of caregivers with injuries from trying to restrain their autistic charges, acquiring a gun and taking it with you requires a bit more planning and foresight than drawing out something on a piece of paper or hitting a caregiver when they're upset. Was the kid really capable of carrying out a plan like that?

The teacher should have talked to the parents, shown them the drawing, and worked to find out ways to help him manage his anger rather than going to law enforcement. At the very least, contacting the parents would have allowed him to ascertain whether or not there was imminent danger by finding out whether they had guns!

[Leftist Agitator]

30. Just because a gun was used in the drawing doesn't mean...

That that is the only means through which this autistic kid could harm his teacher. Knives are everywhere, very easy to conceal, and can be equally as lethal as a firearm.

"The teacher should have talked to the parents, shown them the drawing, and worked to find out ways to help him manage his anger rather than going to law enforcement."

Agreed. At the very least, it should have remained an internal matter, subject to the school's disciplinary process before resorting to law enforcement.

In any case, I just wanted to address why I feel that this teacher could have had a reasonable belief that this kid both meant and was able to do him harm. Everyone on this thread seems to think that because of his diminished capacity he would be unable to carry out his threat, and that to take it seriously would be the height of stupidity.

Autistic people can often be extremely dangerous, both to themselves and to others.

[Demoiselle]

34. .."autistics often have a propensity for violence..."

I'm sorry, but I haven't heard that before. Do you have some backup for that statement? (Clinical, medical, historical?)

Drawing a picture of a violent act really isn't "acting out." Has his school found him guilty of actual physically violent behavior before this incident of which you are aware?
I see no mention of it in the article, do you have some special knowledge of this case?

[moriah]

36. I assume he's referring to ....

.... the reaction that many autistics have to their environment, routine, or current preoccupation disturbed -- being frustrated can make them distraught and cause them to throw tantrums, especially if they are on the lower functioning end of the autistic spectrum.

From Wiki:

"There are many anecdotal reports, but few systematic studies, of aggression and violence in individuals with ASD. The limited data suggest that, in children with mental retardation, autism is associated with aggression, destruction of property, and tantrums. A 2007 study interviewed parents of 67 children with ASD and reported that about two-thirds of the children had periods of severe tantrums and about one-third had a history of aggression, with tantrums significantly more common than in non-autistic children with language impairments."

A three year old having a tantrum on the floor is a very different case from a 25-year-old man having a tantrum, because the three year old isn't likely to accidentally hurt someone. But I don't think that type of reaction to frustration is anywhere close to being on the same level as the premeditation required to carry out a shooting, stabbing, or other planned attack.

[Flaneur]

42. Jesus Christ! The kid drew a fucking picture.

Your world must be a very menacing place.

[Leftist Agitator]

44. A death threat is a death threat.

So if I draw a picture of me killing the President, with the intent to harm the President, that would be OK with you?

[woo me with science]

66. Oh for pete's sake. nt

[Odin2005]

47. We have a "propensity for violence" according to WHO!?!

That's a lot of BS right there! You would be "acting out", too if a lot of little sensory things were like nails on a chalkboard. I knocked out some bullies when I was in Jr. High because they were using my sensory sensitivities to torture me and I was the one who got punished.

[Leftist Agitator]

51. So you physically attacked people who were annoying you?

That sounds like a demonstrated propensity for violence to me.

[Odin2005]

52. What is merely "annoying" to a normal person is painful to me.

These bullies were essentially using my sensory sensitives to hurt me without getting in trouble, so I defended myself.

[Leftist Agitator]

53. Did these people physically strike you?

Did they push you, shove you, trip you, or kick you?

No?

So, they were making annoying noises that you didn't like. Instead of responding in an appropriate manner, you physically attacked them.

I don't care whether or not they were tormenting you day and night, until they hit you, you aren't "defending yourself", you're violently lashing out in a remarkably inappropriate fashion.

I don't know if this is because you're autistic, have poor impulse control, or are just an asshole, but you aren't doing the reputation of autistic people any favors by recounting how you attacked people who hadn't laid a finger on you.

[moriah]

59. Even so, does what he said support your assertion...

... that an autistic person would have a propensity toward premeditated violence?

He described incidents where people were disturbing him right then and he struck out right then, not describing laying in wait for the bullies who tormented him earlier in the day or week or year so he could jump them. "Poor impulse control" is NOT a contributing factor to premeditated violence. Actually, it sounds like the kid in the article reacted better to the immediate frustration than you accuse Odin2005 of acting -- he drew a picture instead of "violently lashing out in a remarkably inappropriate fashion".

But I do think you are underestimating the effects of bullying and emotional torment. I wonder, were you one of those kids who had no problem calling a person a sissy, a nerd, a teacher's pet, spreading rumors, mocking, catcalling, etc, then when the person got mad enough and actually did strike out you went home crying to mommy? "But I didn't lay a finger on him, why should he hit me? All I did was call him a _____!" Well, yeah, if you emotionally torment someone, you are asking for a reaction. Failure to recognize that the reaction you get might be a punch in the face is not indicative of high intelligence. "Tormenting someone day and night" is acting in a remarkably inappropriate fashion too, and your failure to recognize this really does make me wonder.

Yeah, I feel pretty strongly about the topic of bullying. I was bullied, mentally and physically. At age eight I attempted suicide because I did not want to face another day of going to school and dealing with the assholes that tortured me. In fourth grade alone I got a broken arm and two concussions on the playground from bullying, and guess what? They didn't get punished for it any more than the ones who bothered Odin2005. Yes, they DID lay a finger on me. More than one, more than once. But while the physical pain was bothersome and the medical bills very difficult for my mother to handle, the concussions and broken bones didn't hurt nearly as badly as the emotional torment.

[Odin2005]

68. THANK YOU!!!

But I do think you are underestimating the effects of bullying and emotional torment. I wonder, were you one of those kids who had no problem calling a person a sissy, a nerd, a teacher's pet, spreading rumors, mocking, catcalling, etc, then when the person got mad enough and actually did strike out you went home crying to mommy? "But I didn't lay a finger on him, why should he hit me? All I did was call him a _____!" Well, yeah, if you emotionally torment someone, you are asking for a reaction. Failure to recognize that the reaction you get might be a punch in the face is not indicative of high intelligence. "Tormenting someone day and night" is acting in a remarkably inappropriate fashion too, and your failure to recognize this really does make me wonder.

EXACTLY! That poster sounds like he internalized the old lie that "sticks and stones and break my bones but words can never hurt me" used to dismiss victims of less physical forms of bullying.

[Odin2005]

67. You clearly don't understand autistic sensory sensitivies.

And I DID ask them to stop and I was dismissed as "making a big deal out of nothing".

But I'll say this, when I did smack the asshole across the face he never did it again.

[moriah]

78. In my case....

... while I was never a person to physically strike back, the one time I was able to make the bullying stop at a particular school was when I showed I wasn't afraid. A kid was saying she wanted to beat me up. I'd finally just had enough. I'd also seen that the bully never got punished even when things got physical. (After the broken arm incident, where my ulna was literally shattered and required an orthopedist to set -- it nearly required surgery -- Mom went to the school to try to settle things. They said that if they punished the girl who broke my arm, they would have to punish me as well, even though I didn't hit back, because the teacher's aid refused to let me go to the nurse's office after the injury and I disobeyed and left the playground anyway.)

When the kid was making threats, I said "Okay, if you want to hit me, go ahead. Hit me!" It kind of confused her. "Well, what are you waiting for? Do you want to beat me up or not?" She hit me once, not very hard. "Is that the best you can do?" Even more confused and hesitant, she hit me again. "You fight like a girl!" Before she hit me the third time, playground aides broke it up. Somehow a rumor got spread at that school that I had taken martial arts and was planning to beat the shit out of her when she hit me the third time, and at that school things stopped.

Too bad the next year was junior high and the bitch who broke my arm was at that school -- the kids who had seen me react without fear weren't. The bullying escalated from the playground to the classroom when a teacher had a nervous breakdown and couldn't control the class. Mom decided to homeschool me after that.

[lumberjack_jeff]

50. Autism is a disorder characterized by a variety of behavioral markers.

"propensity to violence" isn't one of them.

Substitute "race" for "disability" in your sentence above, then you'll realize why you got deservedly flamed; because it is a bigoted stereotype.

[MajorChode]

17. This is moronic on so many levels

Even if the kid had been 17, had a normal IQ, and had brought a real fucking gun to school and pointed it at the teacher, it wouldn't be fucking terrorism.

Terrorism is using violence or the threat of violence to achieve a political goal. Calling things terrorism when they aren't terrorism simply detracts from actual terrorism and illustrates how utterly pathetic some local lawmakers are.

[Lance_Boyle]

18. that's why nobody but the OP called it 'terrorism'

The statutes on TERRORISTIC THREATS are very old and very appropriate for when one individual threatens to harm another. Conflating this perfectly valid charge with big-t Terrorism is just wrong.

[MajorChode]

26. Yes, lost of people where charged with making "terroristic threats" when I was a kid

How could I possibly forget that???

:sarcasm:

[moriah]

31. Well, uh, my dad was charged with terroristic threatening when I was a kid....

I'm 30 now, so this was about 15 years ago.

He got into a shouting match with one of his neighbors and mouthed off, saying something that the guy construed as a death threat. He filed charges, and Dad had to go to court to answer charges of "terroristic threatening". Since it was his word against the dude's word, and no witnesses, the grand jury didn't indict. But he still had to enter a plea and make an appearance.

<not sarcasm>

[MajorChode]

37. Are you trying to claim these laws are the same as they were 15 years ago?

I have no idea what state you live in, but if your dad were charge with the same crime today, chances are he would be shackled, frog marched, and looking at serious felony time. These statues have been radically expanded in the last 10 years to include situations of domestic abuse and most any kind of implied threat against any public official from the dog catcher all the way up. Lawmakers are using the irrational fear of terrorism to expand these laws and the OP's story is an excellent example of such nonsense.

[Lance_Boyle]

38. You are mistaken.

The terroristic threat statutes on the books today are the same as they were decades (even a century) ago. Another poster even linked to the statute in question several posts below this. Why do you refuse to acknowledge that *JUST MAYBE* the terroristic threat statutes have nothing to do with Terrorism?

[MajorChode]

39. Do you really understand the history of these laws?

Many of them came about "even a century" ago as a response to, wait for it, terrorism after the Civil War. They were expanded in the late 60's and early 70's as a response to, wait for it, terrorism after the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act. If you look at the history of the law, it remained unchanged from 1974 through 1998, and has been changed twice since. So please tell me again how these laws have no connection to terrorism.

Cheers!

[n2doc]

20. That'll have Al Quieda shaking in their boots

Another plot, foiled again!

[frebrd]

21. Pathetic!.....

I wonder what the teacher's IQ is!

:shrug:

[rug]

23. Here's the statute.

O.C.G.A. § 16-11-37

GEORGIA CODE
Copyright 2009 by The State of Georgia
All rights reserved.

*** Current through the 2009 Regular Session ***

TITLE 16. CRIMES AND OFFENSES
CHAPTER 11. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER AND SAFETY
ARTICLE 2. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER

O.C.G.A. § 16-11-37 (2009)

§ 16-11-37. Terroristic threats and acts; penalties

(a) A person commits the offense of a terroristic threat when he or she threatens to commit any crime of violence, to release any hazardous substance, as such term is defined in Code Section 12-8-92, or to burn or damage property with the purpose of terrorizing another or of causing the evacuation of a building, place of assembly, or facility of public transportation or otherwise causing serious public inconvenience or in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience. No person shall be convicted under this subsection on the uncorroborated testimony of the party to whom the threat is communicated.

(b) A person commits the offense of a terroristic act when:

(1) He or she uses a burning or flaming cross or other burning or flaming symbol or flambeau with the intent to terrorize another or another's household;

(2) While not in the commission of a lawful act, he or she shoots at or throws an object at a conveyance which is being operated or which is occupied by passengers; or

(3) He or she releases any hazardous substance or any simulated hazardous substance under the guise of a hazardous substance for the purpose of terrorizing another or of causing the evacuation of a building, place of assembly, or facility of public transportation or otherwise causing serious public inconvenience or in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience.

(c) A person convicted of the offense of a terroristic threat shall be punished by a fine of not more than $1,000.00 or by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than five years, or both. A person convicted of the offense of a terroristic act shall be punished by a fine of not more than $5,000.00 or by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than ten years, or both; provided, however, that if any person suffers a serious physical injury as a direct result of an act giving rise to a conviction under this Code section, the person so convicted shall be punished by a fine of not more than $250,000.00 or imprisonment for not less than five nor more than 40 years, or both.

(d) A person who commits or attempts to commit a terroristic threat or act with the intent to retaliate against any person for:

(1) Attending a judicial or administrative proceeding as a witness, attorney, judge, or party or producing any record, document, or other object in a judicial or official proceeding; or

(2) Providing to a law enforcement officer, adult or juvenile probation officer, prosecuting attorney, or judge any information relating to the commission or possible commission of an offense under the laws of this state or of the United States or a violation of conditions of bail, pretrial release, probation, or parole shall be guilty of the offense of a terroristic threat or act and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished, for a terroristic threat, by imprisonment for not less than five nor more than ten years or by a fine of not less than $50,000.00, or both, and, for a terroristic act, by imprisonment for not less than five nor more than 20 years or by a fine of not less than $100,000.00, or both.

HISTORY: Ga. L. 1884-85, p. 131, § 1; Ga. L. 1892, p. 108, § 1; Ga. L. 1893, p. 130, § 1; Penal Code 1895, §§ 511, 512, 730; Ga. L. 1905, p. 86, § 1; Penal Code 1910, §§ 512, 513, 782; Code 1933, §§ 26-1803, 26-7308, 26-7309; Code 1933, § 26-1307, enacted by Ga. L. 1968, p. 1249, § 1; Code 1933, § 26-1307.1, enacted by Ga. L. 1974, p. 1022, § 1; Ga. L. 1998, p. 270, § 6; Ga. L. 2002, p. 1094, § 4.

[moriah]

24. Wow, so scratch decades in my posts....

... and change it to century!

Still, kiddo was VERY unlikely to have rationally intended to make his teacher think he was going to shoot him, and in order to pass the "reckless disregard" test he'd have to be aware that it could be taken as a death threat. Given a lowered mental capacity, I don't think that will be proven either.

Teacher = asshat.

[rug]

33. In fairness, it looks like it was originally an antiterrorism statute, the terrorists being the KKK.

[npk]

54. You would be correct rug

The original law was cited as Terroristic Threats. The updated code added the reference of "Act" to the original statute. This was in direct result to groups like the KKK who would leave burning crosses on the lawns of African Americans or people that they believed were sympathetic to African Americans. The law further expanded, through the years, on any form of an intimidating act, such as the hanging of a noose from a tree, or leaving threatening letters in peoples mailboxes. There was an interesting case in Georgia during the 60's where a popular Klansman was on trial for murder, and his associates began leaving threatening letters on the mailboxes of potential witnesses and even the prosecutor. If I am not mistaken, at that time to only statute relating to such behavior was a simple misdemeanor charge. The Terroristic Threats and Act statute made it a felony.

[rug]

55. Interesting info. Thanks.

[Lance_Boyle]

25. What?!? No mention of Gitmo or 'enhanced interrogation?'

The HORRORS! Someone might get the idea that this is a crime completely distinct from Terrorism!

[rug]

32. True but there's still enough stupidity in this prosecution to go around.

[benld74]

28. OH PUH-LEEEASE!!!!

[lumberjack_jeff]

40. A stick figure of mass destruction.

We got lucky. It is only by the grace of Jeebus that Shane "Abdullah" Finn's art skills haven't advanced to including fingers on stick-man-assassin's hands. Who knows what destruction that would cause.

[woo me with science]

43. It used to be

that we encouraged kids to express their anger safely through drawing.

Now they are not even allowed to have the thought.

[mitchum]

48. And I still do that

it is a very effective technique

[opihimoimoi]

45. PC CORRECTNESS RUNS AMOK USING authortarianism AS EXCUSE. Why do they hate sick people?

or, in this case, CHALLENGED...WHY?

Not a very Happy way to live life....

Her day will come....

[Odin2005]

46. Zero Tolerance = Zero Brains

[proteus_lives]

49. Another dumb-ass teacher that needs to be given her walking papers.

[Egnever]

57. Its ok to threaten teachers?

????

[MajorChode]

64. Do you really think that was a threat?

I don't really blame the teacher for this nonsense, but I don't see a threat here.

[proteus_lives]

77. This wasn't a threat.

Most grown-ups would realize that.

[Bill McBlueState]

63. the teacher?

Was it the teacher's idea to charge the kid with making terroristic threats? That wasn't clear from the article.

[depakid]

58. Who the Gods would destroy they first make mad

as applicable now as it was in 440 or so BC.

[D-Lee]

60. Maybe the kid was serious?

Trying to reach a conclusion on this statement of faces is not a useful exercise.

Just not enough data ...

Reminds me of the TV two-sound bite descriptions of a trial, one that could take weeks in the real world, and then asking people to vote guilty or not guilty ...

[saltpoint]

61. If this young man has been diagnosed with Autism my guess is he is in the

care of one or more behavioral health clinicians, possibly a psychiatrist and/or therapist.

It might be interesting to find out who the author is of the text written beneath the images. The diction seems odd to me, inasmuch as "nervous breakdown" does not seem current to modern clinical descriptions of behaviors. I would have expected 'decompensation' instead. Also references to someone being "good lookin'" sounds very casual and not consistent with clinical assessments.

The clinicians who comprise this young man's treatment team would likely already have determined whether this constitutes homicidal intent, and whether he lives in a household with access to firearms.

Unless there's some compelling intent with access to guns, I'm not seeing this as homicidal intent, and certainly not a "terrorism felony."

[lumberjack_jeff]

65. The drawing was in the top margin of a class assignment. n/t

[saltpoint]

70. Ok, thanks for that. Well. It bears asking his treatment clinician(s) if

further inquiry is needed. But in and of itself the issue seems to be related to the young man's emotional health and should not be regarded as a criminal trespass, especially of the "terror" variety.

[lumberjack_jeff]

75. Yes, his doctor definitely needs to be consulted. n/t

[ecstatic]

62. Did the kid have access to a gun at home or somewhere else?

I think that's the more important question. Charging him with a crime won't help anything. But if he is having violent thoughts, they should make sure he doesn't have access to weapons.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

69. What transformed this into a "terrorist" threat as opposed to just a plain old threat? nt

[bondwooley]

71. I hope Lieberman was there to promptly spank the citizenship out of him! nt

[rationalcalgarian]

73. When I was in the eighth grade

I hated my science teacher. With a passion. And I was convinced he hated me.
So I would while away my time by drawing pictures of the many ways I wanted him to die. Cobras leaping out of the drawer in his desk, a steam roller flattening him in the teachers' parking lot, a hand grenade in his briefcase to name but a few. Then, one day as I was creating a masterpiece of Mr. White having his guts ripped out by a Tyrannosaurus Rex, I was suddenly aware of my subject standing behind me looking over my shoulder. "What do we have here?" he said and picked up my notebook. And as he leafed through the pages, scanning the dozens of images expressing my wishes for his untimely and painful demise, he started laughing.
That's right. He laughed. He leaned against the wall and went through my notebook page by page, chuckling and occasionally laughing out loud.
Then he placed the notebook back on my desk and said, "Don't ever change" and proceeded on his way. I didn't understand what that meant at that time but now, nearly forty years later, I get it. I still don't like him, but I respect Mr. White and the way he handled that "awkward" situation.
Too bad Mr. Hartman couldn't be more of an adult and realize that kids will be kids and they will do kid things. I realize that times were different then and the likelihood of me actually dropping an anvil on "White the Fright's" head was slim, but Hartman needs to grow up some more and stop being such a scared little baby. He'll earn the respect of the other kids that way.
I hope he doesn't have kids of his own.

[woo me with science]

80. I love this story.

People seriously need to get a grip.