Secret Service: "You don't have any legal rights."

[Guest Cancer Marney]

This is precisely what I was talking about earlier.

 

Gather 'round, everyone. Tonight, we're going to reveal

JotW's SECRET RECIPE for turning FANTASY into FACT!

 

1. Take one unsubstantiated story, full of anonymous quotes (original post)

 

2. Add assumptions, mix well

I think I figured it out

 

3. Reinterpret the unsubstantiated story with anonymous quotes in light of your assumptions, but do not puree. Fold assumptions into reinterpretation for now

In other words... the Secret Service (if said "you don't have any legal rights" line is true) is full of idiots.

(emphasis in original)

 

4. Allow assumptions to settle over a short paragraph or two. Magically, the assumptions will become part of the story!

This is just insane, and defies all rational defense.

(emphasis added)

 

5. Garnish with schoolyard sarcasm and whiny bathos

Way to go Secret Service agents – way to defend our national security by bullying high school kids. I hope it made you feel like big men!

 

Congratulations! You have just turned fantasy into fact!

 

Serves an infinite number of liberal nutjobs. In fact, this tasty dish actually replicates itself once you have prepared the first serving. Perfect for dinner parties! Always leaves your guests wanting more.

 

*** Caution: has been known to make conservatives violently ill. ***

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

BWAHAHAAHAHAHHAAAA

 

I admit, that was good. I think that's the best post you've ever made here. Congratulations.

 

 

 

PS: Isn't it 4 AM over there?

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Thanks. <g> I enjoyed myself. By the way, do I actually see you criticising the Democrats in that Texas state legislature thread?

 

Re: PS

It's 0534 here. I'm just five minutes outside DC.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Thanks. <g> I enjoyed myself. By the way, do I actually see you criticising the Democrats in that Texas state legislature thread?

Yes, and *gasp* I've also said that Halliburton shouldn't be made completely exempt from receiving government contracts because of Cheney's presence! Unlike some people here (not you, I think that was made pretty clear in the Santorum thread), I don't always blindly follow whoever shares my side of the fence.

 

I am big on the OH CRAP ORWELLIAN POLICE STATE stuff which makes me look like a bigger anti-establishment hippie than I really am. Haven't seen any of those black helicopters yet, though.

[Guest Vyce]

Although John admitted he made an ill-worded comment about Bush, one that he didn't want to repeat Friday, Billy said his only remark was "Bush is wacked," slang for crazy or deranged.

 

 

I think I figured it out:

 

John: "Someone should really take out Bush, like a sniper or something."

Billy: "Yeah, he's wacked, man."

 

Teacher thinks Billy said 'whacked' (as in, by a hitman).

Teacher interprets to mean "He's as good as dead" or words to that effect.

Teacher calls Secret Service.

Media, time, and faulty memory distort Billy's comment into "Yeah, I'd do it."

 

In other words: the teacher's probably a little bit on the overly paranoid side, and the Secret Service (if said "you don't have any legal rights" line is true) is full of idiots.

 

Making a threat against the president is not the same thing, in the legal sense, as saying "We need a sniper to take care of him." A threat is a man holding a sniper rifle in D.C. saying "I'm driving to the White House to kill the president!" There are gradients of threats, to be sure, but come the fuck on. These are stupid kids saying stupid things because they are kids – that much should have been obvious to the teacher; this simply wasn't a "threat" in the proper sense.

Why should it be obvious? This teacher is not qualified to discern what is and is not a credible threat.

 

I agree that she probably overreacted, but you seem to be arguing that this was some little nothing statement from this kid that didn't even deserve any attention.

 

The fundamental problem with is story is that it is so convoluted and inconsistent that we don't know what the hell was actually said. You can say that their words were "distorted", but if they DID say something like "A sniper should take care of Bush" followed by "Yeah, I'd do it.", then IMO, it's NOT so clear cut-and-dried that these statements were nothing to raise an eyebrow at. It isn't the teacher's responsibility to make value judgments as to how credible the threat is. If she legitimately thought a real threat was present, than she did the right thing by calling the authorities, even if she overreacted.

 

Even if the teacher took it seriously, the Secret Service ought to have been able to ascertain the comment's true nature without ever involving the students directly. That's the subtlety you miss Marney; the "interviews" were wholly unnecessary in this case. If mindless bureaucracy has yielded a standard operating procedure that doesn't take such things into account, then the procedures ought to be revamped to take such things into account.

 

Again, HOW DO YOU KNOW THE INTERROGATION WAS UNNECESSARY?????? No offense, but these men are trained professionals in this field. That at least gives them the ASSUMPTION that they are more skilled and qualified in recogning a threat than, say, you, Johnny Messageboard, are. Maybe they felt the interrogation was necessary. I can't tell for sure, because that story is so fucked up in terms of accuracy that it's hard to determine anything concrete from it.

 

I would say that the likely reason for the interrogation was to put the fear of God into these kids. I don't see that as such a bad thing, in this case.

 

This is just insane, and defies all rational defense. Way to go Secret Service agents – way to defend our national security by bullying high school kids. I hope it made you feel like big men!

 

Don't be an asshole.

 

If you want to blame anyone for the way these kids were treated, blame those two shitstains from Columbine. After that disaster, no high school kid has the presumption that they're incapable of performing massive devastation.

[Guest NoCalMike]

So I guess this all boils down to the teacher overracting.

[Guest Midnight Express83]

Stupid teens+Overreacting teacher+parents not being told=messy shit.

 

rule number 1 of free speech: you LOSE that right when you ThREATEN someone. So these kids are mainly at fault.

 

Rule number 2: Make sure people know you are joking if you want to to say something stupid.

 

Rule number 3: If you have cops/PA/FBI/SS/ect. asking questions you do have the right to just shut up and ask for a lawyer.

 

Knowning that the serivce knew theses kids weren't a threat after a while, they just wanted to scare them and good for them.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

You've uncovered the vast liberal conspiracy in the Current Events forum! *sigh*

 

Since both Marney, Vyce, and probably some other people seem to have reading comprehension problems, let's try this again...

 

The comment was made directly to the kid, and there doesn't seem to be any ambiguity about it. Why not quote the entire thing? here you go:

 

"When one of the students asked, 'do we have to talk now? Can we be silent? Can we get legal council?' they were told, 'we own you, you don't have any legal rights,'" Felson says.

 

are you just having some prnoun confusion? Let me demystify the text for you:

 

"When one of the students asked, 'do we [the students] have to talk now? Can we [the students] be silent? Can we [the students] get legal council?' they [the students] were told, 'we [the agents] own you [the students], you [the students] don't have any legal rights,'"

 

This is extactly in accord with the other bit you quote. The "someone" who asked for legal counsel was one of the students; where is the confusion? If only the agents, the students, and the principal were in the room (and I fail to see where that was ever contentious), then, assuming that the agents were interviewing only the students (as opposed to the principal,) and that they were not talking to themselves in some tactic to frighten the kids by appearing batshit insane, then the students must be the source of the question and the object of the answer. You're right that all we have is the students' own report of the incident, but given the fact that these kids were scared shitless about the whole thing, do you really suspect that they would make up slanderous nonsense? I think that until it is disputed by the Secret Service or the school principal who was present, it must be accepted as a more or less accurate account of what was said. And of course, given the reactions of the students and their general characterization of the incident, it seems to be only the tip of the iceberg as to what was said and, more importantly, how it was said.

 

How about this: instead of coming to the thread, taking the one sarcastic comment I made, and on that basis and by omission of further argument, smearing my entire argument as "schoolyard sarcasm and whiny bathos" like some intellectually infantile asshat (as amusing as that post was), how about you bring some of your own argumentation to the table? Do you think, based on the information that we have or any other sources that you can uncover, that this thing played out properly? If so, why? You must account for all of the drawbacks to it that have been mentioned here, as well as the "assumptions" (I would say, "conclusions") about how things ought to ideally go.

 

First of all, this was not a legally punishable threat. I can't say that enough. It simply isn't enough to say that you want a public figure, especially a political figure, dead. The issue of the "fire in a theater" has nothing to do with it; the fact that it has a political importand took place in a quasi-public forum (classrooms are very "in the gray" on that issue). And it needn't "expressly" restrict speech to have a chilling effect, which is the problem with the way things were done – none of that was even considered, by all appearances, not to mention the questions of the psychological and emotional wellbeing of the students.

 

The failure of the teacher to correctly identify the speech for what it was is lamentable, but if she did contact the Secret Service, I would not argue that they should not investigate it; indeed, they would be wrong not to. My argument was that the investigation did not take into account the unique factors involved – namely (admittedly poorly conceived) political speech in the context of a classroom, and the fact that these were just dumb kids. The tactics were poor, and the strong arming unecessary. It wasn't the act of ivnestigation that was wrong, merely the methodology.

[Guest DrTom]

First of all, this was not a legally punishable threat.

Which is why the students ultimately weren't punished. However, the Secret Service doesn't know if it's a punishable threat or not until they go and investigate it. Someone calls them and says two students threatened the president. By the nature of their job, the Secret Service is required to investigate this matter. They can't ignore it, just like the police can't ignore a bomb threat, even if it eventually turns out to be a couple of idiots running off at the mouth.

 

the fact that it has a political importand took place in a quasi-public forum (classrooms are very "in the gray" on that issue).

Saying you think the president should be killed is not a statement of "political import;" it's a crude and rather stupid thing to say, whether you mean it or not, and now two morons realize just how much trouble they can get in by saying it. Furthermore, students in schools don't have a lot of the rights adults outside of schools enjoy. Free speech is irrelevant, their lockers can be searched at whim, etc.

 

It wasn't the act of ivnestigation that was wrong, merely the methodology.

I think you're overreacting to one remark... a remark whose only source is a known idiot. If the Secret Service agent(s) did say something like that, then I don't doubt it was to scare the two yahoos who made the threat. Since nothing ultimately came of this, I don't see what the big deal is about it.

[Guest BDC]

Notice how the students have become victims so quickly. Now, given the article, that's not surprising, but it wouldn't shock me at all if these two kids were being idiots.

 

We all remember high school. Hell, we knew everything. I wonder if these two were smarting off to the Agents because they thought it was stupid, while the Agents were irritated that this whole thing was turning into a media circus thanks to some teacher with too much coffee in her blood.

 

From what it seems like (and if I've missed it, forgive me, it's late and I'm running off of 3 hours sleep), there's no actual transcript or recording of the event in question. So let's do a little revisionist memory and take out where we made fun of the guys in suits with guns and earpieces.

[Guest Vyce]

You've uncovered the vast liberal conspiracy in the Current Events forum! *sigh*

 

Since both Marney, Vyce, and probably some other people seem to have reading comprehension problems, let's try this again...

Reading comprehension problems? Pot calling the kettle black. But I'll get into that in just a second.

 

You're right that all we have is the students' own report of the incident, but given the fact that these kids were scared shitless about the whole thing, do you really suspect that they would make up slanderous nonsense?

 

In this case, yes, I do. These kids don't seem to be too bright.

 

And they show no remorse for what they said, only that they had such an ordeal because of it.

 

I can't take what they say at face value. You can. Maybe you're just more trusting than I am.

 

How about this: instead of coming to the thread, taking the one sarcastic comment I made, and on that basis and by omission of further argument, smearing my entire argument as "schoolyard sarcasm and whiny bathos" like some intellectually infantile asshat (as amusing as that post was), how about you bring some of your own argumentation to the table? Do you think, based on the information that we have or any other sources that you can uncover, that this thing played out properly?

 

Here comes the reading comprehension for you.

 

GO BACK AND READ MY FIRST POST.

 

I briefly, in layman's terms, explain that what happened here was probably a violation of these kids' 5th amendment rights. I said that the police should have given Miranda warnings. I said that if (and you say they did) the kids asked to invoke silence or for legal counsel, the interrogation should have stopped.

 

I also said that since the kids ultimately weren't charged with anything, there's no really egregious violation of rights here. I said that they could try and file a civil suit, but that it would likely not get anywhere (they probably feel embarassed enough).

 

I said ALL of these things in my very FIRST post in this thread. Don't casually toss at insults for perceived flaws of others when they more aptly apply to you.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Since both Marney, Vyce, and probably some other people seem to have reading comprehension problems, let's try this again...

The comment was made directly to the kid, and there doesn't seem to be any ambiguity about it. Why not quote the entire thing? here you go:

"When one of the students asked, 'do we have to talk now? Can we be silent? Can we get legal council?' they were told, 'we own you, you don't have any legal rights,'" Felson says.

are you just having some prnoun confusion? Let me demystify the text for you:

"When one of the students asked, 'do we [the students] have to talk now? Can we [the students] be silent? Can we [the students] get legal council?' they [the students] were told, 'we [the agents] own you [the students], you [the students] don't have any legal rights,'"

This is extactly in accord with the other bit you quote. The "someone" who asked for legal counsel was one of the students; where is the confusion?

In the second instance, the TEACHER was speaking; in the first, one of the STUDENTS was. WHO is relating the incident. At WHAT time. Backed up by WHOM.

 

You're right that all we have is the students' own report of the incident, but given the fact that these kids were scared shitless about the whole thing, do you really suspect that they would make up slanderous nonsense?

Let's see, how can I put this?

 

YES, YOU BLOODY IMBECILE

 

PEOPLE LIE WHEN THEY ARE SCARED

 

You are ASSUMING that the dumbfuck kids are telling the truth. It is already ESTABLISHED that the kids hate the President. It is NOT unreasonable to assume that the kids ALSO hate the Secret Service as an extension of his authority, as authority figures in themselves, and as protectors of something they hate. Given that it is NOT unreasonable to assume that the KIDS would lie about their words.

 

Christ on a fucking rubber crutch. I'M the one who's "intellectually infantile?" Well la de fucking da. Your alliteration is magnificent (THREE GOLD STARS AND A SMILEYFACE on your copybook for that one) but your intellect leaves something to be desired.

 

not to mention the questions of the psychological and emotional wellbeing of the students.

Fucking spare me. I don't care about any sexual dysfunction they suffered as a result either. If they're old enough to fantasize about the death of the President, they're old enough to be interrogated. If they've had the fear of God put into them, so much the fucking better.

 

PS. "Argumentation" is a ridiculous word. More syllables does not equal greater validity.

[Guest MrRant]

More syllables does not equal greater validity.

Shit.

[Guest NoCalMike]

but, Marney, are you just assuming the kids lied based on the wording of their quote. I mean some in this thread said, they don't really talk like the way the kids said they did and it just movie bullshit slang, however is THAT the only basis in which you are saying why you believe the kids are lying about what was said to them? Besides the kids being scared, which would seem to me would make them more likely to tell the truth.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

but, Marney, are you just assuming the kids lied based on the wording of their quote.

I am also assuming that based on the fact that every member of the Secret Service I have ever had the pleasure of working with has been courteous, mature, extremely intelligent, and UTTERLY professional. I'm talking not a hair out of place and not a cough nor a twitch unless it's voluntary. These people have some of the most important jobs in the world. They train hard, they're trained by the best, and they're trained for years. I find it difficult, to say the least, to believe that any member of the Service would say anything that mindbogglingly stupid.

 

Besides the kids being scared, which would seem to me would make them more likely to tell the truth.

No. When people get scared, people lie. Fear rarely brings out the truth, unless it's in a situation in which the person is directly under threat of immediate harm, and even then, it's doubtful. But the kids had already been in trouble. They weren't in immediate danger when they invented their story. Their natural reaction would be to lie to make themselves seem like victims rather than sinners.

[Guest Some Guy]

I'm suprised this never got anyone's attention:

Because not everybody is always out to prove that the gov't is is evil.

 

It happened at Oakland High. The discussion was about the war in Iraq. That's when two students made comments about the President of the United States. While the exact wording is up for debate, the teacher didn't consider it mere criticism, but a direct threat and she called the Secret Service.

 

"When one of the students asked, 'do we have to talk now? Can we be silent? Can we get legal council?' they were told, 'we own you, you don't have any legal rights,'" Felson says.

 

Since we're picking this shit apart, why is it that the exact wording of the students is up for debate but what the Secret Service sgent supposedly said isn't? We get a direct wuote of what the serviceman may have said, but no idea of what the students said.

 

The second article gives a better account, at least we have an idea of what might have gone on.

 

But the fact remains that according ot the second article these kids spoke about the their wishes that the President would be killed.

[Guest Midnight Express83]

I may not like Bush, but even I know it is fucking retarded to wish death on him. You can get shot for shit like that. Not by the service, but enough full blooded Americans will gladly do their job for them.

 

Next, if the kids threaten the president, the Serivce gets involved. That is their job. Maybe the teacher overreacted, which is what I am betting but still. The kids are at fault.

 

Not allowing them a lawyer or atleast parents is wrong, but still what they said could get them arrested on the spot. They are lucky they didn't get booked.

 

Saying "You have no rights" either was an indirect quote by the kids. Or something of that effect said to scare the living shit into these two dumbasses by the SS to make sure this shit never happens again.

 

What is so fucking hard for people not to grasp that these kids are a fault. It is blaming the cops for the criminals wrong doing.

[Guest Vyce]

I'm suprised this never got anyone's attention:

Because not everybody is always out to prove that the gov't is is evil.

 

While the exact wording is up for debate, the teacher didn't consider it mere criticism, but a direct threat and she called the Secret Service.

This is exactly why I cannot take what these kids have said about this incident at face value. This is why I don't trust them to be telling the truth. It is still unclear as to what they said, but at the LEAST, we know it had something to do with someone assassinating the President or him dying in some sort of fashion.

 

I know this is a foreign concept to some people, but YES, I actually have enough RESPECT for our government that I'm willing to give a couple of government agents the benefit of the doubt, instead of automatically taking the side of a pair of kids who joked carelessly about the Commander in Chief dying.

 

But maybe I'm just CRAZY for being that way.

[Guest NoCalMike]

I'd think at 16 years old, if I was just questioned by the Secret Servicemen for questionable comments I had made, I would probably be too scared to tell a lie concerning the situation for quite some time.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Let's see, how can I put this?

 

YES, YOU BLOODY IMBECILE

 

PEOPLE LIE WHEN THEY ARE SCARED

Indeed. First of all, I think we should just let this drop – I don't think that we will reach any resolution, because I don't think that you really understand the point that I am trying to make, which is undoubtedly as much my fault as yours. However, I couldn't let this pass without noting that, after having criticized half my posts in this thread for their wild "assumptions" and "fantasy," you just wrote several paragraphs of assumptions strung together with other assumptions, all bearing little rational basis. Also, I don't think that I am going to accept a critique of my writing from you at this time, but you do get an "E" for effort (and maybe an "A" for some other word that is just on the tip of my tongue right now ).

[Guest DrTom]

I'd think at 16 years old, if I was just questioned by the Secret Servicemen for questionable comments I had made, I would probably be too scared to tell a lie concerning the situation for quite some time.

Even when confronted with the white-hot spotlights and waiting microphones of a news media eager to case you in a sympathetic light?

 

You, sir, are an oak...

[Guest NoCalMike]

I'd think at 16 years old, if I was just questioned by the Secret Servicemen for questionable comments I had made, I would probably be too scared to tell a lie concerning the situation for quite some time.

Even when confronted with the white-hot spotlights and waiting microphones of a news media eager to case you in a sympathetic light?

 

You, sir, are an oak...

Yes because I am sure the teens were let known that the "liberal" media was there for their cause and were just using the teenagers as pawns to keep the liberal media machine going strong!?! Go Away....

 

Speaking personally, if I was just grilled by someone with the authority of the secret service, it would sure make me think twice before lying about/when it comes to matters involving the President/Whitehouse or doing this or that. I am not saying I know FOR SURE, what the truth was behind the situation, but some people are just assuming they lied, merely because they were "scared to tell the truth" !?!

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Perhaps the teacher overreacted (I don't know, since I don't know what was said), but the Secret Service agents were just doing their jobs.  And let's not forget it's the kids who mouthed off in the first place, so don't paint them as sweet, innocent angels just yet.

Frankly, a little common sense should come into play here. It wasn't a serious threat on the President's life and I don't think anyone can argue otherwise. Two 16 year's, stating it in an obviously joking manner? I don't think so. It sounds like these retards were just being smartasses in class, something 16 year olds are known for.

 

And those of you defending secret service hoods interrogating terrified 16 year old kids because of something (political) they said, after their teacher snitched them to the SS, are the same people who usually mouth off about OMG THE HORRORS OF LIFE UNDER THE BOOT OF COMMUNISM. You're funny.

Who is to determine what is and what is nota "legitimate threat"?

 

Wasn't the FBI raked over the coals for not taking the info about a possible 9/11 attack seriously? Who would have thought that a pasty, dorky, mediocre shot using a rifle with a bad scope could possibly kill a President?

 

"Common sense" is not something that they can take a chance with.

-=Michael

[Guest DrTom]

Yes because I am sure the teens were let known that the "liberal" media was there for their cause and were just using the teenagers as pawns to keep the liberal media machine going strong!?! Go Away....

Wow, I didn't say any of that. All I said was that there would be a media presence there, the kids would probably feel some pressue to talk, and the media would be eager to make them look sympathetic. Whatever of the story that had already gotten out was probably of the kids-terrorized-by-government-spooks variety, and that's why I said the media would try to cast the dundering duo as sympathetic figures.

 

It's good to see what you really think of the media, though.

[Guest Some Guy]

I'd think at 16 years old, if I was just questioned by the Secret Servicemen for questionable comments I had made, I would probably be too scared to tell a lie concerning the situation for quite some time.

Even when confronted with the white-hot spotlights and waiting microphones of a news media eager to case you in a sympathetic light?

 

You, sir, are an oak...

Yes because I am sure the teens were let known that the "liberal" media was there for their cause and were just using the teenagers as pawns to keep the liberal media machine going strong!?! Go Away....

 

Speaking personally, if I was just grilled by someone with the authority of the secret service, it would sure make me think twice before lying about/when it comes to matters involving the President/Whitehouse or doing this or that. I am not saying I know FOR SURE, what the truth was behind the situation, but some people are just assuming they lied, merely because they were "scared to tell the truth" !?!

Well, most people lie to get out of trouble, or at least shade the story so it favors them. These are 16 years olds, not 6 year olds.

 

ANother thing, is that it is no out of the realm of possibiltis that one of these outraged teachers told these kids to say that they were told they had no rights in order to get sympathy on their sides and to take a shot at the gov't. It's pretty doubtfull, but since this whole thread is based on speculation, I thought I'd add a little more feul to teh fire.

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

I'd think at 16 years old, if I was just questioned by the Secret Servicemen for questionable comments I had made, I would probably be too scared to tell a lie concerning the situation for quite some time.

I'd think that, at 16, one wouldn't wish death on the President.

[Guest NoCalMike]

I'd think at 16 years old, if I was just questioned by the Secret Servicemen for questionable comments I had made, I would probably be too scared to tell a lie concerning the situation for quite some time.

I'd think that, at 16, one wouldn't wish death on the President.

Honestly, I don' think they did. I think they just used poor judgement. I also believe there was no need for the use of the secret service.

[Guest Powerplay]

I'd think at 16 years old, if I was just questioned by the Secret Servicemen for questionable comments I had made, I would probably be too scared to tell a lie concerning the situation for quite some time.

I'd think that, at 16, one wouldn't wish death on the President.

Honestly, I don' think they did. I think they just used poor judgement. I also believe there was no need for the use of the secret service.

Because death threats on the President are nothing that the Service needs to worry about :rolleyes: ...

 

And don't say that it's impossible, because a 16 year old is perfectly capable of picking up a rifle and shooting someone. You don't say "Oh, that's not a credible threat", because then you get another 9-11. You have to follow every lead, otherwise you are just inviting disaster to occur.

[Guest Vyce]

I'd think at 16 years old, if I was just questioned by the Secret Servicemen for questionable comments I had made, I would probably be too scared to tell a lie concerning the situation for quite some time.

I'd think that, at 16, one wouldn't wish death on the President.

Honestly, I don' think they did. I think they just used poor judgement. I also believe there was no need for the use of the secret service.

Because death threats on the President are nothing that the Service needs to worry about :rolleyes: ...

 

And don't say that it's impossible, because a 16 year old is perfectly capable of picking up a rifle and shooting someone. You don't say "Oh, that's not a credible threat", because then you get another 9-11. You have to follow every lead, otherwise you are just inviting disaster to occur.

I said this earlier on in the thread, but again, if you really want to know why these kids were given the hard-ass treatment, it's not because the government has been infiltrated by Ashcroft's jack-booted thugs coming away to take away your personal freedoms.

 

It's because of Columbine.

 

Before Columbine, while it was hardly inconceivable that a teenager could snap and shoot up a school, it wasn't nearly in the public's consciousness as it was after that. All of a sudden, after Columbine, this sort of thing became a NATIONAL CRISIS that must be addressed immediately, or so the reaction went.

 

I think that has more to do with how these kids were treated than the Orwellian thought police going out of their way to prevent you from bad-mouthing the President (although they went far beyond just bad-mouthing Bush). These kids weren't treated with "kid-gloves", no pun intended, because ther IS no more presumption of innocence when it comes to teenagers. We can no longer believe they're incapable of something even as extreme as assassination.

 

[bTW - just as a historical sidenote, wasn't the young man who assassinated Archduke Ferdinand, essentially starting WWI, a teenager? I believe he was only 19 years old. Anyone confirm this?]

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

The Columbine kids shot and killed many of their schoolmates. It sounds like these retards were just being dumbasses. That's pretty typical.