Teen charged with felony for e-mails threatening Bush

A 13-year-old boy has been charged with a felony for sending two e-mails threatening President George W. Bush ahead of his upcoming visit to Cincinnati, Ohio, local media reported.

www.breitbart.com...

The way of the brave New World...

I'd be a lot more concerned if these emails had been personal - from a friend to a friend, say - but the fact is, he sent them to the Mayor and to the White House - what did he think would happen?

I'm pretty sure threatening the President has always been frowned upon.

I AM interested in what kind of sentencing they throw down, considering the young age of 13. But other than that...

Originally posted by quango
I'd be a lot more concerned if these emails had been personal - from a friend to a friend, say - but the fact is, he sent them to the Mayor and to the White House - what did he think would happen?

I'm pretty sure threatening the President has always been frowned upon.

I AM interested in what kind of sentencing they throw down, considering the young age of 13. But other than that...

That's it - he is 13 years old. Why not just go around and have chat with him - 'not smart young chap and all of that'. Now one assumes he will have a record if he is found guilty. Seriously, does the action deserve this response - that is my concern

So it's ok for Bush to be able to stop people from sending emails to him and take them to court, but I can't do a thing with the hundreds of emails I recieve a day saying my sex drive is low and i'm in need of viagra

Originally posted by Lady of the Lake
That's it - he is 13 years old. Why not just go around and have chat with him - 'not smart young chap and all of that'.

I agree with you. The kid probably had no idea what he was doing was illegal. Else why would he have done it, thinking he wouldn't get caught?

I suspect it's either a power and control trip for the pres (and his people) to arrest anyone who speaks against the almighty administration OR (and I suspect this more strongly) that fear cultivates fear. And in the fear-filled position we're in today, the pres can't escape being a bit fearful himself, when nearly everything he does is designed to manufacture and cultivate fear...

Poor kid.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I agree with you. The kid probably had no idea what he was doing was illegal. Else why would he have done it, thinking he wouldn't get caught?

By 13, you should know it's wrong to send threatening emails to anybody or about anybody.

Don't get me wrong, all he needs in my opinion, is the experience of the arrest to hopefully make him aware of what he did, plus a nice, lengthy grounding by his parents.

But he should have known better...

Originally posted by quango
By 13, you should know it's wrong to send threatening emails to anybody or about anybody.

Wrong, yes, but illegal? Not necessarily. How many 13-year-old boys do nothing wrong? Of course he knew it was wrong to threaten other people, but I doubt he knew it was illegal. If he did, he would have known he would get caught.

This is exactly my concern. Legislating morality (what's right and wrong). It's not ok with me to arrest a kid to teach him a lesson when he isn't aware that what he's done is ILLEGAL. If the adults were acting in the interest of letting him know it was WRONG, then it should have been handled with a talk and education.

Think about what this experience is going to teach this kid about authority...

That's my concern.

Threatening in general is frowned upon, let alone threatening the President, especially in the climate we live in today. Having said that I’m sure the authorities are just administering a law that makes threatening the President a felony, a law that does not have an age limit. Also, who are the presidents “people”?

§ 871. Threats against President and successors to the Presidency

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 41, Sub Section 871.

[edit on 30-3-2006 by WestPoint23]

Even if the boy planned on actually trying to make good on the threat he would stand about 0 chance of success to do harm to Bush. Hes a 13 year old for goodness sake, he probably can't shoot a gun straight let alone finance anything close to an opeartion to harm someone with the level of protection Bush has. This is nothing more than a huge distraction and waste of money and man-hours to go after this kid, we have bigger fish that need frying

WestPoint, do you think that a 13 year old would have read that sub-section of that law? Did you read any law subparagraphs and watchamacallits when you were 13?

Even if the boy planned on actually trying to make good on the threat he would stand about 0 chance of success to do harm to Bush.

That’s not the point, I don’t care how unrealistic a given situation might be, if you break a law you are subject to the consequences as this kid is finding out.

WestPoint, do you think that a 13 year old would have read that sub-section of that law? Did you read any law subparagraphs and watchamacallits when you were 13?

Not having prior knowledge that something is illegal is not a defense against a crime. I can’t hit someone and claim I didn’t know it was illegal.


[edit on 30-3-2006 by WestPoint23]

You know that's not my point. Let me clarify -- how many 13 year olds do you know do not act irrationally? How many thirteen year olds do you know are as responsible as an adult is expected to be? The keyword here is teen.

Teenagers are renowned worldwide to be a somewhat rash and undisciplined -- they think they know all and they act the part, most of them anyway.

Charging a teenager with felony, a 13 year old no less, for sending a threatening email is quite an over-reaction. If you want to educate the child, a good talking to would have served the purpose.

I'm not saying what he did was right, he should be taught a lesson. But this sort of response to some threat the kid cannot possibly make good on is really a big over-reaction.

Exactly - this kid is a teen. Teens are not rational - a fact that has been documented ad infinitum.

Also - I'd like to know the nature of this "threat." What exactly did this kid say?


EDIT - quick google:

Bush 'not threatened'

30/03/2006 14:53 - (SA)

Florence - A 13-year-old boy who authorities originally said threatened President George W Bush actually made the threat against a school, not the president, said police.

...On Wednesday, Cloyd said the student did not make a direct threat against Bush, instead, the teen was charged with making a terrorist threat against the school.

[edit on 30-3-2006 by soficrow]

1. The "threats" were "veiled" and "vague."

2. The so-called threats were made against the school - not the President.


ENOUGH.


President Bush: STOP TERRORIZING OUR CHILDREN. Just end it. In America, Iraq, Iran, Venezuela. Everywhere.



Threats now called vague

Police: Teen made no direct threat against president

Teen's e-mails 'veiled threat'


.

I guess that we should just overlook a 13 year old making a threat against his school then?

Threaten the president, go to jail.

Threaten any average person, nothing.

Boy it's nice to have power, isn't it?!

Just because Bush is prez doesn't make him any more special of a human being than anyone else.

Originally posted by Skibum
I guess that we should just overlook a 13 year old making a threat against his school then?

Do you see any possibility of a punishment or lesson between the extremes of "overlooking it" and arresting the kid for a felony against the president? Can you imagine any sort of something-in-the-middle somewhere?

Of course it shouldn't be overlooked! No one suggested that.

This is just one more nail in the coffin of our country as it was meant to be.

Just a few thoughts on this topic.

a) he is a juvenile therefor any record he has will be sealed once he reaches the age of 18.

b) if you had read the entire story, he was released to his parents and placed on home monitoring untill his court date

c) chances are he will get his hand slapped and told not to do it again. The threat was deemed nonspecific which is why he was not arrested and put into the juvenile system.

d) you cant threaten ANYBODY period. You send a threatning email to somebody and they report it, it is considered conveying a threat and is a crime. Just so happens that the people protecting the president cant take these things lightly and have to act.

just my thoughts on this

It is against the law to threaten the life of POTUS, VPOTUS & any possible sucessors. The President has nothing to do with the investigation. All threats to POTUS, etc. are automatically handled by the Secret Service. So don't be stupid and spout pure nonsense. Did any of you go to school? Do any of you know how the government works? Because by some of your comments, it doesn't show.

Plus........everyday there are young 'teens' shooting each other and other people......for what your saying is that this behavior should be excused because they're a 'teen' and there should be no punishment. What are some of you smoking?

A 13 year old can pull a trigger to a gun as easily as an adult. Even more so because maybe a 13 year old wouldn't be looked at as hard as a questionable adult.

The kid was stupid for what he did. The Secret Service will review and determine the proper punishment then prosecute.

In our criminal law class one of the first things our professor told us is that ignorance is no excuse to breaking the law. Basically how I interpreted that is that if you have to ask yourself if you should do it, or if it is right, then you probably shouldnt do it. Basically common sense. He will be released at some point, probably soon, but he should know that communicating threats is wrong, a 13 year old knows the difference between right and wrong.