16 year old Pink fan paid 460-odd to be in the mosh pit at Pink's concert last night [in Melbourne] and TWITtered some crap about a bomb...and 'blowing up the Rod Laver arena'....
His face was identified from his page....and he was located in the arena.....carted out by security and didn't get to see anything of the concert.
He now faces Police criminal charges of terrorism [and notification he will NOT be getting a refund].
You rug-rats of the 'Me Generation' need to learn about ramifications.
Try NOT to do it at the cost of $460 AND probable permanent criminal record.
And no, it's not an 'over reaction' it's legitimate concerns for PUBLIC SAFETY. [but I'm sure some civil libertarian will get all weepy - even though one possible outcome could easily have been a crowd panic/stampede resulting in actual death and injury].
Sith.....yes, almost...except the actual heading of this thread.
The same applies with 'incitement to riot'. There does NOT actually have to be a riot occur.
If one looks closely into 'Laws' you'll find some interesting ones. The might seem 'absurd' but they exist for a reason...
right, because 'incitement to riot' is a perfectly straightforward law that is in no way dubious or unconstitutional.
/sarcasm off
As for the title of the thread and the end of your OP, if a riot or stampede, or mass dropping of ice cream cones had occurred... I'm certainly okay with charges going to the person for those specific acts.
my personal definition of what constitutes a charge of 'terrorism' would be for someone who through their acts cause or planned to cause the death of civilians in a public gathering, the goal being to cause a panic of the public gathering.
Did this person cause death or plan to cause death? Did he cause or intend to cause panic? These are the questions the police should have figured out before they charged him with such a crime.
They are holding him for a crime that was not committed. This is like the seismologists being arrested for not predicting an earthquake.
That all depends on determining whether an apparent 'statement of intent' is an actual crime in itself. [I think you'll find that it is].
You do not have to light a fire first to have the shout of 'Fire!' in an auditorium be deemed a criminal act.
Your 'personal definition' is all very well but does not necessarily bear any relevance with actuality.
Do you have to demonstrate 'intent' to cause panic... or simply act/do something sufficiently irresponsible to achieve the same effect?
At the end of the day, 'intent' [or not] does not matter if the potential repercussions are the same.
are there any sources for those "charges of terrorism"? i read a few newspaper articles and could not find any.
the boy made a stupid tweet, it wasn't even a prank. no need to ruin his life.
if i only think what kind of bombs we built when we were teenagers (just for fun, we never filled them with nails) ... oh boy, these Al Qaeda pressure cookers are rather harmless in comparison ... me and my friends would all be in Guantanamo if we were born later.
It is Law Enforcement's first and most important job to ensure public safety. Therefore, the young man was found and arrested. Efficiently and without him being harmed during the process. No one was overzealous. An "Abundance of caution" was exercised, and rather well. Kudos to all involved.
Context is everything:
If you're on the street and see a long lost friend named Jack and yell, "Hi Jack!", nothing untoward will happen.
On the other hand:
If you're at the airport to pick up a friend named Jack whom you haven't seen in a long while, just yell, "Hi, Jack!" and make sure to wave your arms. You will be arrested.
Just like you don't have to suffer actual physical harm to be in fear for your life or safety sufficiently to justify use of force in self-defense. The threat alone is enough.
But it was not his intent, which is why it is clear that no crime has been committed.
Well, that's why I was very clear about saying it was my definition. I mostly wanted to layout where I thought such a charge should fall, regardless of how it is currently acted upon. Heck, if the definition of terrorism was saying the word 'bomb' in public (arrests and all still happen), I would be saying the same thing. In that case, the law should change because it is wrong. The trouble with a terrorism charge is that there really isn't a clear definition. That's wrong too. It needs to be clearly defined.
Clearly my definition wasn't a legal definition, but if I were to pretend it was... You're suggesting a case where someone clearly did/intended to kill civilians in a public format, but it is not clear whether they were/intended to cause public panic? Not a very likely case, I'd say. But, yes... in that case a certain recklessness on the part of the killer regarding public panic could be construed as terrorism. That would be for a jury to decide. Along with all the clear evidence of murder.
Really because everyday billions of people get in their cars to go to work or go home. Car accidents kill more people than anything else that jumps to mind at the moment. You're saying they should all be arrested because even though it isn't their 'intent' to kill someone, and even though they didn't kill anyone, they might? What about climate change? Scientists say that if everything continues, there could be affects years from now that cause deaths (severe weather, floods, droughts).... so all those people should also be arrested for also causing deaths of people that haven't even been born yet? Those mass murders! Lock them all up! Oh wait, we already lock up more people than any other country by a lot.
However, what I have read from your post suggests you think it's possible for someone to 'accidentally' be a terrorist. Not by not paying attention to who you sell weapons, fertilizer, give money to, but by saying the wrong things in the wrong place. I am 100% against this. You yourself pointed out the separate charge of 'incitement to riot'. Why have 2 charges for the same thing if both mean 'your negligence almost caused panic'?If some drunk pilot crashed into another skyscraper, causing the same circumstances as 9/11, they are not a terrorist. Yes, they have to face the consequences of their actions. It's like murder. You can't 'accidentally' murder someone. If it's accidental, it's manslaughter. If it's not, it's murder. No, everything isn't black and white. The story in the OP is clearly white.
Words are only circumstantial (as pointed about by everyone who used the word 'context' in this post). I am also against bringing charges against anyone with only circumstantial evidence. I also believe the more severe the charge, the more solid the evidence must be. Especially now that story about the NSA recording all phone conversations, text messages and whatnot broke.
Again, I am not saying he should not have been taken away from there as 'an abundance of caution'. The 'over-zealousness' was actually charging him with anything when they have no evidence against him. That is my point of contention.
Correct, in some places. In others, not. The reasonableness of the perception can be called into question, don't forget.
They have the evidence. He tweeted...and admitted to doing so.
In that respect it's a 'smoking gun'....with his fingerprints on it...and it's still in his hand.
OK, he didn't hit anyone with it...but he did 'discharge the firearm' in a public place.
Yes, I know it's an analogy...but unarguably a valid one.
And adding to that, he could have been sitting at home and tweeting the same thing and there'd be no response - no justification for action.
Again, it's about context...about the circumstances of where it occured.
When a statement you make has the potential to be construed as a statement of intent to perform a terrorist act you will find yourself responded to as if that is truly the case. To respond otherwise is to expose yourself to a charge of criminal negligence.
How the courts deal with this particular incident should be enlightening.... and likely a sobering wake-up call to the naive....
While I agree the kid was dumb and deserved arrest, charging with terrorism is taking it to extremes.
The boy from Warrnambool, in western Victoria, is expected to be charged on summons with uttering threats and public nuisance-related offences.http://au.news.yahoo.com/latest/a/-/latest/17912876/pink-bomb-tweet-not-serious-vic-teen/
That is a much more reasonable approach. I think that the 'thought police' need a vacation ...
Yep...and with criminal charges comes the whole ruination of his future.
Like I said in the OP title.
Threats(1) A person (the first person) who threatens to cause a detriment to a second person with intent to prevent or hinder any person (the other person) other than the first person from doing any act which the other person is lawfully entitled to do, or with intent to compel the other person to do any act which the other person is lawfully entitled to abstain from doing, or with intent to cause public alarm or anxiety, commits a crime.Maximum penalty—5 years imprisonment.http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/CURRENT/C/CriminCode.pdf
Good luck proving intent, let alone
BTW, I tried to find a source that stated "charges of terrorism" or any with "terrorism" and found nada. You have one?
i hope that would come with convictions, not charges.
do public nuisance offenses show up on a criminal record one needs for job applications in Australia? because no amount of wishful thinking will lead to "charges of terrorism".
A criminal record prevents entry to the US ... so any such will hinder travel prospects at least.
An Aussie Journalist decided to join the 'Save Albert Park' protests when the Formula One was coming to Melbourne.....back in '96..he managed to get arrested....has a record...and is no longer heard of in Journalism...probably due to travel restrictions.
The references to 'terrorism' as a possible charge were cited during media coverage [in Oz] the day after the incident.
As a matter of interest....the Oz Govt. has my Birth certificate and my Marriage certificate. [is yet to get my death certificate].
Meanwhile....the US Govt. has my fingerprints, my retina scan .... [probably my DNA], and, after a visit to the Empire State...probably knows the smell of my undies [bomb sniffer].
Fortunately, my lack of a record...and an abundance of common sense allows me to visit the US when I wish to.
The same probably will NOT be said for this twit.
they must have realised that this was bogus before they put the transcripts on the internet
i was in the U.S. twice. nice hospitable people, great landscapes, horrible food. but i really wouldn't consider my life ruined if i wouldn't have been there.
is it really that much harder to travel for Australians than Europeans? i don't think so. i have had to apply for visa in quite a few countries and none of them ever wanted to see a criminal record (the US didn't as well back then if i remember correctly).
personally i think there might not even be a conviction. be it as it may, next week i will have forgotten about it anyways. and in the meantime the Syrian Army will take care about the real terrorists from Australia. link
Horrible coffee ....
As an archie teck there are a couple of must-see cities on the planet [ignoring the hype that is Paris/Rome etc] and that's Venice and New York.
I've managed to see all 4...and if I were to live in only one it'd be New York.
Re the visa - crim record thing, I don't think it's a case of them 'wanting to see one' - it's done 'behind the scenes' as part of the Visa App process. Afterall...they ain't going to trust you saying 'nah, I'm not THAT axe murderer' ....
wouldn't make sense to ask for a criminal record for permanent immigration then. also i refuse to believe that the visa-on-arrival guy at some airport has access to my homecountry's databases. i'm not that paranoid yet.
there might be a rare case scenario that one government might ask for a criminal record from an other, but i still hope that this kind of information isn't handed over so easily. the US is an exception in this case.
The arrival/Customs person? Probably not. That's probably done after applying for the visa. That part undoubtedly accesses databases indirectly (through the visa requester's home/host country).
do you know what visa-on-arrival means? in many countries as a EU-citizen (and probably as US- or Australian citizen as well) you do apply for the visa at the immigration counter at the airport or border on arrival.
there are countries that require a visa (like India, the US, Russia or Iran) before entering.
and no, handing out information like criminal records to foreign nations without your consent would be illegal here. i think the US makes that consent mandatory for application now. It did not in 1995 when i was there the last time. India, Russia and Iran did not. (and all those countries were in recent years)
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
