The charge is there so technically he's looking at a year in prison.

 

In reality, at worst this will be a plea down to a misdemeanor and I think it even more likely that this will ultimately be dismissed.

They'll work out a deal such that if he doesn't get in trouble for a year, he can come back to Court and get the charge dismissed without prejudice.

Yes you absolutely can.

So, killers can’t use sarcasm?

Honestly, you don't really know if people you KNOW are joking sometimes. You have to take threats seriously.

You certainly do. Until you know otherwise, it’s the only intelligent option, if your goal is to keep kids safe.

So, killers can’t use sarcasm?

Yeah. We’re never going to see eye to eye on this. I have no issues with your point of view on this, we just disagree.

Yeah. We’re never going to see eye to eye on this. I have no issues with your point of view on this, we just disagree.

I’m fine with disagreeing. I like to understand someone’s thought process and I don’t understand yours. That’s why I ask questions. If you agree that killers CAN use sarcasm, then I don’t understand how you can be 100% sure that there was no true threat.

I’m fine with disagreeing. I like to understand someone’s thought process and I don’t understand yours. That’s why I ask questions. If you agree that killers CAN use sarcasm, then I don’t understand how you can be 100% sure that there was no true threat.

Because it’s just not. I don’t really know how else to describe it. Context matters. If this was just some random post I would understand but it just seems like common sense to me that this is clearly a joke.

Because it’s just not. I don’t really know how else to describe it. Context matters. If this was just some random post I would understand but it just seems like common sense to me that this is clearly a joke.

 

Until the one time it’s not. Then you have the blood of innocent kids on your hands.

 

I seriously can’t believe we’re having this debate. You always err on the side of the decision that ensures the safety of kids. Always.

Until the one time it’s not. Then you have the blood of innocent kids on your hands.

 

I seriously can’t believe we’re having this debate. You always err on the side of the decision that ensures the safety of kids. Always.

One can both agree with your statement and also believe it doesn’t apply in this case.

One can both agree with your statement and also believe it doesn’t apply in this case.

 

It applies in every case in my opinion.

So, if it was a "credible" threat, wouldn't it have just been as simply as having someone standing outside the door of the school, and when they saw the "crazy guy with a can of gas" running down the street, you stop him?

 

He gave an exact play-by-play of what he was going to do, so why not just catch him? Have cops around the area of Frankfort (Ave?) like he said, and arrest him there. It was apparently a very believable threat, so why not believe him on the rest of his actions?

 

And I'm still worried that no one check on Coach Brohm in all of this, part of the threats were directed towards him. Did he know? Is he filing charges as well?

Because it’s just not. I don’t really know how else to describe it. Context matters. If this was just some random post I would understand but it just seems like common sense to me that this is clearly a joke.

Parents don’t want us going with our feelings when it comes to the safety of their kids.

 

My school had a bomb threat three years ago. A freshman girl who was sitting in the library created a fake social media account and made the threat at around 10:50. By 11:00, other students knew and had communicated with their parents. Shortly after, mass exodus of parents picking up their kids occurred. By that time, our administration had figured out who had made the threat and had the student in the office for questioning. Police were notified. Even though it was determined that the student got mad about something, made the threat and never left the library (you know, to create or distribute pre-made bombs), parents still did not want their kids there. The remainder of our school was evacuated to our sister School next door and the bomb squad was called in to sweep our building. This occurred even though they were nearly certain that the situation had no time to actually escalate to a dangerous situation. Nearly certain isn’t good enough for most parents. Rightly so, in my opinion.

 

Had social media been around years ago, could Timothy McVeigh have created a parody account and “joke” about blowing up the Murrah building in Oklahoma City as a result of Oklahoma State not winning the NCAA championship? Sure he could have, even though his real motives were quite different. Police checking into the parody account might have been alerted to something that seemed off and action have been able to be taken. What seems like sarcasm, a parody, might have a 0.000001% chance of being true.

 

In this situation, police that were on the job and being paid anyway investigated the situation. Trinity will go to school on a different day and will suffer no loss of instructional time (as they absolutely would have had they stayed at school.) Evidently such a post was deemed to be against the law, as he was arrested. To what extent he will receive consequences remains to be seen.

 

Bottom line - educational administrators must 100% put the safety of their students at the forefront. There were unknowns in this situation and therefore Trinity administrators made the responsible decision.