Write a Story, Go to Jail

[Cerek the Barbaric]

While the various references to Orwell and Stephen King make for good drama, they are overlooking a couple of significant facts about this case.

First of all, I don't recall any books by Stephen King written in "first person" style...where he is outlining a plan for himself and unnamed colleagues to commit the murder of several people he has decided he doesn't like. Secondly, Stephen King's books have always been written and submitted for publication, not kept hidden on some computer file and discovered accidentally by a third party. And - of course - most of Stephen King's books were published long before the series of attacks and killings that occurred in our public schools during the 1990's.

On the other hand, Brian Robertson wrote a story centered around himself and "unnamed colleagues" going into the school, taking it over, killing several people, and blowing the building up. He even outlined (in detail) how to respond to the police when they showed up. Also, this wasn't done in the privacy of Brian's room on his own PC. Instead, he wrote this story (and saved it) on a computer at school. The other significant factor is that he didn't tell anyone about this story (as far as I can tell from the article). The story was accidentally discovered later by two other students. If Brian was going to write such a controversial type story on this particular subject, he should have had the good sense to let a teacher know about it ahead of time so that he could prove it was just a work of fiction from his imagination. Remember, even his own mother agreed with him being suspended from the school for his lack of judgement.

I agree the felony charge is completely over the top, but let's look at this from a different perspective. Suppose - just for the sake of argument - that Brian Robertson HAD been planning to carry out this "fictional" attack on his school. Let us also suppose that this story of his wasn't discovered until after that attack had occurred.....What would be the general reaction if it suddenly became known that this kid who blew up the school and killed the senior class president (among others) had written a story on the school's own computer several months earlier detailing these exact events? There would be harsh criticism of the authorities in general (and the school system more particularly) for "ignoring obvious evidence" that was right in front of thier faces.

Crime prevention is a difficult goal to accomplish in reality. Because until the person or persons actually commit the crime, one can never be sure if they are actually planning to do it or not. When preemptive measures are put in place, some innocents will invariably be caught in the web also. That is the sad and unfortunate price that has to be paid in order to prevent another tragedy such as Columbine.

Oh....one last point that caught my interest...if the ACLU has taken such a huge interest in Brian's case, why have his parents had to spend thousands of dollars for his defense? Why hasn't the ACLU provided them with free legal representation? Haven't they done this in other cases?

[Skunk]

First of all, I don't recall any books by Stephen King written in "first person" style...where he is outlining a plan for himself and unnamed colleagues to commit the murder of several people he has decided he doesn't like.

There are plenty of authors who write in the first person (HG Wells's 'The Time Machine', for example), so this is really a matter of creative taste - as for the subject matter, it's just that - subject matter.

Secondly, Stephen King's books have always been written and submitted for publication, not kept hidden on some computer file and discovered accidentally by a third party.

Stephen King happened to be a talented author with the drive to get his work published - less confident and/or 'good' authors may not have the same luck - so should we lock them up because they write 'boring' pieces that publishers won't touch?

I agree the felony charge is completely over the top, but let's look at this from a different perspective. Suppose - just for the sake of argument - that Brian Robertson HAD been planning to carry out this "fictional" attack on his school. Let us also suppose that this story of his wasn't discovered until after that attack had occurred.....What would be the general reaction if it suddenly became known that this kid who blew up the school and killed the senior class president (among others) had written a story on the school's own computer several months earlier detailing these exact events? There would be harsh criticism of the authorities in general (and the school system more particularly) for "ignoring obvious evidence" that was right in front of thier faces.

Pick up several teenage diaries and I can guarantee that at least 30% of them will contain references of bad thought and bad deeds that they want to carry out - that's just being a teenager. Writing is often a way of releasing pent up anger - it in no way means that the person will acutally commit the acts that he/she describes. All healthy stuff of kids.

This is about administering first aid to a gunshot would without asking why the victim got shot in the first place. It would be more effective to have stricter gun controls, train the teachers (and parents) to better notice the signs of teenage-angst, employ councellors to help kids get through those wild-hormone induced depression/anger and so on - of course that does cost more money than a simple law that locks up everyone who even considers a bad act...

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Skunk: quote: Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: First of all, I don't recall any books by Stephen King written in "first person" style...where he is outlining a plan for himself and unnamed colleagues to commit the murder of several people he has decided he doesn't like.

There are plenty of authors who write in the first person (HG Wells's 'The Time Machine', for example), so this is really a matter of creative taste - as for the subject matter, it's just that - subject matter.[/QUOTE]Gosh, I don't remember H.G. Well's talking about killing his peers and destroying public buildings. I guess I better go back and re-read The Time Machine since I apparantly missed that part.

Originally posted by Skunk: quote: Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: Secondly, Stephen King's books have always been written and submitted for publication, not kept hidden on some computer file and discovered accidentally by a third party.

Stephen King happened to be a talented author with the drive to get his work published - less confident and/or 'good' authors may not have the same luck - so should we lock them up because they write 'boring' pieces that publishers won't touch?[/QUOTE]Actually, I read an article once stating that Stephen King had basically given up on his career as an author due to the many rejections he received. In frustration, he threw the manuscript for his newest story in the trash. It was his wife who recovered the manuscript and convinced him to give it one more try....and that manuscript became his first published novel.

Still, even with his vaunted success, I would dare say that if Stephen King decided to suddenly switch from stories of the supernatural and write a novel in first person where he and several associates are planning to assassinate the President of the United States and blow up the White House...even HE would have trouble getting printed (and he would probably receive a visit from the Secret Service regarding his sudden change in writing style). As you said, it all centers on the subject matter, and the fact is there are some subjects that simply aren't wise to write about - especially in the fashion in which Brian Robertson did it.

Originally posted by Skunk: quote: Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: I agree the felony charge is completely over the top, but let's look at this from a different perspective. Suppose - just for the sake of argument - that Brian Robertson HAD been planning to carry out this "fictional" attack on his school. Let us also suppose that this story of his wasn't discovered until after that attack had occurred.....What would be the general reaction if it suddenly became known that this kid who blew up the school and killed the senior class president (among others) had written a story on the school's own computer several months earlier detailing these exact events? There would be harsh criticism of the authorities in general (and the school system more particularly) for "ignoring obvious evidence" that was right in front of thier faces.

Pick up several teenage diaries and I can guarantee that at least 30% of them will contain references of bad thought and bad deeds that they want to carry out - that's just being a teenager. Writing is often a way of releasing pent up anger - it in no way means that the person will acutally commit the acts that he/she describes. All healthy stuff of kids.[/QUOTE]I agree with you on this point. Writing can be a healthy means of release for teenagers and certainly not all teenagers that entertain these "dark thoughts" actually plan to act on them. But the law which Robertson broke was put into place specifically as a reaction to Columbine, where two affluent teens plotted for over a year to massacre several students. These plans were detailed in their journals and on their home PC's. When all of these "signs" were found after the fact, there was a public outcry. "Why didn't the parents and teachers notice the danger signs?" "How could these teens plot such a horrible act for over a year without anybody learning about it?" This led to cries for laws to prevent such acts in the future. Of course, the history of any such law has been a huge overreaction in the way it was applied. Because of the multiple school attacks, ALL weapons were banned from school grounds...this led to cases of children being expelled or suspended from school for bringing a butter knife in their lunch to spread jelly on their sandwich. Many schools adopted a "Zero Tolerance" policy regarding drug use...this led to students being suspended for bring asthma medicine to school and one youngster was charged with "intent to distribute" when he offered a classmate a Tylenol for his headache.

A preventative law - by necessity - must be broad in nature. Unfortunately, this inevitably leads to innocents being punished as well as those who actually planned to use drugs, or bring real knives to school, or to actually go on a shooting spree due to the frustration and angst they feel.

Originally posted by Skunk: This is about administering first aid to a gunshot would without asking why the victim got shot in the first place. It would be more effective to have stricter gun controls, train the teachers (and parents) to better notice the signs of teenage-angst, employ councellors to help kids get through those wild-hormone induced depression/anger and so on - of course that does cost more money than a simple law that locks up everyone who even considers a bad act...

And it's a lot easier to blame the government for everything rather than expect an individual to accept responsibility for their actions or poor judgement.

Calling for stricter gun laws is just as reactionary as the law Brian Robertson was arrested under. It's nothing more than a different colored bandaid applied to the same gunshot wound after the fact...and it is no more effective at preventing or eliminating the root cause of the problem. All of the guns used in the various school attacks were (TTBOMK) legally owned.

Training teachers to recognize teenage angst goes without saying, and occurs every year. In addition to the formal training and workshops teachers attend, they get tons of on-the-job experience. Training parents is an impossible task..because then you have the government interfering in the private lives of citizens.

As for the counselors, school systems now require ALL Guidance Counselors to have a Masters Degree in Counseling and two years experience before applying for the job. In fact, the Guidnace Counselor has to meet stricter requirements than the teachers do. I know this because I applied for a Guidance Counselor position at a local high school at the end school year back in May. While I think I would make a wonderful counselor, I unfortunately don't have the necessary education or experience. So our school systems are far more serious about having qualified counselors available than they used to be.

So - as you can see - these other "costly measures" are in place and are being pursued by various school systems across the country.

[Timber Loftis]

Check out Stephen King's Bachman Books. While not in 1st person, one of these early stories published under his psuedonymn discusses a kid with a gun who takes over his class. It's actually the first place I ever encountered such a tale, real or imagined.

[Skunk]

All of the guns used in the various school attacks were (TTBOMK) legally owned.

Exactly my point - how is it that they managed to have easy access to such weapons? I don't advocate a ban on weapons (although frankly why it is legal to own an assault rifle is beyond me), but there are additional and painless measures that can be undertaken to strengthen control.

For example, why no require that firearms must be stored under lock and key in a properly approved container to prevent unauthorised access? Or why not have a law that requires gun owners to store their weapons complete with a gun trigger lock?

Why aren't the following measures mandatory in *all* US states:
"Child Access Prevention" (CAP) law (as above)
Juvenile possession law (ban guns for the under-18's)
A gun permit to be shown before purchase
All legally owned firearms registered with the local police...

and so on. There are a whole series of measures that can be used to tighten the law without restricting ownership. Right now, because the laws are set at state level - they make very little sense. For example - I wouldn't be able to purchase a weapon in NY without producing a permit - but no problem, I can just hop over the state line to PA and get it there where I do not have to produce a permit...

[Luvian]

I have an idea, we should reate a group of people that would have the right to look into our houses, in our computers, diaries, and documents. We should give these people very broad laws as tool to enforce their rules, and while we are at it, I have a good name for them. Why not call them the gestapo?

After all, the ends justify the mean, right? Why care if a few innocents persons and some civil rights get baffled in the way of Justice, right?

[Sir Kenyth]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: Crime prevention is a difficult goal to accomplish in reality. Because until the person or persons actually commit the crime, one can never be sure if they are actually planning to do it or not. When preemptive measures are put in place, some innocents will invariably be caught in the web also. That is the sad and unfortunate price that has to be paid in order to prevent another tragedy such as Columbine.

Yes, that's true. I don't agree with it at all though. There's only so much "prevention" that can be put in place before it becomes a worse problem than the crimes. What they should have done is investigate and determine if there was a true crime being planned. Unfortunately, real work like that is terribly unappealing to most law agencies. Much better to sweep all possible problem people into a cell and sort them out later.

Here's a quote from someone famous and wise:

"Those who would trade liberties for security deserve neither liberty, nor security."


It makes sense, doesn't it? There's no use in putting additions on the legislative house if you're going to let the foundation crumble in the process!

[ 09-05-2003, 11:31 AM: Message edited by: Sir Kenyth ]

[Skunk]

Originally posted by Luvian: I have an idea, we should reate a group of people that would have the right to look into our houses, in our computers, diaries, and documents. We should give these people very broad laws as tool to enforce their rules, and while we are at it, I have a good name for them. Why not call them the gestapo? After all, the ends justify the mean, right? Why care if a few innocents persons and some civil rights get baffled in the way of Justice, right?

I wasn't talking about the Patriot Act I and II (what you described is already legal under Patriot I) - I was talking about gun law....

[Luvian]

Originally posted by Skunk: quote: Originally posted by Luvian: I have an idea, we should reate a group of people that would have the right to look into our houses, in our computers, diaries, and documents. We should give these people very broad laws as tool to enforce their rules, and while we are at it, I have a good name for them. Why not call them the gestapo? After all, the ends justify the mean, right? Why care if a few innocents persons and some civil rights get baffled in the way of Justice, right?

I wasn't talking about the Patriot Act I and II (what you described is already legal under Patriot I) - I was talking about gun law.... [/QUOTE]I don't know what you said, I didn't really follow the thread, I simply posted my opinion after getting the pulse of the thread.

[Skunk]

That's honest of you to say so...