← Back to context

Comment by strideashort

7 hours ago

Just… venting? I mean u never know i guess but under some circumstances it could be the healthy option, assuming there’s no real intent

10 comments

strideashort

Reply
jakzurr  6 hours ago

Yeah, I hope they were venting. (But I feel sorry for them if they were.)

  • colechristensen  6 hours ago

    EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. there is a mass shooting there are a series of red flags where people "hoped" weren't really real.

    We don't feel sorry for this nonsense we punish it, whether it's "real" or not you have no right to share your fantasies of violence and real or not you need to be treated like they are and removed from society.

    • ASalazarMX  6 hours ago

      > EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. there is a mass shooting there are a series of red flags where people "hoped" weren't really real.

      That might be because the vast majority of people showing those flags are just regular people frustrated, not actual psychopaths. Rather than punishing this behavior, it should be treated to help them manage frustration.

      Hell, emotional intelligence should be taught since kindergarten, it's not surprising we mostly behave like savages in clothes, we focused one half of the brain, and left the rest to chance.

      2 replies →

colechristensen  6 hours ago

I'm fine living in a society where "venting" reasonably actionable threats gets you put in prison as if they were real threats.

  • ASalazarMX  6 hours ago

    > reasonably actionable threats

    This is the part that law doesn't understand. It's binary, crime or no crime, threats or no threats, there is no gradient. The judge and jury can be the gradient, but as soon as precedence grows, that margin keeps shrinking.

    One customer screams at another at a Wall Mart: "I will kill you for this!". How do we judge 'reasonably actionable' in this case? Words can't kill, so it's always an empty threat?