So he plagiarized some paragraphs and added others to make a story, which outlined an armed invasion of his school. What did the original paragraphs say? What did his additions say?
I agree this statute is paranoid stupidity. The kid might not be guilty of planning an armed invasion, but he IS guilty of plagiarism, which makes me suspect the facts vs agenda of this article from beginning to end.
The kid might not be guilty of planning an armed invasion, but he IS guilty of plagiarism.
Not if he never showed it to anyone.
Quoted from transcript dated 1/27/03, page 13. Even after this clarification, Judge Snow later reverses the decision of Judge Ring.
The Court: Now, if I am driving down the freeway, and I have a gun in my trunk with ammunition, and I think to myself, I will take the next exit, stop at a service station, get the gun out of the truck and trunk, and go in and rob this station, and shoot whoever is there. Okay, I am thinking that to myself as I drive down the road. I come to the next exit. I drive on past. I never exit the highway. I never get the gun out of the trunk. Did I commit a crime under this statute?
Mr. Sitzman: Assuming for the moment that big brother somehow or another is able to retrieve your thoughts and put it in some form that it could be utilized as evidence in Court, under this statute, I believe you have. I believe this statute as it is written on its face, unless, there is a very strict construction read into it, this statute criminalizes civil thought.
every civilian in oklahoma is living in a official police state we gotta gather freepers together and freep this court house while the trial is going on and do anything legally poosibleto get this da out of office are da in OK subject to recall ?
If you would like to help this family who is now bankrupt thanks to the oklahoma branch of the gestopo you can go to this link and make donations or jsut write a supportive email