[bhitov]

> So I'll start by playing Devil's Advocate very briefly. It's interesting how facts can be shaped with different language ("his only brush with the law"): it appears the restraining order from two years prior related to similar threats to those alleged in the Facebook comments (although in a remarkably different context).

IANAL but I'm reasonably confident that a restraining order he received as a minor would not be admissible as evidence in this case, and thus should be irrelevant to the prosecution.

[madaxe_again]

It is, however, when you're subjected to Trial by Media.

[Pxtl]

Don't know about the USA, but here in Canada the media is also disallowed from discussing young offenders.

[cjfont]

He's no longer a minor, so does that still apply because he was a minor at the time it happened?

[Pxtl]

In Canada? Yup. The YOA is very expansive. For example, my neighborhood's most prolific tagger is in his mid-'20s and the press still isn't allowed to mention his name when he gets picked up for the nth time because he was previously arrested as a young offender. If they said "Joe Blow was arrested for writing tag X on an overpass" then everybody would know that Joe Blow is X and his young offenses of writing X on an overpass would be revealed.

You absolutely cannot be tied to crimes you committed as a youth. This way, no matter how bad you screw up, you have a clean slate as an adult.

[WalterBright]

I also feel that, if you are an adult and you've served your sentence and paid your debt to society, that your file is closed to the public. The only time it would be accessed is in determining the sentence for your next crime.

Adults deserve a second chance, too.

[lsaferite]

This cannot be stressed or up voted enough. One you have a black mark on your record in this country (USA), it never goes away. At least in most EU countries the law stipulates that after 7 years it's off your record. We, as a country, have given up on rehabilitation and reintegration.

[fuckpig]

> IANAL but I'm reasonably confident that a restraining order he received as a minor would not be admissible as evidence in this case, and thus should be irrelevant to the prosecution.

And yet it might be relevant to the reason he was arrested, if the quotation in the message above yours (which is unsourced) is true.

Kid gets arrested for Facebook talk: "INJUSTICE!"

...but he had a previous restraining order for similar threats: "They might have a point."

What's ridiculous about this case is that they kept at it.

[Aloha]

The problem is, in most states its stupidly easy to get a TRO - you dont need proof, just fill out a form, indicate you feel threatened by someone, pay the fee, boom, TRO.

[SilasX]

No, not actually enough for me to hedge that they might have a point...