Obvious or not, a reasonable responses would be to send a cop around for a "friendly" chat with the kids and his parents about certain jokes not being appropriate because they'll freak too many people out. Maybe a shrink interview for CYA.
Edit: No reply link for me to respond the below comments so updating here.
Re: psychiatrist. >> "There's no suggestion that the comments were caused by mental illness"
If someone makes a statement like that and you decide it's a joke and not to punish them having a psychiatrist investigate seems sensible to me. You aren't punishing him so at least make sure he wasn't serious.
Perhaps if he had stated he was a unicorn from jupiter you would believe we should do a forced live autopsy on him to verify his extraordinary claims. The previous statement was a joke. The previous statement was not.
So now he has to prove his own innocence as well? What fucking country is this? The prosecution has to prove guilt in America, not the defence innocence.
> or some time with a psychiatrist.
Why? There's no suggestion that the comments were caused by mental illness, just by immaturity and disinhibited environment.
To my knowledge you have to be 21 to buy alcohol yourself in all 50 states though.
Even better solution is to just buy ultra pure for analysis ethanol from local chemistry store (or Merck), dilute with distilled water 3/2, add some drops (very little - a drop or two per liter) of glycerin to smooth the taste, some citric acid or lemon juice.
It is better than top shelf vodka.
Homebrewing beer legally is trivial though, and a fairly popular hobby. Homebrewing beer legally for personal use was trickier until 1979 iirc, so there isn't a long tradition of it yet, but it is becoming increasingly popular as time goes on.
However, unauthorized distillation in the US is considered a serious federal crime which is investigated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, which tends to do everything with full force military raids that kill their targets and/or result in long prison terms.
A license to distill for fuel use only costs $3000 a year.
Home distillation is permitted in many countries. In the US it is unlikely as much of the country still believes that alcohol comes from the devil and anyone who drinks is not going to get to heaven. There are still dry counties in which sales of alcohol are not permitted at all, and there are still Sunday laws in place in many areas.
My point was that the state imposes restrictions on him because the state thinks he's not adult enough to handle the consequences. The state doesn't allow him to buy alcohol because the state thinks he's too immature to do so. Thus, it seems unfair for the state to suddenly claim that he's fully adult and fully capable of behaving like an adult and fully responsible for his actions.
You can't be serious?
Edit: Based on the US freedom of speech I'm guessing written and oral threats to kill aren't an offence.
I believe that it is your viewpoint that any sports player or fan who says anything which can be construed as threatening to kill should be charged with a crime.
Here's a specific oral threat from Shannon Sharpe of the Broncos: "we are killing the Patriots". Of course, the larger context is: "Mr. President! Call in the National Guard! Send as many men as you can spare! Because we are killing the Patriots! They need emergency help!"
Should he be charged? If so, you have an extremely low threshold for free speech. If not, what makes this not a threat, while the teenager's statement is a threat?
If there's lack of motive, lack of planning, and lack of weapons, then is it a threat? Everything about this case says that there was no evidence that it was real, and that all exculpatory evidence (eg, the context this was smack talk, and the "j/k" and "lol" disclaimer) were removed from the evidence presented to the judge.
You say that unusual expressions are more deserving of investigation, and should have a lower threshold than 'normal' phrases like "I'm so angry with you that I could to kill you." However, in the context, the person accused had just been insulted by being called "crazy", and the response seems to have a riff on what "crazy" might really mean, quickly followed by the disclaimers.
Where is the actual threat? I don't see how this teenager is a real threat, just like you don't see how those other cases are real threats.
For that matter, and from what I understand, the person who reported the message is from Canada. Canada has a different cultural expectation of what free speech means than the US. If it takes a single report to make the sort of complaint about "unusual speech", do we need to accept anyone's standard threshold anywhere in the world?
If a DC police officer, who sometimes works as a motorcycle escort for the First Lady, can jokingly say that he want to kill her, and purportedly shows another officer a picture of the weapon he will use to do so, then surely that's a much more serious threat, with specific access and ability. Yet, that officer wasn't charged with a crime, nor sent to prison with a high bond. As I understand, he had desk duty while the investigation occurred.
Why is this case with the teenager so deserving of a disproportionately high bond, compared to other threats which are seemingly more credible?
Recently in Oklahoma, "A Norman man threatened via email to kill Gov. Mary Fallin's “child” and McClain County Sheriff Don Hewitt, apparently because he is upset about the death of his own child." "Helling, who told investigators he sent the emails from the Norman Public Library, was arrested June 7 on “unrelated warrants” and booked into the Cleveland County jail. His bail has been set at $20,000, records show."
Last year in Utah, "A Utah man who police say threatened to assassinate Gov. Gary Herbert is now facing multiple felony charges." "The 52-year-old Baker is being held in the Salt Lake County jail. Bail is set at $25,007."
So we have people who have specifically threatened to kill a governor (and in one case the governor's (grown) child), and had a bail of only $25,000 or so.
Why is this teenager's case so extreme so as to require a bail of $500,000?
I've searched, but couldn't find a similar case with a bail that was this high. The closest I found was from a few years ago: "A Philadelphia man was charged with telephoning death threats into 911 against Mayor Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Kelly, authorities said Monday." "Fisher is being held on $100,000 bail after his arraignment Saturday in Manhattan Criminal Court on 10 counts of making a terroristic threat, authorities said."
I've instead found things like earlier this week, where "An Owatonna man faces felony charges after he allegedly threatened to kill a man while waving a baseball bat. Andrew John Kramer, 24, was charged with second-degree assault with a dangerous weapon and making a terroristic threat in Steele County District Court on Monday morning. ... Because of his criminal history and the possible public safety risk, Judge Joseph Bueltel set Kramer’s outright bail at $30,000 and his conditional bail at $15,000."
Do you seriously believe that these cases of direct threats against specific people, including threatening to use a baseball bat, is less serious, and less deserving of high bail, than what the teenager did?
Why?
> D.C. Police Officer Christopher Picciano, "a 17-year veteran who was a member of the elite presidential motorcade detail," will be suspended without pay for a little over a month after joking about killing the first lady, threatening to go on a shooting spree, and calling Pres. Obama a communist.