Legally, "in minecraft" should provide complete legal protection, because it literally says "I do not intend to do this irl", and laws against threats have very strict requirements because of free speech rights.
In the case of Watts v. United States 394 U.S. 705 (1969),[59] the United States Supreme Court ruled that mere political hyperbole must be distinguished from true threats.
"They always holler at us to get an education. And now I have already received my draft classification as 1-A and I have got to report for my physical this Monday coming. I am not going. If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L. B. J."
According to court testimony, the defendant in speaking made a gesture of sighting down the barrel of a rifle.
the Supreme Court reversed, stating, "We agree with petitioner that his only offense here was 'a kind of very crude offensive method of stating a political opposition to the president.' Taken in context, and regarding the expressly conditional nature of the statement and the reaction of the listeners, we do not see how it could be interpreted otherwise."
Now let's apply this to the present case:
This guy called for “just shoot Chitwood in the head and he stops being a problem ... in minecraft” in the context of political opposition.
Unlike in Watts, where being drafted was the contingency (which was already certain), the "in minecraft" explicitly stated that this wasn't meant for IRL.
So the prosecutor would need to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that saying "in minecraft" was something that everyone reading the comment would interpret as "but not really" as it literally states, but instead as "I totally mean this seriously but I am adding these words in order to prevent my arrest", which is quite frankly not possible to prove under the beyond a reasonable doubt standard. Could the jury nullify because "oh a sweaty 4channer, we have been told by the media they are evil! burn the witch!" WHY YES, and that might actually happen here.
But he should fight it. If he is a pussy and he pleads guilty and thereby sets a precedent that these kinds of arrests will work? Fuck him.
I totally mean this seriously but I am adding these words in order to prevent my arrest", which is quite frankly not possible to prove under the beyond a reasonable doubt standard
Why is it not? I mean it’s quite obvious why “in Minecraft” is said, but why is it not provable beyond a reasonable doubt?
Because you don't know what the fuck was going on in his head. How could you have NO REASONABLE DOUBT and be SO CERTAIN as to what he meant when he wrote "in minecraft"? You're not in his head. You can't just project your own opinion into his head.
Thankfully only 1 juror needs to correctly apply the reasonable doubt standard, as you so aptly just demonstrated that some jurors like you would not.
Legally, "in minecraft" should provide complete legal protection, because it literally says "I do not intend to do this irl", and laws against threats have very strict requirements because of free speech rights.
Now let's apply this to the present case:
This guy called for “just shoot Chitwood in the head and he stops being a problem ... in minecraft” in the context of political opposition.
Unlike in Watts, where being drafted was the contingency (which was already certain), the "in minecraft" explicitly stated that this wasn't meant for IRL.
So the prosecutor would need to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that saying "in minecraft" was something that everyone reading the comment would interpret as "but not really" as it literally states, but instead as "I totally mean this seriously but I am adding these words in order to prevent my arrest", which is quite frankly not possible to prove under the beyond a reasonable doubt standard. Could the jury nullify because "oh a sweaty 4channer, we have been told by the media they are evil! burn the witch!" WHY YES, and that might actually happen here.
But he should fight it. If he is a pussy and he pleads guilty and thereby sets a precedent that these kinds of arrests will work? Fuck him.
Why is it not? I mean it’s quite obvious why “in Minecraft” is said, but why is it not provable beyond a reasonable doubt?
Because you don't know what the fuck was going on in his head. How could you have NO REASONABLE DOUBT and be SO CERTAIN as to what he meant when he wrote "in minecraft"? You're not in his head. You can't just project your own opinion into his head.
Thankfully only 1 juror needs to correctly apply the reasonable doubt standard, as you so aptly just demonstrated that some jurors like you would not.