hold up a sec.

overall, this is, of course, a good thing. it's a little preposterous to think that a kid creating a painting of himself killing the police officer who cited him would be a threat.

"Without question, it was intemperate and demonstrated extremely poor judgment," presiding Justice Arthur Scotland wrote in his opinion. what's wrong with teens today, being all intemperate and demonstrating extremely poor judgement? when i was a teen (and the same applies to my parents' and grandparents' generations. heck, i'm pretty sure it goes all the way back into antiquity) we never excercised poor judgement.

anyway, i don't care about Justices stating the obvious, but i do think this part is interesting

"The appeals court dismissed a finding by Butte County Superior Court Judge Ann Rutherford that the teenager had made a terrorist threat against MacPhail "

what, in the mind of Judge Rutherford, distinguished the painting as a terrorist threat and not just a plain, everyday kind of threat (well, i guess "terrorist threats" are kind of everyday things now)?