True. There are limited resources.

For example, https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article24376685... documents the purchase for a 90,000 resident city in NC of Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles for $500,000.00 each.

“I’d rather have the armored capability and not need it, than to need it and not have it,” [Concord Police Chief Gary J. Gacek] said in an email to The Charlotte Observer.

Sometimes you just gotta choose what you go after.

> The police have limited resources

This is strictly not true. The police choose not to have resources dedicated to many kinds of crimes. US police funding exceeds what almost all countries spend on defense. Police in America act as a significant source of revenue for many communities (through tickets, fines, and forfeiture).

That doesn't change the fact that it's still limited.

Also the US is the 3rd biggest country in the world with a very complex blend of groups and cultures. It's obviously going to have more funding in general by sheer size.

And a lot of people here would probably be screaming if you did prosecute some immature 20-something picked at random and tossed them in prison for ten years for an ill-considered social media post.

In many countries the first time offender 20-something would spend a night in jail, be arraigned the next day, and likely enter a diversionary process where they need to face up to what they did. Perhaps a conference with the victim. Do some community service. Etc. 9/10 this will give someone the chance to seriously rethink their behavior.

Many countries they would be beaten or killed. It really depends on what many countries means to you.

It's the kind of stuff they did to "hackers" back in the 80s and 90s who were just phreaking phone lines.

Just to be clear, I think the clear reading of what is being discussed is "a specific and targeted death threat, either alone or in concert with others", not a hot take that fails to age well.

And, so what?

Because tossing people in a hole at random to set an example is not, in general, policy we want to encourage maybe?

Having kids intimidating strangers by throwing around death threats isn't something we should encourage either.

No one is talking about encouraging such behavior. But if the FBI undertakes a serious investigation to track them down, when they get tracked down, they may well end up in a Federal prison for a long time--especially if they can't afford a few hundred thousand dollars for the best legal support. Maybe they deserve to have their life ruined for probably poorly considered juvenile behavior but I'm not sure. There are societal costs associated with pursuing and prosecuting every crime to the max.

Folks aren't asking for people to be locked up forever for this. A comment in the thread mentioned about first offenders getting no jail time, but needing to publicly apologize, do community service, etc. Repeat offenders should likely serve some jail time, with each offense bringing stronger punishment.

Doing nothing about this does encourage its behavior, especially since there's entire communities around doing it (kiwi farms being one of the worst).

What do you want facebook to do? Helping people without monetary gains? Ha!

"Pretend I'm a major shareholder's brother. Now will you help?"