The Lead’s Editorial: A misaligned consequence between an adult, child when it comes to making a terrorist threat

At what point should an adult citizen making a perceived threat be held to the same standard as a 10-year-old child? If the adult is elderly, does that excuse their behavior? Would that also be true for a child who may not recognize the consequences of their actions? These questions are at the heart of recent incidents of alleged terroristic threats. 

During 198th District Attorney Stephen Harpold’s opening arguments on Tuesday, he posited that in the wake of the Uvalde school massacre, every threat should be taken seriously by law enforcement and the public. And that mentality seemed to be the case for a 10-year-old and an 11-year-old, both of whom face felony charges for recent alleged threats to local schools. 

Yet Robert Hurt, a resident of Mountain Home in his 70s who has been vocal in his hatred of LGBTQ+ people, wrote an email with threats of serious violence on the four of five council members whom he perceived to be not aligned with his beliefs had not faced the same consequences. 

Hurt became enraged by Butt-Holdsworth Memorial’s Library’s LGBTQ+ content and in response, wrote an email saying he wouldn’t mind somebody using an AK-47 assault rifle or something similar against all but Councilmember Roman Garcia, whom he perceived to be aligned with his beliefs. He described injuries so bad that open caskets would not be an option and added that he wanted God to punish the City Council and complained about his unhappiness.

The jury deliberated Hurt’s fate for nearly seven hours, only to return to 198th District Judge Pat Maguire to say they could not reach a verdict. It’s unclear what the jury’s split was, but one juror told The Lead that they were unanimous in their belief that Hurt’s email was immoral, but they weren’t sure it was illegal. Some jurors said the law was unclear. 

While the jurors clearly did their due diligence, spending the time in deliberation discussing this definition in detail, The Lead would like to point out the difference between Hurt’s experience and those of the children who made recent alleged threats.

When Hurt made his threat, it took several days between the email and his arrest, and his in-custody experience was limited to a few hours—meaning he was booked and released. It’s taken nearly two years to prosecute Hurt. At no time did Hurt deny writing the email; he admitted it to the Kerrville Police Department and provided investigators with his email distribution list. 

The immediate consequences the 10- and 11-year-old children face are significantly more serious than those Hurt received. In both cases, the children faced felony charges, were taken into custody, and taken to a juvenile detention facility in San Angelo.

That’s right, a 10-year-old and an 11-year-old faced a 147.6-mile drive as part of the juvenile justice system. Children may also face overnight stays in Victoria and San Antonio juvenile facilities.

Those children won’t have a jury to deliberate their fate, and they will likely face removal from school and a challenging re-entry process. One of the children is in Kerrville, and the other in Ingram, and in the wake of Uvalde and other incidents, including the school shooting in Georgia earlier this year, these threats should clearly be taken very seriously. But is that a duty reserved for schools alone? 

We cannot afford to ignore the warning signs, no matter how difficult the circumstances. But should that be the case only for schools? Hurt knew precisely what he was doing compared with a 10-year-old who may not have fully understood the consequences. Yet, Hurt got to go home and then menace patrons of the Butt-Holdsworth Memorial Library for a chunk of 2023 with his hateful “God Hates LGBTQ+” sign

Despite continued behavior that should be perceived as threatening, a jury seemed unable to qualify the violent fantasies of his email as a terroristic threat.