It's a scenario seen with frightening frequency. An impressionable young man or teen is influenced by outside forces due partly to the convenience and secrecy of the Internet.
Over the course of months, he is persuaded that his mission is to kill. To kill his classmates. To kill his parents. Or perhaps someone thousands of miles away.
By a stroke of luck or due diligence, the young man's plot is foiled, and he is arrested. What happens to him next raises perplexing questions about the "adultification" of juveniles in the justice system, about race and ethnicity and about the discretion of prosecutors and judges.
We've had at least two cases in Minnesota recently in which the goals of potential killers were similar.
In Waseca, John David LaDue plotted to kill his classmates, assembling weapons and bomb materials in a storage locker. He had studied previous mass murders. His target was his school.
In a plea deal agreed to by the judge, LaDue was given a long probation and treatment.
As this newspaper reported this week, state legislators are now thinking of strengthening the law to make prosecution easier against those are caught before they actually attempt a crime. The LaDue case raises the question of where to draw the line on thoughts and actions, a question that varies between states and at the federal level.
Consider the other recent case. Five young Somali-American men were charged with conspiracy to commit murder outside the U.S., adding to previous charges of providing material support to a terrorist organization. None ever left the U.S., though prosecutors allege that they tried.