There were at least 46 students disciplined for making terrorist threats in Alabama after the Feb. 14 Parkland shooting - the majority of the threats made by students under the age of 18.
Alabama law states "intentionally or recklessly terrorizing another person or causing the disruption of school activities" constitutes a terrorist threat.
But consider the class clown disrupting class, said Tuscaloosa attorney Gar Blume, where is the line?
This very question has troubled many attorneys in the juvenile system since the Florida shooting and the ensuing influx of threats of violence in schools. The options for these students vary after the threat is made.
"Every case is a snowflake," said North Alabama attorney Lucas Beaty.
According to Blume, the juvenile court system and the judges presiding over the cases look for the best route for the child - which could range anywhere from probation to a 28-day boot camp-like curriculum. The judge would consider the student's past, other offenses - if any - and go from there.
Blume said in the best situation, a lawyer would be able to attain a consent decree on behalf of their client. Blume said a consent decree was designed for the student who hasn't been in trouble before - the student who had a lapse of judgment.
Whether they can attain such an outcome is debatable, as many attorneys find the law to be problematic.
"It is vague. It is broad," Beaty said. "For instance, 'one who intentionally or recklessly terrorizes another person.' What is terrorized defined?"
And these Alabama lawyers are not alone in this debate. A federal appeals court in South Carolina brought a challenge to the state's "Disturbing Schools" law after a group of students insisted the law was vague and unconstitutional.
South Carolina's law, like Alabama's, condemns the disturbance "in any way or in any place the students or teachers of any school or college in the state."
A federal district judge in the state dismissed the lawsuit, only to have a federal court revive the case for another run at a change in the language.
Gov. Kay Ivey addressed threat assessment when she released her ten recommendations in May. Securing Alabama's Facilities of Education, or SAFE Council, highlighted needs in school safety while addressing the lack of funding to address the issues.
Ron Smith, an attorney in North Alabama, challenged the existing statute while defending a juvenile and said the law was vague and unconstitutional. While many students end up saddled with a misdemeanor or harassment, others can face probation or possibly time in juvenile detention.
Smith said the focus of many courts in these cases is on the disruption of school activities, rather than the subsection that follows: "With the intent to retaliate against any person."
Without opening the discussion of intentions, Smith said the crime is not clear.
"Causing an evacuation of a building - that could be pulling the fire alarm," Smith said. "That would be a terrorist attack."
On the flip-side, the current political climate and heightened fear of school shootings have caused many attorneys to take a supportive position on the current law.
"I don't see the law as being unnecessarily vague," said former prosecutor Eddie Alley. "Intentionally means that you cause an action that you intend a result of, or recklessly you perceive the danger of potential action and disregard the consequences."
Allen said in the past, threats of this nature might have been handled at the school and the student would be at the mercy of the school administrators.
"In today's climate, if I were in school administration and had a threat in front of me, I would consider it a law enforcement issue right there," Alley said.
Limestone County attorney Debbie Long said there must be consequences for student actions.
"Whether a kid thinks it's funny and harmless or people get killed, the school system is totally disrupted," Long said.
The juvenile court's first responsibility is to decide what is best for the student, but without some form of repercussion, Long said the threats will continue to affect schools.
Long said the "laundry list of responsibilities" on schools today are enough without adding threat assessment and extreme situations.
Although the students are under the school's roof, the administrators do not have control over how the laws are handled.
"We aren't living in Little House on The Prairie Days," Long said. "They have to take every threat seriously because the potential consequences are fatal. Schools are in a hard position."