Calif. Man Arrested For ESPN Post On Killing Kids 416
A reader writes with an AP story as carried by Yahoo that illustrates one of the boundaries of free speech online: "A California man accused of posting comments on ESPN's website saying he was watching kids and wouldn't mind killing them was in jail Tuesday on $1 million bail after he was arrested for investigation of making terrorist threats, authorities said. Several guns were found Monday at the home of former Yale University student Eric Yee, said Los Angeles County sheriff's Lt. Steve Low. Yee was arrested after the sports network ESPN reported threatening posts were made in a reader response section to an online ESPN story on Thursday about new Nike sneakers named after LeBron James that cost $270 a pair. Some of the nearly 3,000 reader comments on the story talked about children possibly getting killed over the sneakers because of how expensive they are, said ESPN spokesman Mike Soltys. 'What he was posting had nothing to do with sports," Soltys said Tuesday. "We closely monitor the message boards and anytime we get a threat, we're alerting law enforcement officials.' An employee at ESPN headquarters in Bristol, Conn., notified local police the same day and they linked the posting to Yee's home in Santa Clarita in northern Los Angeles County."
Ermahgerd 1984! (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, this is what people should be doing: responding to obvious cries for help before the perp manages to shoot up a theater full of people.
Re:Ermahgerd 1984! (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, this is what people should be doing: responding to obvious cries for help before the perp manages to shoot up a theater full of people.
You're not a perp until you've done something, or at least set in motion clear actions towards doing something.
This is punishing thought crime, justifying actual means by a potential end.
If people are worried about someone's cry for help, call someone who can help, not the law. They have no ways - nor intentions - of helping the person.
Re:Ermahgerd 1984! (Score:4, Insightful)
No this is not thought crime, this is punishing a real crime. Making "terrorist threats" has been a crime for a very long time. You can think about crime all you like, telling someone you are going to kill people is a crime. Just not as bad a crime as actually doing it.
Re:Ermahgerd 1984! (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, but there's a presumption of future crimes that seems problematic. Note the final phrase in this quote from TFA:
"We are thankful that police departments are working together and without the information from Bristol, maybe this wouldn't have been able to be stopped."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That is just people being people.
In court he will not be tried for a future crime, but the actual crime he did commit.
Re:Ermahgerd 1984! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Ermahgerd 1984! (Score:5, Insightful)
Which was what exactly?!?!?!? the 1 million dollar bail is higher than a normal murder charge bail. While making comments like this might be illegal, or in poor taste, the response seems a bit over the top.
Yes, but for most murderers the judge doesn't have strong reason to suspect they might go out and murder again. With the threats this guy made, the judge does have strong reason to suspect he might go and murder people. Hence, a high bail.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
ESPN helped (Score:3)
Doubtless ESPN advocated for such a large amount so after saying the number, Stewart Scott can add: "Boo-Yah!!"
Re: (Score:3)
It depends on the context. Just saying " i'm gonna go kill a bunch of kids" for no reason could be construed as terrorism threats, but does not always equal actual threats. Especially if it is written in response to another post or the main story it can easily be sarcasm / satire E.G " I'm gonna go kill a bunch of X and be rich then" in response to something stating people might be killed for something expensive but common is sarcasm if not satire.
Ever heard the "if you don't have anything good to say, just shut up" ? Works every time. It'd have helped the moron that is now in jail.
Freedom of speech. If I disagree with something I have
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, but there's a presumption of future crimes that seems problematic. Note the final phrase in this quote from TFA:
Not presumption, assumption. If you make threats, then it is reasonable to suspect you might follow up on those threats. On the other hand, making murder threats _is_ a crime in itself, so a crime _has_ been committed.
Re:Ermahgerd 1984! (Score:4, Informative)
Now I know what the "old folks" meant when they talk about times a'changing.
Back when I was a boy, when I was pissed at someone, I could talk with friends and say, "I wanna kill that bastard."
It got the steam out and anger went bye-bye.
Nowadays I'm afraid to say anything about killing anything to anyone.
Re:Ermahgerd 1984! (Score:5, Informative)
No this is not thought crime, this is punishing a real crime. Making "terrorist threats" has been a crime for a very long time.
The term credible threat means a threat that is âoe real and immediate, not conjectural or hypothetical.â Kegler v. United States DOJ, 436 F. Supp. 2d 1204, 1212 (D. Wyo. 2006)
The standard that has been used up until now is if a perceived threat is distanced in time or target, it's not a credible threat, and subject to free speech protection.
Re:Ermahgerd 1984! (Score:5, Interesting)
Which would be an excellent defense. Having a good defense will not prevent you from being arrested, if it is really good though you might avoid even being charged.
The DA will decide if they charge him or not, the police are just doing their jobs.
Re:Ermahgerd 1984! (Score:5, Funny)
The standard that has been used up until now is if a perceived threat is distanced in time or target
Ah... so he should have said he was going to kill kids next year, one town over.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh please.. It's an expression. It's a distasteful one but if every parent who made an off-color comment about how they'd like to strangle their kids to death went to jail we'd have no parents left.
Re: (Score:2)
If it just an expression then the DA will likely decline to press any charges and this guy will be back on the street in 24 hours or less.
I would suggest you not put your off color comments on billboards though, since that is what posting to a public website basically is.
Re: (Score:3)
That is not what I said at all.
They avoid charging if they cannot win. If they can win has nothing to do with actual guilt. They do not want to hurt their ratio.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh please.. It's an expression.
Do you know exactly what was said?
Re:Ermahgerd 1984! (Score:5, Insightful)
You can think about crime all you like, telling someone you are going to kill people is a crime
But in this specific case, he DIDN'T threaten to do it. Couldn't immediately find a direct quote, but the articles all say he said he "wouldn't mind" doing it.
There are a lot of crimes I wouldn't mind doing. Did I just threaten to do a lot of crimes? No. I won't be doing any crimes today if I can help it. Aside from jaywalking and maybe some copyright crimes. Actually, I'm pretty sure I already did both already, now that I think about it...
Anyway, this is not threatening to kill a specific person to their face to terrify them, which is clearly something that should be illegal. This is saying something tasteless about children, which should not be a crime, and being near an unregistered gun, which depends on the circumstances. And one million dollar bail is quite high even if he had said to a specific kid that he was going to kill them.
Re: (Score:3)
Also have to wonder how much of the post was intended to be satirical or to mock all the other comments that were saying these shoes might end up getting kids killed. I can see how a deeply sarcastic/creative person who is a bit asbergers might write something like this. It's like me saying that I might want to kill some religious people. It's fun to say, fun to provoke, and the world would certainly be better off...but I'm not going to go out and do it because I'm against violence.
Re:Ermahgerd 1984! (Score:4, Interesting)
And who decides what a "terrorist threat" is? How do we know he wasn't being sarcastic?
A lot of shit gets said on the internet and in real life.
And notice nowhere is the actual quote of what he said posted...
Here are some context quotes by other people though:
z3nmaster69@yahoo.com writes: "Some kid will get killed if he wears one of these in the hood. I'll guarantee that!"
Buzz1158 asks: "When will the first kid be killed for a pair?"
So if he responds to that in a way that says he's "watching kids and did not mind murdering them" then that's not tongue-in-cheek?
Re:Ermahgerd 1984! (Score:4, Insightful)
And who decides what a "terrorist threat" is?
A court of law. But for that he needs to be brought to it.
Re: (Score:3)
But what's the new criterion that turns an everyday threat into a terrorist threat? If it's not "to effect political change" any more, what's the new distinction?
Someone could be scared, somewhere. Maybe.
Re:Ermahgerd 1984! (Score:5, Insightful)
terrorist threat
Terrorism is a very specific thing. These laws were written and passed because it plays on the stupidity of Americans.
Even if they guy was absolutely serious, in no way, shape, or form, would it actually be a "terroristic threat." Period.
These laws were created such that it gives the state power over everyone for anything. You'd have to be a completely delusional to support these laws.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a terrorist threat. It's not about terrorism. It's a "mundane" mass murderer threat.
Re:Ermahgerd 1984! (Score:4, Insightful)
Making "terrorist threats" has been a crime for a very long time.
It is a stupid, arbitrary excuse for a crime that is so ambiguous that the lawmakers responsible should die of shame. Oh dear - did I just make a terrorist threat against government officials? To the dungeon with me!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Terrorist threats have nothing to do with terrorism. The term has been used for many decades before the Patriot act was even imagined.
Re:Ermahgerd 1984! (Score:5, Insightful)
Terrorist threats have nothing to do with terrorism.
Sorry, what?
The term has been used for many decades before the Patriot act was even imagined
Yes, and prior to 9/11'ish it was generally reserved for acts that sought a political goal through terror. It's only been very recently that the political motivation was dropped as a requirement.
Re: (Score:3)
I once told a (now ex) girlfriend this, "You know, sometimes your mother makes me think homicidal thoughts."
I was arrested for "Terrorizing."
I took the plea agreement so I'm unable to remark on the laws themselves and that's about all the information I have. The agreement bundled it into a bunch of other charges and was well worth it in my opinion as I was certainly guilty of the rest.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Ermahgerd 1984! (Score:5, Informative)
You're not a perp until you've done something, or at least set in motion clear actions towards doing something.
But he has done something. Communicating threats is a crime in most states.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
But he has done something. Communicating threats is a crime in most states.
Communicating credible threats. "I want to do [bad things] to [indeterminable targets]" is not a credible threat.
Re:Ermahgerd 1984! (Score:4, Insightful)
TFA doesn't quote what he said, so we don't really know whether he did or did not make a "threat".
If he said "I've had it, gonna go kill those little punks skateboarding on my sidewalk, back in a few", okay, possible threat (though in plenty of contexts it still would not count as a threat).
If, as seems more likely, he said "I hate those goddamned kids, hope they get hit by a bus, might even do it myself one of these days", then no, not a threat.
Fortunately, in situations like this the courts actually do fairly well at separating hurp from fact. Unfortunately, he will either cop a plea, or end up bankrupt paying for a lawyer.
/ What do I call it? "Justice!"
Re:Ermahgerd 1984! (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a huge problem in the US - our first responders are not well trained in handling people in emotional distress or who are mentally ill. Even medical first responders tend to be extremely ill equipped to handle this. Often by their ham-handed approach to things they make a situation much, much worse than it needs to be.
There are efforts to train LEOs and other first responders, but the problem is that by and large, the qualities that police forces look for when hiring officers do not tend to mesh well with the qualities ideal for working well with the mentally ill.
It's a horrible situation, and one that keeps on getting made worse in the US because politicians want to be seen as tough on crime to satisfy a bloodthirsty population out for revenge and punishment rather than rehabilitation and prevention.
Re:Ermahgerd 1984! (Score:5, Informative)
If people are worried about someone's cry for help, call someone who can help, not the law. They have no ways - nor intentions - of helping the person.
There's an article [sj-r.com] in today's local paper about just that.
The article continues...
Re: (Score:3)
if you threaten real world violence, free speech laws have always made provisions for you to be punished for that. libel as well
Libel is not part of criminal law but civil law. This is a big difference.
And only credible threats are punishable. Hypothetical threats are protected speech. Thankfully.
Re: (Score:2)
how do you define credible?
a guy threatens to kill people online
do we assume he is joking?
do we assume he is making a genuine threat?
if we assume he is joking and people get killed, we have erred
if we assume he was serious and he was joking, the worst we have done is taught a dumbass a valuable lesson about the natural limits on free speech: when they impinge on the freedom to life and limb of others
Re: (Score:3)
No, you don't assume. You use your observational powers to determine whether, when people say things like this online, they're serious. If they usually are, you infer this is a likely to be a real threat. If they very rarely are, you infer it's unlikely to be one. Perhaps you start investigating the guy to figure out if he's the rare one who wasn't just blowing off steam, trolling, or the bajillion other ways people say stupid things online. It's possible that happened. Maybe
Re: (Score:3)
how do you define credible?
'The Supreme Court defines a "credible threat" as one that is "real and immediate, not conjectural or hypothetical.'
O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 494, 94 S.Ct. 669, 38 L.Ed.2d 674 (1974)
Kegler v. United States DOJ, 436 F. Supp. 2d 1204, 1212 (D. Wyo. 2006)
'The injury or threat of injury must be both "real and immediate," not "conjectural" or "hypothetical."'
Golden v. Zwickler,394 U.S. 103, 109-110 (1969)
Maryland Casualty Co. v. Pacific Coal & Oil Co.,312 U.S. 270, 273 (1941)
United Public Workers v.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps by actually giving them some help, not arresting them under a terrorism related charge.
terroristic threatsterrorism. (Score:2)
Perhaps by actually giving them some help, not arresting them under a terrorism related charge.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
...take out the next chav...
That's awful nice of you to treat them to dinner.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Source Link = Dead (Score:2)
Re:Source Link = Dead (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
you have now been placed on a watch list in regards to your threat on the source link.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
How should we send messages? .... please advise
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
So are you saying it is all your fault?
ugh (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it me or is a "terrorist threat" charge starting to become the "etc" category to charge people for statements that someone is uncomfortable with.
If he is making a threat that is a chargeable offense and the "terrorism" adjective is useless anyway.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
One day I'll be arrested for using logic. "You're THINKING! That's illegal! You must tow either the Republican or Democrat party line! Independent thought is systemic dissension and causes disorderly disruption to our country's political operation, and is thus terrorism!"
I am Emmanuel Goldstein.
Re: (Score:3)
One day I'll be arrested for using logic. "You're THINKING! That's illegal! You must tow either the Republican or Democrat party line! Independent thought is systemic dissension and causes disorderly disruption to our country's political operation, and is thus terrorism!"
You should report to the computer. The computer is your friend. Trust the computer.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Terroristic threats have been the name for that sort of talk for decades.
It's not a "terrorism" charge.
Re: (Score:2)
This crime has been called that for a very long time. Why should we rename our legal terms to make you feel better?
"Several Guns Were Found"? (Score:5, Insightful)
I love how the article points out that "several guns were found", implying that it is somehow out of the ordinary for an American citizen to legally own firearms. See? He owns guns, so obviously he must be a violent psychopath.
Stupid media.
Re: (Score:3)
If in doubt, resort to innuendo.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is a correlation though, very few go on a rampage with bare hands or knives. It's not a proof alone, but could be a basis of suspicion if something else is found.
Re:"Several Guns Were Found"? (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that the offender owns guns is highly relevant to the level of threat he poses.
A person who owns guns is not usually problem.
A person who makes death threats is a potential problem.
A person who makes death threats AND owns guns is a potential problem of great severity.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
As one gun owner to another, stop being deliberately obtuse. They're not saying that he is guilty. Nevertheless, the potential danger that the guy represents, assuming that his threats were genuine (which cops pretty much have to assume at some point), is certainly higher if he has a gun compared to him just having a knife. The whole point of (most) guns is to be more efficient at that kind of thing.
So, yeah, if I go online and threaten to kill someone, I would expect the police and others to treat me accor
Re: (Score:3)
And somehow that is more relevant than actually quoting what he said. For all I know, they arrested him because his post "had nothing to do with sports."
Re: (Score:2)
Er... so you missed the bit where everyone became a potential terrorist in the perception of authorities?
Get used to it, you'll always be treated as one now.
Re: (Score:3)
several guns and it's "oh no, he's either going to go on a shooting rampage or he's part of some anti-government anarchist militia!".
A "shooting rampage" is illegal. An "anti-government anarchist militia" is not illegal. Until they start shooting unprovoked. But most people probably believe that being a member of an anti-government group is illegal.
This is called thoughtcrime, and it seems to be running unchecked these days. I don't even own a gun, but I sleep a lot better at night knowing that the men in black uniforms aren't the only people who have them.
Re: (Score:2)
USA, the land of the sneaker terrorists (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
270 buck (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeesh (Score:5, Interesting)
I like the part where neither the summary or the article actually shows us exactly what he said so that we can judge its seriousness for ourselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course they don't. That would be terrorism. This kind of speech can be quite dangerous, only the forensic analyst testifying in court will be allowed to read it.
Insufficient information (Score:3)
I've read TFA - even though the link in the summary is broken - and what I can't see is any detail on what the offending post actually said. I mean, are we talking about a "I see kids pestering their parents for $250 sneakers and sometimes I want to throttle them myself" type comment? If so... grotesque over-reaction, violation of constitutional rights etc.
Or are we talking about something which clearly expresses a credible intention to commit violence? If so... fine, go ahead and stop a major crime from occuring.
Re: (Score:2)
That's pretty explicit. There's a line between, "Man I just want to kill someone!" and "Here's how I'm going to do it." We act on these things because they've happened before.
Re: (Score:3)
Really? Have you actually RTFA?
"The online post on ESPN said that a shooting would be like the one in Aurora, Colo., where 12 people were killed and 58 were injured in July, authorities said."
That's pretty explicit. There's a line between, "Man I just want to kill someone!" and "Here's how I'm going to do it." We act on these things because they've happened before.
Without the actual quote, I still don't know.
I've seen people joke using disasters as references before. In bad taste? Maybe. Were they dangerous and actually considering hurting anyone? No.
Other way around, perhaps? (Score:2)
Since TFA is down, I can't read TFA, but judging from the summary it read muchs more like he was commenting on working conditions in Nike's factories than making a "terrorist threat". Surely the US isn't yet at the stage where commenting on a company's business practices is considered terrorism?
Jennifer Government (Score:2)
This was the plot of a very good book I read.
The other side (Score:2)
Stupidity at all levels. (Score:2)
The obvious goal of any police department is to prevent crime, not just react after it's happened. If the guy had just said something as a bad job I'd like to think he'd be questioned, at worst, and quickly released.
The thing that seems to be overlooked is that some evidence was found that doesn't cast this guy in a good light. He dropped out of school and was found in possession of a few guns. That, in conjunction with his comments makes this a concern. Obviously, that could all be a series of coincidences
And this is a tech story because ... ? (Score:2)
It's messed up that people are still reacting differently because this was an online post than if it were a postcard or a phone call or note tacked to a utility pole. In other words, I fail to see what makes this newsworthy at all, let alone "news for nerds."
More than 70% [google.com] of people in the U.S. are Internet users. That works out to over 200 million. OMG! It happened on teh IntarWebz! is a reaction that's about 15 years out of date.
Now if only the legal system would catch up with the new normalcy ...
What would he need to say, then? (Score:5, Informative)
That's referring to the post he made that they responded to. He didn't just say, "Ah man, I'd like to shoot kids who get expensive sneakers." It was more like, "Here's how it's going down..."
If you don't think this is grounds to go after someone (fine), then when should we pursue a terrorist(ish) comment online? How descriptive do you have to get?
Re:What happened to free speech! (Score:5, Insightful)
Guess it died as soon as people found you could call something terorist.
If we don't arrest everyone who sounds scary, the terrists have won!
Re: (Score:2)
Guess it died as soon as people found you could call something terorist.
If we don't arrest everyone who sounds scary, the terrists have won!
If we do arrest everyone who sounds scary, the terrists have won!
Re: (Score:2)
what a moron
the limitations on free speech are NATURAL: the rights and freedoms of others
for example: my freedom to listen to music as loud as i want is limited by my neighbor's freedom to get a good night's sleep. my freedom to speed as fast as i want is limited by the guy around the bend when i lose control of my car and remove his freedom to life. my freedom to smoke is limited by the other guy's freedom to breathe clean air on the side walk next to me
and we, freedom loving people, task our government wi
Re: (Score:2)
what are you talking about?
Re: (Score:2)
If you get all three you can call bingo.
Re: (Score:2)
In this case it is better to be safe than sorry. Monitoring online news comments is totally acceptable to prevent next Breivik cases, I would not classify it as terror or excessive surveillance.
I don't think it's the monitoring that's questionable here, but arresting the man instead of talking to him and getting him help if still worried.
If I said here that I want to blow women who drive Honda Odysseys off the road, that doesn't make me a terrorist and shouldn't warrant my arrest.
Sure I want to do a lot of things, many of which are illegal. That doesn't mean I will do them, nor that I have an intent of doing them.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is THIS case one where it is better to be safe than sorry, and NOT all the others? What's so special about THIS case?
Re: (Score:2)
As skeptical as I am of doing this it lets be fair. It doesn't sound like a frequent occurrence.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
The phrase "watching some kids" could easily be taken to mean "looking after", in which case I could easily believe "these kids are being such a pain I could kill them"; I'm pretty sure that's a sentiment expressed by adults since time immemorial, yet rarely acted upon (relative to the amount of times it's expressed).
Re: (Score:2)
One of these days, the police will find Anonymous Coward, and arrest him. But this has been a difficult search given the wide range of IP addresses he uses to make these posts.
Re: (Score:3)
it stops when you are able to express your opinions on the internet without threatening real world violence
if you threaten REAL WORLD VIOLENCE: fuck you, throw your ignorant ass in jail
as it should be. grow up and understand why
free speech has never, and will never, protect threats of real world violence. never, in any society, ESPECIALLY a freedom loving society because threats of real world violence casts fear and limits other peoples freedom by altering their behavior because somebody has indicated they
Re: (Score:3)
fuck you you ignorant smearmonger
every word i wrote is in the name of LOVE OF FREEDOM
what spastic nitwits like you without a brain dont understand is that the limitations on free speech are NATURAL: the rights and freedoms of others
for example: my freedom to listen to music as loud as i want is limited by my neighbor's freedom to get a good night's sleep. my freedom to speed as fast as i want is limited by the guy around the bend when i lose control of my car and remove his freedom to life. my freedom to sm
Re: (Score:3)
"clearly do not intend to follow through on what they are saying"
how do you know that?