Calif. Man Arrested For ESPN Post On Killing Kids

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Calif. Man Arrested For ESPN Post On Killing Kids

Posted by timothy on Thursday September 20, 2012 @12:49AM from the just-a-suggestion-really dept.

SternisheFan 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."

31 of 416 comments (clear)

Ermahgerd 1984! by concealment · 2012-09-20 00:53 · 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.
1. Re:Ermahgerd 1984! by arth1 · 2012-09-20 01:00 · 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.
2. Re:Ermahgerd 1984! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 01:07 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I got the impression this guy was posting a tongue in cheek response. If he was posting in jest, then it's another case like the bloke in Britain who tweeted about blowing up an airport that was closed due to inclement weather. Now you'll have to excuse me, as I need to take out the next chav who drives past my office window with ridiculously loud R&B music blaring out from their car and I can't find my rifle.
3. Re:Ermahgerd 1984! by h4rr4r · 2012-09-20 01:10 · 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.
4. Re:Ermahgerd 1984! by metrometro · 2012-09-20 01:19 · Score: 3, 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."
5. Re:Ermahgerd 1984! by Wansu · 2012-09-20 01:23 · 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.
  
  --
  Wansu, th' chinese sailor
6. Re:Ermahgerd 1984! by arth1 · 2012-09-20 01:27 · 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.
7. Re:Ermahgerd 1984! by h4rr4r · 2012-09-20 01:33 · Score: 4, 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.
8. Re:Ermahgerd 1984! by thesandtiger · 2012-09-20 01:37 · Score: 4, 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.
  
  --
  Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
9. Re:Ermahgerd 1984! by interkin3tic · 2012-09-20 01:41 · 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.
10. Re:Ermahgerd 1984! by DarkTempes · 2012-09-20 01:41 · Score: 3, 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?
11. Re:Ermahgerd 1984! by wonkey_monkey · 2012-09-20 01:42 · Score: 4, 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.
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
12. Re:Ermahgerd 1984! by ToadProphet · 2012-09-20 01:43 · Score: 4, 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.
  
  --
  It's on America's tortured brow, That Mickey Mouse has grown up a cow
13. Re:Ermahgerd 1984! by Gr33nJ3ll0 · 2012-09-20 01:44 · Score: 3, 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.
14. Re:Ermahgerd 1984! by pla · 2012-09-20 01:51 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  But he has done something. Communicating threats is a crime in most states.
  
  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!"
15. Re:Ermahgerd 1984! by mcgrew · 2012-09-20 01:53 · Score: 4, 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 in today's local paper about just that.
  
  When the Jacksonville Developmental Center finally closes its doors, police there are worried that the 130 or so remaining residents will simply be released into the community because there is nowhere else for them to go.
  "And they're going to end up in jail," said Jacksonville Police Chief Tony Grootens. "That's the shame about it."
  Law enforcement officials and mental health professionals met Wednesday at the University of Illinois Springfield to hear about what they called Illinois' mental health crisis and how police and the community need to respond.
  "The word 'crisis' couldn't be a greater understatement," said Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart, the keynote speaker at the symposium. "There is less attention and fewer resources being given to it, and the mentally ill are being thrown in jail.
  "By that neglect, law enforcement is the primary provider of mental health treatment," he said. "Nobody on the planet thinks that is good."
  
  The article continues...
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
16. Re:Ermahgerd 1984! by Dunbal · 2012-09-20 02:11 · Score: 3, 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!
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
17. Re:Ermahgerd 1984! by Baloroth · 2012-09-20 02:14 · Score: 4, 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.
  
  --
  "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
18. Re:Ermahgerd 1984! by icebraining · 2012-09-20 02:21 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  And who decides what a "terrorist threat" is?
  
  A court of law. But for that he needs to be brought to it.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
19. Re:Ermahgerd 1984! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 03:39 · 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.
20. Re:Ermahgerd 1984! by hairyfeet · 2012-09-20 04:56 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Uhhh...his bail is set HIGHER than for people that have CORPSES listed among the evidence okay? Now you want to investigate this guy cool, after the whole thing with the DK Rises i can see erring on the side of caution.
  But setting his bail higher than serial rapists, bank robbers, and actual "here is the corpses" murderers? i'm sorry but that is off the rails. Spin it however you want that is using bail for political purposes and is wrong.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
21. Re:Ermahgerd 1984! by poofmeisterp · 2012-09-20 06:14 · Score: 3, 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.
ugh by MickyTheIdiot · 2012-09-20 00:55 · 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:Source Link = Dead by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 00:55 · Score: 4, Informative

Correct link http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/post/california-man-arrested-for-threats-made-in-espn-com-comments?urn=top,wp583
"Several Guns Were Found"? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 01:00 · 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.
1. Re:"Several Guns Were Found"? by SirGarlon · 2012-09-20 01:45 · Score: 4, 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.
  
  --
  [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
2. Re:"Several Guns Were Found"? by jmerlin · 2012-09-20 04:50 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  A person who makes death threats AND owns a knife is a potential problem of great severity, too. What about a fork? How about household chemicals? A belt? A hammer? A nailgun? A saw or chainsaw? Any number of gardening tools? How about one of those iron things you use to poke a fire? Pretty deadly spear you've got there. How about a maglite?
  
  The "he has a gun and therefore is automatically guilty" nonsense needs to stop. There are plenty of other good weapons to accuse, too.
Re:What happened to free speech! by arth1 · 2012-09-20 01:03 · Score: 4, 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!
270 buck by puddingebola · 2012-09-20 01:04 · Score: 5, Funny

$270? Maybe someone should kill LeBron James.
Yeesh by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 01:08 · 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.
What would he need to say, then? by TheSwift · 2012-09-20 02:34 · Score: 5, Informative

I find this is a pretty key line in the article: "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 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?

--
"With patience a ruler may be persuaded, and a soft tongue will break a bone."