Slashdot Mirror
VA Tech Student Arrested For Posting Perceived Threat Via Yik Yak
ememisya writes: I wonder if I posted, "There will be another 12/7 tomorrow, just a warning." around December, would people associate it with Pearl Harbor and I would find myself arrested, or has enough time passed for people to not look at the numbers 12 and 7 and take a knee jerk reaction? A student was arrested for "Harassment by Computer" (a class 1 misdemeanor in the state of Virginia) due to his post on an "anonymous" website [Yik Yak]. Although the post in and of itself doesn't mean anything to most people in the nation, it managed to scare enough people locally for law enforcement agencies to issue a warrant for his arrest. "Moon, a 21-year-old senior majoring in business information technology, is being charged with Harassment by Computer, which is a class one misdemeanor. Tuesday night, April 28, a threat to the Virginia Tech community was posted on the anonymous social media app Yik Yak. Around 11:15 p.m., an unknown user posted 'Another 4.16 moment is going to happen tomorrow. Just a warning (sic).'
The Virginia Tech Police Department released a crime alert statement Wednesday morning via email informing students that VTPD was conducting an investigation throughout the night in conjunction with the Blacksburg Police Department."
Maybe I missed something.
Professional Wild-Eyed Visionary
if you make a threat, people aren't going to ignore that
this is not an overreaction or a big brother issue
you can never expect to make a statement which is clearly a threat and people are just going to ignore it
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Always
The article (and Slashdot summary) conveniently ignore that the post is pretty damn obviously referring to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_shooting on 16 Apr 2007. That's about as clear as an anonymous threat gets.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
Just a warning
Yeah, it seems a little too specific to me. It's akin to saying "There's going to be another Columbine" when you're actually at or very near to Columbine High School. Also, it's important to note that Yik Yak works in terms of vicinity - this is someone in the local area of the college, not halfway around the globe.
Second, nobody is going to see Pearl Harbor references in the same way, because that's about something entirely different. Probably the only place you'll hear Pearl Harbor references these days is with "Cyber" in front of it, coming from someone trying to turn up the FUD in congressional hearings.
Would someone be able to explain the significance of those numbers (the ones that will get me arrested if I write them in this comment) because I seriously don't get it? Will we start arresting children learning how to count next...
no, dumbass. you did mot make a specific, credible threat. thats why the pearl harbor reference is stupid; its not a credible threat. however, a mass shooting is.
Stick their grievances in their face and when they show up to squabble about it cut them down in the street.
Showing up to shoot an unarmed-but-uniformed school police officer is hardly "showing up to squabble about it."
Good news: Media reports that the unarmed school police officer that one (or both?) of the gunmen shot has been released from the hospital.
"Don't mess with Texas" isn't just an anti-litter slogan.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Everyone is for free speech until they're offended. Then it's threatening, hate speech, or harassment and needs to be censored.
"I asked real students on campus"
So what did you ask the fake students on campus?
*slowly removes sunglasses*
Shouldn't the student have been arrested simply for using an app called "Yik Yak"?
Are you, or the people you asked, from Virginia Tech or the Blacksburg area? Maybe that's why they don't know. At Virginia Tech, they would almost certainly know about it, seeing as how there is a yearly memorial service that was all of three weeks ago. Context matters. Let's say your mother was named Mrs. Ememisya If someone sent me a message with "Mrs. Ememisya is going to die tonight" it wouldn't mean jack shit to me, I don't know who they're talking about. To you it would rightfully be perceived as a threat.
Yes. I attend Virginia Tech, I asked real students who had no idea what 4/16 was or means.
The article's assumption that the key difference between a Dec 7 and Apr 28 threat is passage of time is simply wrong. Another Virginia Tech shooting is plausible. A single mentally disturbed individual is quite capable of carrying it out. It is rather unlikely that any anonymous poster has a bunch of aircraft carriers handy to launch a new attack on Pearl Harbor.
You definitely missed something. If he has knowledge that somebody else is going to implement another 4:16 moment, then clearly he is a hero attempting to warn society. His comment, “Another 4.16 moment is going to happen tomorrow. Just a warning (sic).” does not in any way convey that he himself would implement another 4:16 moment.
Let's make like a bird... and get the flock outta here.
I know a lot more about WW2 than probably 98% of Americans, and "12/7" doesn't immediately mean Pearl Harbor to me. "December 7" does, of course. But 12/7 wasn't picked symbolically for a number to impact the psyche like 9/11, and that's not how people usually referred to it.
These threats shouldn't result in punishment more serious than flunking a semester anyway--they should result in securing the building and having the kid checked out for psych problems unless there is evidence of attempting to illegally purchase firearms, etc... A threat isn't the thing itself.
I personally asked a few students about it in a coffee shop, none of them had any clue as to what 4/16 was, they asked me if that's a new convenience store like 7/11.
This definitely happened.
That's funny, because:
1) Yik Yak claims to "allow users to view other Yaks posted within a 10 mile radius" - i.e., it's location aware;
2) This story happened in Virginia, meaning somebody presumably posted the message in the Virginia Tech area;
3) searching for "4/16 events" on Google brings me to this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
Searching that page for "Virginia" shows me that:
1) In 1862, there was a Civil War battle at Lee's Mill, Virginia;
2) In 2007, there was a massacre on the Virginia Tech campus, where a deranged gunman executed 32 people, injured 17, and then committed suicide;
3) In 1923, Arch Moore, former governor of West Virginia, died;
4) In 2007, "the people of the Virginia Tech Shooting" died;
I know you're trying to be funny, but given the nature of the app in question, and given the nature of the post... it's pretty clear that nobody was threatening to stage a Civil War battle, or predicting the death of a former governor of West Virginia; It's very clear that the reference was to the VA Tech massacre, and was made *in close proximity TO the site of that massacre,* as well.
Fuck off.
South Korean ferry sinking last year? (16 may 2014)
I'm sure they did. I bet that happened exactly like that.
But seriously, let's assume that happened. Do you know how Yik Yak works? It's location-based / location-aware, so it only shows you messages within a 10 mile radius of your location (at least by default). So, what we have is a person who, presumably, lives in/around the VA Tech area, posting an "ominous" message that strongly implies there's going to be a repeat of a bloody massacre that happened 8 short years ago on the VA Tech campus - 32 dead, 17 injured.
Is the fact that some VA Tech students are ignorant of recent history an immediate or even good reason to dismiss that message? I'd certainly say no. Given the location, timing, and content of the message, is it threatening? Well, I'd say so, but it appears you'd disagree. In cases like this, we generally ask a judge and jury to interpret the law, and this is exactly what's happening now: he's been arrested, and charged, and will face a trial where it will be determined by a jury of his peers whether or not he violated the law. Sounds like due process is working fine here.
Now, as far as your Pearl Harbor question, let's imagine that you went and made a Yik Yak post about "another Dec 7" from an IP address in Honolulu. Having spent some time in Honolulu, I can assure you that people are not going to say, "12/7 - what's that, a convenience store like 7/11?" The folks in Honolulu know, and remember, Dec 7. Hard to not remember it when there are still rusted hulks of battleships sitting in very plain sight under a few inches of water on Battleship Row. So if you posted that same message in Honolulu, yes, I'd expect military authorities to spend at least a few minutes looking at the source and nature of the message to determine if there was an actual threat. Of course, given that you don't exactly have a fully armed Japanese carrier group stationed in the ocean off Hawaii, it'd be hard for you to replicate 12/7... so they could discount that element of the threat pretty easily. However, even with that, it would be perfectly within the bounds of believability that they'd investigate.
The idea that somebody could easily replicate the VA Tech shootings is much more believable: one lunatic with a couple guns did it 8 years ago, he didn't need an aircraft carrier. The threat is therefore much more plausible, and merits attention, especially when made specifically near VA Tech, referencing an event that actually directly (and deeply) affected VA Tech.
Your entire premise is incredibly fucked up. You seem to think that making threats should somehow be "okay, because - the Internet!" and I'm seriously struggling to take you seriously.
Which is my point in reference to 12/7, Pearl Harbor, an event which lead to the use of a nuclear bomb, and no longer means much to your average person. Lets not forget the educational life of a student is in ruins here now.
What a bizarre summary, with all the talk about Pearl Harbour and how the Virginia Tech shooting date has greater significance locally than naturally.
The fact is that this was a clearly-made threat, whether genuine or not. Law enforcement took appropriate steps to investigate. It's not even an IT issue, just because someone used their phone (?) to post the threat on a public forum, or whatever you want to call Yik Yak.
Could have been just be a prediction rather than a threat. There are plenty of "warnings" that there might be "another 9/11" every year just before 9/11, from journalists.
If the police are actually responding to crap on Yik Yak, it won't be long before someone gets their jollies sending the police on wild goose chases. Of course, it isn't like it's easy to pick up a cheap burner phone, hop on an unsecured WiFi network and fake the phone's location. Whoops.
"Tomorrow at noon this place burns to the ground. I'll be driving a hot pink Tesla Model S, come at me, pigs."
Amusement worthy of 4chan ensues.
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
Because if they did not feel harassed then he did not harass them.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
no, dumbass. you did mot make a specific, credible threat. thats why the pearl harbor reference is stupid; its not a credible threat. however, a mass shooting is.
What I want to know is: when did any random loser posting anonymous 60-character messages become a "credible" threat? This seems like the 21st century version of pulling the fire alarm to get out of an exam.
While this sounds like panicked overreaction to me, at least the person arrested is obviously a moron and making reproduction more difficult for him is a good thing.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Remember Google filters the search results and displays the ones their algorithms deem most likely to render advertising revenue, which varies between different users.
You don't understand how language works, do you.
It's human nature to use labels to refer to significant things. Eliminating the use of 9/11 as a reference to that event would just lead to everyone referring to as WTC or something else similarly short.
The more unique the label is, however, the longer it will hold the meaning it's given. Do a search for WTC and almost every link points to information about the terrorist attacks on the WTC. Do a search for 4/20, on the other hand, and you'll get a ton of stuff about marijuana and virtually nothing mentioning the Columbine shootings which happened on April 20th.
You want people to stop being afraid? Demanding that they use uniquely memorable names for tragedies is an ass-backwards way to go about it. Let them use generic labels for things so that they don't stand out and can be forgotten over time.
Saying that Pearl Harbor led to the use of the Bomb is a bit...overstated.
The US was preparing to enter WW2 well before Pearl Harbor. And the reason the Bomb was dropped in Japan (as opposed to on Berlin) is that the Germans surrendered before the Bomb was finished.
Even without Pearl Harbor, if Hitler had been loony enough to declare war on us (he did, by the way - he was hoping Japan would attack the USSR if he "helped them" by declaring war on the USA. Alas for him, the Japanese weren't as stupid as he was) without the attack by Japan, we'd have nuked Germany if the Germans had managed to hold out till late '45....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
If you posted "Another 9.11 is going to happen, just a warning" on September 10th in a New York area yak, do you think it would be taken seriously?
better yet - how about "Another 4.15 is going to happen, just a warning" on the day before the Boston Marathon a couple weeks ago in a yak centered near the start or finish of the race - do you think it would have been taken seriously?
Comparing a lone-gunman of a few years ago to an invasion by a hostile air force / navy from 3/4 century ago is very, very different.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
If they didn't win then every newspaper on the planet would be scrambling to print the pics from these events.
Wuddooeyeno? IITYWYBMAD? Like nuts? eclecticallyincorrect.com
Calling in a bomb threat has always been a crime, not a prank. I see three possible conditions here:
1. He heard of a plot for a mass murder on the Virginia Tech campus and warned the community via Yik Yak
2. He was personally threatening to carry out a mass murder on the Virginia Tech campus and decided to go super villain style and announce it
3. Neither 1 or 2, He was pranking a mass murder threat on the Virginia Tech campus
If it's (1), then he's free and clear once he comes clean about all he knows of the plot for mass murder and there is credible evidence to show that such an event was immanent. If it's (2) then he's likely facing free room and board with roomates not of his choosing and very little outdoor time for the foreseeable future. If it's (3) it would fall under threats in the Virginia statutes, and is a class 6 Felony. Note that the law does not distinguish between an empty threat and a viable threat; when it is in writing (including digital communications) it meets the test of the law.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
1. He has no obligation to "come free and clear". That's just something you made up, and something LEOs wish, but not a requirement under US law.
2. If he was "personally threatening" then he would have made a threat.
I'm sure it will come out that this guy WAS pranking... seeing as he offered no specifics to make either a *usable* warning or a *credible* threat.
That doesn't change everyone bending over to pretend this is a crime; that we can't say "bomb" in an airport; and that we must be otherwise conditioned not to say "4/16" in Virginia. (or "9/11" anywhere even though that's what you dial in an emergency and we have to tell the children that's what to dial. Think of the children.)
I can't imagine how horrible it must be for people who's birthday is April 16th and who live in Virginia to ever discuss their upcoming party. "4/16 is going to be a blast!"
E
You would have to poll all of them to establish that.
The problem is that, even if the students there at the time are gone and have been replaced by noobs who have no history, the staff and faculty were still there, still remember, and are in charge of the grinding the wheels of justice. People who put out stupid messages should remember that.
That is all.
Would it be a threat if this guy was into astrology - and was predicting a confluence of the planets?
I agree that the context may lead to thinking the post is a threat, but that still does not make it one. Nor is the forum (distant and anonymous) one which would be expected to give the words impact (as yelling 'FIRE' in a crowded theater would).
I do find most fascinating is that the 'threat' was identified - NSA must be watching. Maybe we are all missing something.
Lost in space at an early age. Survived the vacuum. Now rebuilding castle in air.
Yes indeed. I don't think any person in their right minds believed this anonymous coward to be anything but credible.
It may seem to you. I asked real students on campus, who had no idea what 4/16 was. Yet a student has lost their educational opportunities here, and likely life ruined.
They didn't lose their educational opportunities, they did something incredibly stupid and yet serious and thus suffered the consequences. Just because many people did not know what 4/16 represented doesn't mean the PD were wrong to treat it as a real threat and for the student to be held responsible for his actions.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
It may seem to you. I asked real students on campus, who had no idea what 4/16 was. Yet a student has lost their educational opportunities here, and likely life ruined.
I'm betting a lot of people don't know the date of the Boston Marathon bombing. But threats are meant for people who DO recognize the significance, and the people who watch for threats do know what these dates are. The key point here is: did what he post actually look like it might be a threat? I say yes, and the fact that the people you asked didn't know the date doesn't have any effect on the situation.
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
It may seem to you. I asked real students on campus, who had no idea what 4/16 was. Yet a student has lost their educational opportunities here, and likely life ruined.
Might be a good reason not to post threats, eh?
Student was already stupid enough to think YikYak is actually anonymous, and stupid enough to think that in a place where there already was one massacre, that threats of another wouldn't be taken seriously.
Also after a Penn State episode where a student made similar threats (and was likewise arrested) it would be really stupid to not believe that Yik Yak isn't watched closely.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Yes. I attend Virginia Tech, I asked real students who had no idea what 4/16 was or means.
Gar - this keeps being recycled as if it means something.
Are you trying to say that if the kid actually did go on a shooting rampage - which indeed was what he was referring to - he'd ask students if they knew what 4/16 meant, and if they did, he'd shoot them?
It doesn't matter if students knew what the date meant. The person issuing the threat did, and law enforcement did. And now the dipshit student knows what happens when you make a threat like that.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
I'm kind of surprised they aren't threatening him with much harsher penalties. Not that I think they should. I'm just surprised they aren't.
When someone says, "Any fool can see
It's got nothing to do with offence. Making credible threats is illegal, and for good reason. Making credible threats can have extremely negative consequences for the person or institution being threatened. Do they do nothing and take an unknown risk, which leaves them open to being blamed (and probably sued) if something does happen? Do they cancel their event, stay at home with a loaded gun and put their life on hold? Not to mention the stress which can affect their health.
Defining what is credible is the tricky part. I'm not sure this is, but it's probably enough to warrant an investigation to see if the person had the means to carry out an attack. It's a difficult line to draw.
On the other hand things that are clearly jokes, like the guy in the UK who was eventually cleared of posting a tweet joking about blowing up an airport if his flight was cancelled, should not be investigated or prosecuted. I'm sorry I can't give you the exact limit, but that's the nature of life. Speech is imprecise.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
There was no such ambiguity within the residents of Blacksburg. Most students currently at Tech were not students when the original shooting happened, or even know students who were here. But those of us who live here remember, and remember quite vividly. There was no question that this was related. Asking some kid who probably 12 when the shootings happened probably isn't going to get you much response.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
.
Even without Pearl Harbor, if Hitler had been loony enough to declare war on us (he did, by the way - he was hoping Japan would attack the USSR if he "helped them" by declaring war on the USA. Alas for him, the Japanese weren't as stupid as he was) without the attack by Japan, we'd have nuked Germany if the Germans had managed to hold out till late '45....
Oh boy - you are gonna get it now. Didn't you know that the US was the only one working on Nucs? and that it was our bloodthirsty nature that we were just itching to use them on Japan? No doubt we were hoping that Germany held out a little longer so we could use a couple on them too?
All tongue in cheek of course. I'm always amazed the weird made up history that people can conjure, completely out of context. Japan of course was not the impetus to create the A-Bomb, it was Germany. And given their engineering prowess, we were very worried about them producing one, along with the ICBM that was in the works, if they beat us to the bomb, we were in trouble. Already the V2's were reduced to practice, and the planned A10 booster on an A9 Rocket would given them the reach. Hitler had a fantasy of nucing the Empire State building, it seems.
Fortunately, they collapsed before that - and as a side note, the firestorm bombing we did was as devastating as nucs. It was very expensive and pretty difficult, but once the firestorm started, you were toast - so to speak.
So after a long, expensive and casualty filled war, and the prospect of several more years, and projections of a million more Americans dead, using the nucs was not that outrageous a decision.
And in maximum irony, nuc'ing probably saved several million more Japanese lives also, as the firestorming stopped.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
No, you'd only need to poll those that are active on Yip Yak not all students would fall into that category. Prior to this article I had never heard of it.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
How does one distinguish between credible and non-credible threats?
How does one distinguish attempts at humor ("Hi Jack" in the airport) vs an actual threat (hijack at the airport) ?
I'll tell you how. Hard work. You have to assume the worst, hope for the best and actually do your work and investigate it. I know, it is much easier to arrest the poor guy selling single cigarettes on the street than it is actually doing real important police work.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Or Yik Yak cooperated with an investigation of a credible anonymous threat based on a message posted on their service.
No, I think posting that "another December 7th is going to happen tommorow" isn't much of a threat unless you have a carrier-based navy.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
If he has knowledge of an imminent attack he should talk to law enforcement not make a post on an anonymous message system.
If my family was hunted down and raped 8 years ago, and you write a note saying "AC's family is going to get raped again on the 8th anniversary of their first rape," then yes, you might be communicating a threat and thus subject to arrest.
You see, we rely on courts to make these findings of fact - and unless they arrest and try the person who made the statement to determine whether or not it was a credible and legitimate threat, then we'll never *know* if it was indeed a threat or a joke.
Seriously - do you even due process? He posted a threatening message; authorities felt it was threatening enough to ask police to look into it; they found out who posted it, and are now they've arrested him, are charging him with what they believe was a crime, and his trial will determine whether or not he's in violation of the law. This is "the world functioning as it ought to."
It's not a threat if there is no method or means behind it. If it had been a threat they would have found evidence of his planned attack.
There's a reason he was arrested for some 1st-amendment fucking bullshit about "harassment" and not an actual crime.
It's Cinco de Quatro, dumbass.
How come the article doesn't explain what 4/16 is? I have no idea still!
The police are interested in anonymous tips insofar as they will keep your identity secret from others. If you call in warning about a bomb, they are damn sure going to want to find exactly what you know and why you know it. After they get that info, they very well might let you stay anonymous to the public.
I noped the hell off of Yikyak the day they said I could no longer use their service if I didn't link my Google account. It's like they forgot the definition of the word "anonymous".
If you want to be seen, stand up. If you want to be heard, speak up. If you want to be respected, sit down and shut up.
Unless you think that the law enforcement folks are a bunch of hired guns for a corrupt political system and they will use their power to harass and/or kill you. I'm sure we can look to other examples to see how well the typical reporting of a problem goes. What about whistle-blowers? They get the red carpet rolled out for them, right? Ok, then let's look at people who report flaws in websites. They don't get arrested and thrown in jail for hacking, right? Yeah, I'll go with the good old "Don't Talk To The Police!" And that includes when you know bad stuff is going down. It would especially include when bad stuff is going to happen to the police. In that case we should start a kickstarter campaign to get more of it!
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
Haven't you figured it out yet, here on /. it's not a crime if you use a computer.
Unless it's the NSA using their computers. Then it is a very serious crime.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
I'm not too sure about that.
I remember a movie called "Atomic Café" that compiled various newsreels, documentaries and propaganda films from the late '40's through the '60's. In one of them a scientist explained that there are three components to an atomic explosion: heat, concussion, and radiation. Then he proceed to add that, of the three, radiation was not much of a concern.
-- I have monkeys in my pants.
Are you trying to say that if the kid actually did go on a shooting rampage - which indeed was what he was referring to...
Why are so many people so quick to assume this? It's been years since the shooting. I'm betting that every year on that date, some peoples tensions are high (as indicated by the response to this mess). Just playing devils advocate, but it seems entirely feasible that he was referring to every 4/16 from 2008 onward, and his arrest was kind of a self fulfilled prophecy.
Convicting someone (in the public eye at least) based on less than a tweet and a picture of an Asian (who looks a bit stoned) seems like overreacting to me. It's very VERY unlikely it was a legitimate threat, which brings it down to intent, and the level of intent, which could range from a faux paus or misunderstanding, to political statement, to fake threat (intent to insight), to a promise. I certainly don't see enough evidence to know it was "indeed" a threat that he was going to go on a shooting rampage.
Are you trying to say that if the kid actually did go on a shooting rampage - which indeed was what he was referring to...
Why are so many people so quick to assume this?
Lessee, a guy goes nuts and kills a lot of people a few years ago
A person makes a direct comment saying the same thing that happened a few years ago is going to happen tomorrow.
If that isn't a credible threat to you, nothing is.
Sure, it's likely to be yet another kook, but let's put it this way. I don't know if you are married or have children, but let's just say that the person you love most in the world is shot, and it turns out the police had actual credible evidence that the person that shot your loved one made a threat the day before, but the police had your attitude, "Oh we shouldn't be so quick - let's ignore the threat."
You okay with that? I mean, we wouldn't want to assume the person who made a threat was actually going to do that, I mean, he might have just been having a little fun. Or maybe had a bad day, so it's understandable he might make a threat to re-enact a mass murderer's rampage. Hey, just sayin' right?
In a sane world, sane people take threats seriously. The Facebook/Twitter world we are in now is not sane, not when credible threats of harm are considered free speech or just havin' a little fun.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Because none of the freshmen, hell even most the senior grad students, were around for the original shooting. It's been 8 years, that's enough time for freshmen who were here to have graduated, and gotten done a combined masters/PhD. Eight years ago, those freshmen would have been in 5th grade, probably in another state! The community of Blacksburg, though, remembers; mostly because there was the escaped cop killer at the beginning of that term that had the campus locked down and people scared, and a student beheaded at the end of that term. The faculty, staff, and townies like me hear a threat like that and get worried.
Even the staff at NRVCS get worried, since that was another of the targets. I have friends working there now, and had family working there the day shit happened in '07.
Maybe if the anon student hadn't posted "another 4 16 moment is going to happen" (moment, wtf?) followed with "Just a warning" (okay, that sounds . . . threatening) then maybe people wouldn't have reacted the way they did.
Thought crime implies the person only thought about it. They didn't. They posted it in a publicly viewable site; that shifts from being a thought crime to making a threatening statement.
This means that using it as a threat if you're a Virginia Tech student is in a different league than referring to Pearl Harbour, which TFS mentioned for some reason.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Not sure harassment by computer needs to be a thing. Pretty sure this kind of thing was already covered in the existing body of law regarding threats. That's what really annoys me about this.
I think the point is to reinforce that using a computer to commit a crime doesn't give you some sort of Get Out Of Jail Free card.
A lot of people here differentiate between yelling abuse at someone in the street and over the internet, when it's actually the same thing, and if it's a specific threat it can be illegal.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
A person makes a direct comment saying the same thing that happened a few years ago is going to happen tomorrow.
They were not so direct as you imply.
but let's just say that the person you love most in the world is shot, and it turns out the police had actual credible evidence that the person that shot your loved one made a threat the day before, but the police had your attitude, "Oh we shouldn't be so quick - let's ignore the threat."
AKA "Appeal to emotion". This can easily be flipped around, where any nearly threatening sounding statement by anyone causes them to be arrested.
For example, a very recent comment of yours:
The only cure for this travesty is to immediately fill the FEMA death camps with the entire racist, sexist and homophobic members who consist the entirety of Programming at present - the whole lot of them, because while a good egg might have slipped through, the cancer that infects programming is pervasive, and we cannot take the chance.
Then, we must rebuild a new and proper programming community, and will adhere to strict guidelines according to gender, race, and sexual orientation.
How is that not a threat? That's far more direct than what this kid said.
The US was working towards getting into a war with Germany. FDR considered Japan a distraction.
In fact, the US and Germany were at war starting September 1941, although the war was undeclared for a few months, and it was limited to naval combat. The US had been violating international law for Britain and against Germany for several months before then. Hitler knew a full-scale war with the US was coming, and wanted to get in the first declaration of war.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
How is that not a threat? That's far more direct than what this kid said.
Because it's a really poor poe, as poe's go
A normal person would see it as sarcasm, lame or otherwise. Hard to imagine someone trying to make joke out of a student massacre.
Your attempted rebuttal by calling that a threat, is a bigger laugh than the poor poe id made, and it is noted that you didn't even care to answer the question, which simply shows you as an internet troll.
A stalker too.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Quite likely - -but was it software which made the evaluation of thousands of comments or some single person who said to himself, "seems threatening to me"? "Credible threat" is still being defined and seems to be a moving target as far as a concept and there seems to be several somewhat conflicting definitions in the law (centering on 'intent' and 'capability').
Lost in space at an early age. Survived the vacuum. Now rebuilding castle in air.
Which would have been 4/15, not 4/16.
I'm a she-slashdotter... but I make up for it by living with my folks.