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
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?
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.
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*
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.
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.
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.
The VA Tech shooting happened on 4/16/07. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V...
1907 is a long time ago.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.