Supposedly there has been a vague and unconfirmed threat today at VT. A school email was sent out (have not seen said email). Both VT police and Blacksburg PD are aware and investigating. Has anyone currently in Blacksburg or at Tech seen anything? All my information is coming from first responder soured second and third hand.
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
CJ Reavis tweeted the email. I can't embed it at work.
The 2nd part of the email:
The original threat (from Yik-Yak, which seems to serve no purpose but to cause problems) was posted on my fraternity chapter's Facebook group:
President Sands has said VT and Blacksburg PD have been working overnight to investigate. I hope this is just someone being unbelievably stupid via social media.
Same thing happened to each of the last two days at ECU, including a bomb threat on YikYak this morning
Law enforcement increased on ECU campus after unsubstantiated threat
ECU Police: Social media bomb threat towards campus dorm ended
I can't believe people actually upvoted that
but talking bad about people's tinder profile, THAT is inexcusable!
Personally, I'd downvote something that is insulting to people with mental disabilities too. I get the point your trying to make, but it's a weak argument, even in sarcastica
Stupidity of people never ceases to amaze me.
Something similar happened via yik yak about six months ago here at PSU:
http://www.collegian.psu.edu/news/crime_courts/article_03456bf8-5306-11e...
I sure do hope that whoever developed yik yak has the ability to trace the poster of things like this, if not, it should be development priority number 1. This is the modern day equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded theater
Warning: I'm going to have a little rant, so please just look right past this to avoid the drama.
HOAT :
Come on... I know this is a sensitive subject to us, but let's not exaggerate. The "fire in crowded theater" thing is a thing because yelling "fire" puts people who were not at any physical risk of fire, at extreme physical risk of being injured or killed by a panicked mob rushing for the exits. This isn't even close to the same thing.
8300A_Hokie'12 wrote:
I do to. Which is to say, no prosecution whatsoever. Make a public pariah of the person if identified? Hells yeah. Public shaming is a hell of a good thing for bad behavior.
But prosecute him or her for essentially harmless stupidity?
Really? Are we really at the point in our society where we are going to prosecute people for making us feel uncomfortable?
Really?
Because if that's the case, let's prosecute the news organizations that report the incredibly infrequent incidences of violence or "threats" of violence as if they are harbingers of an existential threat to society when in fact actual violent incidences are quite clearly falling in frequency.
Those news outlets thrive on turning everything up to 11 and cashing in on the resultant mass hysteria.
So yeah, if we are going to prosecute people that make us feel bad, I vote for starting with the talking heads that act on their vested interest in making us all feel uncomfortable.
/rant off
There's a difference between making people feel bad and threatening to recreate one of the most horrific and deadly civilian events in the history of the United States.
You classify this as harmless stupidity?
There's a difference between language that makes us uncomfortable and terroristic threats. The former is protected free speech, the latter is a crime, either felony or misdemeanor, in all 50 states.
Claiming that "another 4.16" is going to happen falls squarely in the latter category. So to say that no prosecution is warranted in this case misjudges what the law actually says about terroristic threats. Regardless of where this guy lives, assuming he's in America, what he did is illegal.
Public Shaming is great until it happens to someone who's a bit unstable and they take it as "OK they don't believe me, I'll show them." and they turn their threats into action. Probably not the best way to deal with these type of situations...
I hear ya Krak_t. Like I said below, my response was more emotional than rational. I'm nowhere close to a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure there are laws against public threats like that. Yes, I realize they are not going to get caught, but that was mostly what my comment was based off of.
Actually, as per my friend in Homeland Security, this is quite a bit worse as it falls under inciting terror. While the physical harm of causing panic is a very serious and real threat, what they find even more threatening are those things that undermine society, which is to say our standard day to day life. That's not to say whoever this is will be redacted down to Guantanamo, but he assures me they look into every single case of these.
Its like saying bomb in an airport...
Will the act of doing so cause a panic and a stampede? Unlikely not, but it will cause everyone there to be on edge, and will royally screw with the minds of anyone that is there, intentionally done by the perpetrator. Yes, it needs to be illegal, and yes, whoever was dumb enough to do this deserves to go in front of a judge to explain his or her actions and face the consequences.
? wat ?
he he..
Is that cavman or whatever they call the dude on the horse at LOLUVA?? I haven't seen him since....
Yes, he recognizes that he needs the apostrophe.
Not going to DV you but this type of thing has to be treated as credible even if it isn't. I've had to shut down ops, cancel meetings, change security procedures, hire additional security, etc. There is no free lunch. Threatening terrorism is a crime for a reason and that reason goes way beyond making people "uncomfortable".
Edit: "But prosecute him or her for essentially harmless stupidity?"
Appropriately, yes. How about "Okay, you were just being stupid, here is the bill for our cost".
I appreciate that you can deal with a disagreeable opinion with proper restraint. Leg for you. And I appreciate everyone else that made cogent responses.
I knew the DVs were coming. Meh. People will exercise whatever tools they have available to them, regardless of the community guidelines.
My rant was pretty much the end of my input here.
I'd only add that if the definition of Terrorism includes idiots spouting anything like this on the internet, then the word "terrorist" essentially has no meaning in any traditional sense. I'd submit that in defining down, or broadening the applicable scope, of a criminal act you make things not only more dangerous to people at risk of actual violence from people like actual terrorists, but you also make things more dangerous to the concept of liberty.
But an explanation of why that is so would require far more time than I am ready to commit to.
But then I'd have to say, it sounds like you are the one confusing terms. Making terroristic threats is a legally distinct crime from performing a terrorist act. There is no broadening of scope happening; it's two different crimes. Making terroristic threats carries significantly lower sentencing than actually carrying out an act of terrorism. A good analogy is how it's illegal to threaten a political assassination, but the penalty for doing so is way lighter than actually performing a political assassination.
(Also, I didn't DV you. Shouldn't DV for expressing opinions IMO.)
Lot of piling on here, I think. Thank you for voicing an interesting (albeit contentious, which you acknowledged) opinion. I disagree strongly with you, but whatever I would say has already been stated by others. Nothing in your post was offensive, political, etc. so I do not understand the backlash here. Good debate, worth having, I'm just on the other side of it in this case.
Yeah, I up voted to get it I blurred. He did say it was a rant and a guy like Krakt doing a rant is not necessarily a bad thing to read.
We usually agree, but we are really far apart here.
I think most people find what you wrote to violate community guidelines in that it is an objectionable/offensive comment. I didn't downvote you but I can see why it was. It was the darkest day for VT ever and any threat to it should not be viewed as harmless.
In regards to terrorists/terrorism and it's definition, I think you have a misconception. Any threat is a form of terrorism, whether personal, domestic or international. Terrorism does not just live "over there" and using the word properly doesn't make it lose it's meaning. And there are specific laws against it.
In this case, as per my friend in Homeland of which I just asked, he refered me to the following laws that this violates:
Virginia Law: https://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-60
On the federal level he would need to understand the details more but there are clear laws against any serious threat. He also said even if there was not a Federal case of terrorism which must meet more specific criteria than State law, there is this law:
18 U.S.C. 1038 : US Code - Section 1038: False information and hoaxes
Which he said was used in the case at Harvard where that idiot called in bomb threats to avoid taking finals. He mentioned that the case was brought down to much reduced punishment than jail time, but did include financial restitution for the cost of mobilizing against such a threat.
I could expound over the qualitative and signficant difference in giving offense and finding offense, but I'll just go with the board moderator on this one.
I would say that just because one person didn't find it offensive, doesn't mean that it isn't an offensive comment. I could express an opinion that is highly prejudicial, sexist, etc and someone could say that my comment wasnt offensive, while many others say that it was, finding offense is a function of giving offense by what is said. You gave a very unpopular point of view. This comes from someone who gave a very unpopular view and was DV to oblivion on Shai situation.
I'm afraid I have to DV this, which I tend to not want to do lightly. Of course you have to prosecute something like this, otherwise there would be literally no disincentive to this type of stupid (potentially dangerous) behavior. The courts have already decided that even vague threats such as these on platforms like Facebook (I don't know what YikYak is, but I assume some type of social media platform) etc, are seen as "terroristic threats" I doubt they can find out who did it, but its going to cost time and resources from some agency to take a look, at the bare minimum.
I think back to my high school years. One random day in the middle of the week, I recall all of us being asked to lineup in the hall and make our way out into the athletic fields. We stood out there for about an hour and a half, and it was finally disclosed that someone had called in a bomb threat to the school. They let us all go home and worry about getting our bags and what not the following morning. The police came and combed through the school and found nothing. And the guy who called it in was caught (he ended up being the only student in a school of about 1300 that was absent that day).
Now you might say "Oh well they evacuated calmly, nobody was hurt or in the threat of danger, and hey the kids even got a few hours off of school for their troubles." But if that had been the attitude, there would have been literally no reason for someone not to do the exact same thing later. You can't have that. Making someone feel uncomfortable isn't a crime. Its also not the crime that a person would actually be prosecuted for for something like this.
Yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre or making saying you have a bomb on an airplane are crimes. Stating that that you are going to perpetrate a massacre on scale with the worst mass shooting in US history is also a crime, and it has nothing to do with people's comfort levels.
this might be the biggest blurred comment I've seen!
I do think your initial response to my 'fire in a crowded' theater' statement made some sense. A statement like the one on yik yak doesn't put someone in immediate harm whereas the 'fire' example clearly does. Alum07's comparison, above, to saying bomb in an airport is a much more apt comparison, thanks, Alum.
However, I think your statement that this is harmless stupidity is off base, as statements like this don't just make people uncomfortable, they are statements threatening to life and limb. On the top of that, it causes valuable police resources to be wasted on tracking down an illegitimate threat (assuming illegitimacy, of course).
Swatting would probably be the best analogy now that I think about it.
Hey how come your post comes up as blurred for me unless i mouse over it?
Happens when it is downvoted past -10
Kinda the opposite of turning green when about +10
Merci
He's unlocked Joe's secret "ninja mode" mod.
And if you think "ninja mode" is impressive, just ask Bender about "Shaolin monk mode."
I have never had a post blur for me, on neither my home or work computers.
Me either. I use a Mac with Firefox at work and a Mac with Safari at home *shrug*
People use safari for things other than downloading Chrome or Firefox?
There was a time during which both Firefox and Chrome were super resource heavy on the Mac, and as I had an older laptop, I honestly couldn't use either to do anything. So I switched back to Safari *shrug* Haven't bothered to check out Chrome recently, but I honestly don't like the way Firefox is set up as much as I do Safari, so...
Just being real, that was a dumbass rant.
Ironically, in dissing his rant as unintelligent, you used improper grammar. Dumbass is a noun. Dumb ass is the adjective you were looking for. Example: If you're gonna post dumb ass comments, don't be a dumbass about it.
Oops, well damn, I guess it true what they say then, it takes a dumb ass to know a dumb ass haha.
As a grammar expert, I really hope this was 100% sarcasm and not just 75% sarcasm.
When have you ever known me to give less than 100%? Like now, when I'm 100% confused by your comment.
you are more than welcome to agree or disagree with others, but there is no reason for this kind of comment
Emotions got the better of me. To me, it just seemed like he commenting to sound edgy, and I don't think there is any room for that with this topic.
So it is a common misconception that there is actual legal precedent that "Shouting fire in a crowded theater" is illegal. Long explanation: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-usi... Short version: The ruling had nothing to do with a fire in a crowded theater or any physical danger, was bullshit and overturned.
Wow, that was a genuinely awful article that completely misses the point.
Yeah, this article is a major misconception of Constitutional law in general. Brandenburg DID NOT overturn Schenck, it clarified it. Furthermore, the fire in a theater example was just that: an example. An example that has been used as a litmus for rulings on whether a statement is likely to incite or make imminent an action which would pose an actual public danger. It's very common for the minutia within a SCOTUS ruling to be cited in later cases, and upheld as precedent, which in a common law system such as ours, has the effect of law. Not necessarily criminal law, mind you, but rather, law in the sense of defining which types of speech are protected speech under the first amendment, and which types may be Constitutionally restricted. If you'd like to learn more, I highly recommend Professor Plotica's Con Law classes at Tech.
This exactly.
Unfortunately this article is an op-ed piece not actual reporting. Tevor Timm the writer and his sources, such as Ken White, are all biased anti-censorship proponents. I have nothing against that but knowing who is writing it and what their motivation might be is important when it comes to validity.
Point of fact, there is no "fire in a crowded theater" law. There are however laws on making threats, inducing panic, inciting terror, making terroristic threats, terrorism and just plain creating a hoax that has to do with secruity to people and property. The use of Holmes statement in law is nothing more than a metaphor that applies or doesn't apply to something.
Just because we can say the words freely doesn't mean we can't be held accountable for them if they cause something to happen. No one is proscribing anything against the exact words, rather the effect of those words. This is something any grade school kid learns when they get called a mean name. Words hurt, and have consequences when used ingnorantly.
The difference here is the explicit reaction required by law enforcement. We don't live in a day and age where a threat like this cannot be investigated thoroughly by law enforcement. That costs money and consumes resources that could be doing other more productive things. For that reason, if for no other, I'm in favor of prosecuting and forcing the offending parties to repay whatever costs were incurred to investigate.
Stay strong and be safe today Hokies. If this was just an empty threat, I hope they find the perpetrator and prosecute them to the full extent of the law. That crap isn't funny and this kid who was probably 10 when April 16th happened has no business even thinking about making light of that situation.
being on Yik-Yak, slim to no chance they find the OP
Yeah I realize that. More of an immediate emotional reaction than a rational thought. That stuff makes me so angry
Apparently Yik-Yak actually has a very good record of tracking these people down within a couple of days with the help of local police.
https://www.reddit.com/r/VirginiaTech/comments/349k4j/possible_threat_po...
maybe arrested because they tracked down his/her phone, but no way to actually charge them to prove they were the actual one who had the phone in their possession when the message was posted on Yik Yak. Being arrested is one thing, actually being convicted of it is another
Step 1: everyone be safe
Step 2: find the asshole that posted that crap
Step 3:
Step 4: Profit
Yeah... We were all thinking it.
Reason number 5738 not to join Yik Yak. Seriously, that app is for cowards who won't put their name on what they say. Hope the police somehow get to the bottom of this and find the idiot who posted that.
Hopefully whoever posted it was dumb enough to use their own phone/computer. I'm sure the police already have the IP address or whatever device sent that, hence the "active leads."
Don't think it will matter even if they do. Anyone can grab somebody's phone and post shit like that. Very doubtful anything will come out of this or anybody being punished.
Unless the person was actually planning to do something. If they get to the guy's dorm and their are a bunch of loaded guns there, there might be a bit more poking around.
well duh lol, of coarse if they walk into that situation. Its probably some loser who just wanted his yak to become on the "Hot" yaks on there
Hope so. Grand scheme of things, if that's the case no big deal. It's a douchebg who's torched every social connection he's ever had at VT and we'll all forget about it in a couple months. The alternative, however... Better safe than sorry.
Cop takes phone out of subjects pocket and asks about it.
Suspect: oh that phone? that's not mine, it's my cousins.
Cop: mm-hmmm
The first thing I noticed about this was the date formatting using periods instead of slashes, which is the normal formatting used by most Americans. I really hope that means this was a cheap attempt at getting some 15 seconds of Yik Yak noteworthiness by an international student who maybe doesn't fully understand just how messed up it is. That's a much more palatable idea than that some jackass was either trying to intentionally incite panic, or worse, was making an actual threat. Regardless, stay safe everyone.
In hindsight it looks like you were spot on
Anyone making this type of threat just makes my blood boil. I was on campus that day and I can assure you I don't find even the mention of this as any sort of prank. This sets off major waves of action in any setting and I hope there are ways to make this person feel the pain of their stupidity whether it is jail time or a very big bill or better yet, both.
What is wrong with people. Is there no shame left?
With the veil of anonymity comes the assumption that one does not need to be accountable for what they say
I totally read this like a fortune cookie maxim
Lucky Numbers: 4, 8, 15, 16, 23, 42
DW4, Greg Boone, Eddie Whitley, Jack Click, Der'Woun Greene, and Juice? (I just learned that there are precious few 16s and 23s of note in our recent history)
So I'm not the only one that reads my fortune cookie lucky numbers as VT football players. Nice.
Druckenmiller, man.... Druckenmiller....
I'm way late to the party, but was this a Lost reference?
Learn Chinese Hello = N ho
Edit: Copy pasting from google makes me look bad. So does commenting instead of replying. Derping hard.
Bravo!
Boom, good. This is not a subject that should be toyed with
From Twitter:
Seriously, screw this guy with a rusty machete.
It is kinda the mother of all cow licks.
To Mr. Moon, who apparently was a VT student:
Seriously. Student ethics committee needs to land on him hard
He has been banned from campus.
According to this, he is being charged with 'Harassment by Computer', a misdemeanor
http://www.collegiatetimes.com/news/virginia_tech/police-arrest-student-...
Are there more #sources I haven't seen?
I was told of the ban by an instructor at VT.
I'm gonna feel stupid when someone answers this.
What's BIT?
Business information technology.
I know what it stands for. I have no idea what it means.
OK, I don't feel stupid. I don't think that was a major back in my day. Or of it was I just never heard of it.
It used to be Management Science and had an Operations Research track and an Information Technology track. But most of the students in the late 90's were doing the IT track, and the internet was becoming a thing, so the department and degree was renamed to Business Information Technology.
Basically it's a generalist IT degree that meshes business knowledge with IT knowledge. Fits really with with systems analyst type consultants.
source: BIT major, class of 2001.
Aye. It is more of a functional IT degree than technical.
Higher starting salary than ISE as per last spring's graduate statistics. Swag.
(BIT major for the record.)
Ugh, come on ISE what's your deal (ISE '05).
I wonder what the starting position is for an ISE, by and large. I figure it would be in a manufacturing environment or in ergonomics/logistics for the gov't or large companies.
Thank goodness I landed in software.
I was a BIT major as well. It has worked out very well for me.
#BITswag
*turned himself in.
Maybe this means he understands how much of a mistake this was. If so, then my view of this in hindsight...changes a bit.
I know I said and did some really dumb stuff before the internet was around.
I'm now left with the usual questions. Why did he do it? Was he serious? Was this a cry for help? Trying to look cool? Trying to make a thread explode? Is he a psychopath or is he depressed?
In the end, none of it excuses what he did. But I've never been able to say, "Oh good, they caught the guy," and then forget about it.
Heard through some friends of friends (so take this with a grain of salt) that the cops showed up at his doorstep and asked him about it to which he said it was just a joke and meant to be funny...
hope he thought the joke was funny because I sure as hell didn't.
I mean I understand where you're coming from but at the same time I think there needs to be pretty significant punishment. We are getting too soft as a society and people need to be held accountable for their mistakes. If he gets a 'slap-on-the-wrist' type of punishment it sets the wrong precedent. A couple decades ago it might have been acceptable for more people to make more mistakes and learn from them, but this day in age, with so much transparency, people ought to learn from the mistakes of others and make fewer mistakes themselves. I think their leeway should be less now than it was 20 years ago.
This seems super short sighted without knowing the circumstances. Also, out of curiosity, what do you think would be an appropriate way of making sure he is "held accountable"? Maybe you just don't mean that as harshly as you make it sound to me.
The problem with talking about significant punishment is who decides what is, for one, significant and sufficient punishment which aren't necessarily the same.
The other is that what you're talking about is deterrence when you speak of "the wrong precedent". Deterrence only works for a portion of the population, and in general, it's the same portion of the population that would know that this was a bad idea and not do it. Deterrence only works if people care about/fear punishment, or for that matter, are in a state to think about the potential punishment.
I might not agree fully with your statement about society's softness, but the rest I'm 100% on board with. To quote the eminently quotable Hermes Conrad,
I'm not at all saying they should go easy on him, not one bit. I hope that turning himself in shows that he realized his mistake and is willing to pay the punishment, knowing that the punishment isn't going to be lessened by his admission of wrongdoing.
But I do think turning himself in shows a bit more conscientiousness than trying to hide from consequences in real life, as yik yak (and other platforms) allows people to do in cyberspace.
My opinion of the poster was in the dumpster before a face could be put to the name, and while it isn't much improved, I salute anyone for taking responsibility for their mistakes and/or crimes. But that certainly doesn't mean they should get anything less than exactly what they deserve.
The guy is (or was) a Senior. Seriously? What the heck is going on with his maturation process. What a dumpster fire. Yes he needs help (and punishment), but he also needs to have limited contact with society for a while and sort some shit out.
We're actually set up pretty well for that in this country.
Soapbox: As a first responder both a former law enforcement officer and current firefighter/EMT, I'm taken aback by people who think this is not a crime. He not only caused people to panic but cost valuable resources and time of law enforcement in both looking for him but maintaining a more visible presence to reassure people. It's no different than a bomb threat or SWATing someone.
This is actually how I've started reading all of your posts because of your signature line. It can be rather amusing.
I picked it because I really like that Loefflerism, but it does have a certain finality to it, doesn't it?
As have I. I enjoy it.
We should not forget the mental/psychological impact a threat like this can have on people. A threat like this, given the past history of VT, is enough to cause emotional damage/panic on people. I am sure there are people still in therapy right now regarding what happened previously.
As someone who was in NYC when the airplanes hit the twin towers, I would never take any threat like this lightly.
He made a bad decision but it is one he has to deal with. He should be prosecuted harshly in my opinion.
My late opinion: being a student on campus for something like this is freaky. Because we don't know who is posting it and if they are serious anymore. Yik yak also had a recent update where you can set a given area as your "base camp," and you can post and vote on yaks from that area while also being able to do that with the local feed. That being said, I thought it was someone not from VT that posted on the VT feed. To see that it was an actual VT student that posted it makes me ashamed. He put the fear of one day back into the student body because we had no idea whether it would actually happen or not, and the police presence on campus was also increased. If it would have actually happened, it would have been mayhem on campus.
Sorry for going off on a tangent, but I feel like the threat of this happening really puts some fear in you because it could be you or your friends that end up being victims of another mentally unstable person.
well said
Agreed. I have class and my lab in Roanoke, while my girlfriend and a bunch of my friends are in class in Blacksburg. That's not something I really want to be thinking about on a Wednesday morning.
#sources are saying his friend posted it from his phone which is why he turned himself in.
Are the #sources his lawyer?
or
Also, I initially read your comment like this:
Autocowrecked.
The Chief of the VT Police Dept Kevin Foust wrote a letter to the editor in the CT today.
Props to him.
yeah that's legit. I was in middle school when 9-11 happened. There was a student in the school of middle eastern decent and he was unfairly persecuted by other students to the point he ended up leaving the school. I don't know where he ended up but I always remembered that he was a really nice kid and did not deserve the treatment he received following that tragic day/event. I always felt bad for him and I've never agreed with the blanket-bigotry that seems to always occur as a result of the actions of a very select few.
Coincidence you bring this up, because the guy I worked with on a group project this semester just told me other day that his sister (Indian, dot not feather) was harassed by a woman after 9/11 who told her to, 'Leave my country'.
People are dumb and I hate them.
Leg for the sentiment, and I'd give another for the Good Will Hunting reference if I could.
It's not your fault