The example below (from http://www.azcentral.com/community/tempe/articles/0206abrk-threats0206.html) is consistent with what we've discussed this week on mass murder, or at least potential mass murder in the form of the "disgruntled citizen." While in this case there did seem to be a credible threat, what is your opinion on less substantial threats people may say out loud or post on blogs...should we treat them as potential criminals?
Man blamed massacre plans on council decision
Dianna M. Náñez and Erin Kozak
The Arizona Republic
Feb. 7, 2008 01:50 PM
Tempe City Councilwoman Barb Carter said she was shocked to hear that a Tempe man reportedly blames a council decision for pushing him to plot a "bloody" revenge on crowds of people at the Super Bowl.
"Why would he take it out on innocent people?" Carter said.
Kurt Havelock surrendered to police on Super Bowl Sunday after allegedly plotting to shoot and kill people at the big game. Havelock told police that he was upset that the Tempe City Council recommended he not be granted a liquor license in October, according to federal court documents.
Havelock had recently purchased an AR-15 assault rifle from the Scottsdale Gun Club, and mailed to media outlets eight copies of a manifesto.
In the manifesto, he said the original site of the planned massacre was Phoenix's Desert Ridge Marketplace, which abuts Scottsdale, but that "scum and "villainy" are in Scottsdale and so instead he "will shed the blood of the innocent."
In October, Havelock went before the City Council to seek support for a liquor license. But the council recommended denial after an Internet blog by Havelock stated the restaurant would be named "Drunkenstein's" and not "The Haunted Castle," as the application stated.
"How many dollars will you lose? And all because you took my right . . . to own a business from me," the manifesto stated.
Carter said she was the lone vote to recommend approval of Havelock's liquor permit.
"He appeared to be a perfectly normal 20 to 30 something guy," she said. "On blogs people can say anything. I didn't take it seriously. I figured the guy was just making fun . . . give him his liquor license. I stood alone. Evidently, it sent the guy over the edge."
Havelock stated in his letter that he could not "outvote, outspend, outtax, or outincarcerate my enemies. But for a brief moment I can outgun them."
The council had little lose by voting for Havelock's permit, Carter said, because the council only makes recommendations for permits to the State Liquor Board. It's the board that actually decides who gets a license.
"We would've never issued him a sign permit for that name anyway," she said.
Carter said she had heard reports that Havelock made written threats against council staff. She said it was scary for her to think that at anytime over the past months Havelock could have rushed City Council chambers or staff offices with weapons.
The council has received threats in the past, she said, and has been advised that the dais the council sits behind is bulletproof. The reality, she said, is that there is little time to react in such emergencies.
"I'm not faster than a bullet," she said.
Federal authorities are detaining Havelock, who is in his mid-30s. He is suspected of mailing threatening communications and is being detained pending trial.
Tempe Mayor Hugh Hallman said in response to Havelock's case, "My understanding is there is an ongoing federal investigation and I'm not at liberty to comment any further."
"Why would he take it out on innocent people?" Carter said.
Kurt Havelock surrendered to police on Super Bowl Sunday after allegedly plotting to shoot and kill people at the big game. Havelock told police that he was upset that the Tempe City Council recommended he not be granted a liquor license in October, according to federal court documents.
 | |
|
Havelock had recently purchased an AR-15 assault rifle from the Scottsdale Gun Club, and mailed to media outlets eight copies of a manifesto.
In the manifesto, he said the original site of the planned massacre was Phoenix's Desert Ridge Marketplace, which abuts Scottsdale, but that "scum and "villainy" are in Scottsdale and so instead he "will shed the blood of the innocent."
In October, Havelock went before the City Council to seek support for a liquor license. But the council recommended denial after an Internet blog by Havelock stated the restaurant would be named "Drunkenstein's" and not "The Haunted Castle," as the application stated.
"How many dollars will you lose? And all because you took my right . . . to own a business from me," the manifesto stated.
Carter said she was the lone vote to recommend approval of Havelock's liquor permit.
"He appeared to be a perfectly normal 20 to 30 something guy," she said. "On blogs people can say anything. I didn't take it seriously. I figured the guy was just making fun . . . give him his liquor license. I stood alone. Evidently, it sent the guy over the edge."
Havelock stated in his letter that he could not "outvote, outspend, outtax, or outincarcerate my enemies. But for a brief moment I can outgun them."
The council had little lose by voting for Havelock's permit, Carter said, because the council only makes recommendations for permits to the State Liquor Board. It's the board that actually decides who gets a license.
"We would've never issued him a sign permit for that name anyway," she said.
Carter said she had heard reports that Havelock made written threats against council staff. She said it was scary for her to think that at anytime over the past months Havelock could have rushed City Council chambers or staff offices with weapons.
The council has received threats in the past, she said, and has been advised that the dais the council sits behind is bulletproof. The reality, she said, is that there is little time to react in such emergencies.
"I'm not faster than a bullet," she said.
Federal authorities are detaining Havelock, who is in his mid-30s. He is suspected of mailing threatening communications and is being detained pending trial.
Tempe Mayor Hugh Hallman said in response to Havelock's case, "My understanding is there is an ongoing federal investigation and I'm not at liberty to comment any further."
28 comments:
I think nowadays people have gone overboard with taking online threats or things said in blogs too seriously. People say a lot of things they don't truly mean or truly intend to do and don't realize the trouble they can get themselves into for it. I mean I know countless times I've said "I'm going to kill so and so" and I obviously never have and never will and to think I could get in some type of trouble for that seems ludicrous. I understand that in todays world what seems like empty threats needs to be taken a bit more seriously just because of the "epidemic" of school shootings and terrorism and what not and I agree that in some cases these things may have been able to be prevented if such said threats were taken more seriously or reported but other instances its like c'mon are you serious? I guess people just feel its better to be safe than sorry
I definately feel the threat should be investigated, If not and he really went through with it the media would have had a "field day" with that bit of information.
However, I do agree with Sheena that most of us, if not all of us say things like "i'm gonna kill that person", but somehow when it's put in writting such as on a blog post or otherwise it really does show the lack of judgement and thought the individaul did put into what could be a potential act.
To threaten people, especially innocent people simply because his request for a liquor license was not granted goes to show how insane this individual really is.
Yeah I think we have to take these types of threats seriously. This incident included, there seems to be a dramatic increase in mass murder of late in the United States, from the town council shooting in Missouri in which a disgruntled citizen killed six people, to a recent school shooting in Louisiana that left several dead, to a man in Los Angeles that killed members of his family and an LAPD SWAT officer.
No matter where someone publishes violent threats, they need to be investigated. Maybe if people listen and pay attention, violent acts like the ones described in the preceding paragraph can be prevented.
People say crazy things everyday. Some even make threatening statements toward others. If you go downtown on any given weekend you are more than likely to hear about half a dozen threats toward police officers or even food rendering employees for not given enough duck sauce with their SUNY SPECIALS. You know what it’s called, it's called freedom of speech. But there is a fine line between speech and action. When someone says they are going to kill you and walks away it's one thing, but when someone says they are going to kill you and then goes out, buys a gun, and start to physically plan the assault, then that is where they have obviously crossed the line. It's hard to say how we should set up the parameters to figure out who is a possible mass murderer and who is just a pissed off, hungry college student. Hopefully someday there will be a way but for right now we can only hope that those extremists are very few and far between.
I also agree with sheena. I do think that today we take every threat that comes out of someone's mouth as a potential criminal action. However, we all know that in most cases people don't really mean what they say and that sometimes they just say things in the heat of the moment. That's not to say that some threats shouldn't be taken seriously. If someone is continually making threats or very descriptive in their threats then yes they should be taken seriously.
It is true that blogs are not a good indicator of what people are actually feeling, even if people know who you are writing the blog there is still a sense of anonymity and invicibility typing things on a computer.
However, people need to be smart about this stuff, no one is going to like to hear threats made about them, or against a community or anything whether its made in person or on a blog. If you are going to write these types of things people need to realize blogs aren't private journals you can hide away, unless you set privacy specifications, anyone can read what you wrote. If you really need to blow off some steam, or want to make a joke to your friends that you want to have a bar named "Drunkensteins" set the privacy settings that are avaible with any blog site I have ever used that can only only people you name as friends to see post, or even naming specific people who can see individual posts in the case of things such as Livejournal.
While empty threats may be being taken to far, people need to realize that stuff written on blogs nowadays could just as well be shouted across the town with how easily it can be access. Be smart, if your gonna say you want to kill one of your friends cause of something shitty they did to you, atleast try to make it so they cant just come across it.
I think with today's technology there are many threats and things of that nature that are written on blogs that aren't serious. Unfortunately though if we ignore these threats people can get seriously hurt. I think one of the disadvantages of technology today is that it requires more time and effort to sort through and differentiate threats which are real and those which aren't. I believe this extra time is needed to avoid unecessary injuries.
I agree with the investigation that is now taking place because I think it is better to be safe than sorry. In this day and age with all the types of technology and forums of communication and expression, you just never know what you're dealing with. People pathetically post their every thought in away messages, myspace, or blogs as a way of showing to the world whats on their mind and expect to get a response. Some people may perpetuate the feelings of resentment towards society or for a particular event that took place and get them riled up. Most times yes, we read it and continue on with our day without having given it a second thought. I feel it was a fortunate circumstance that it did not go unnoticed, as the man bought a gun.
I don't think every word of frustration from the average "disgruntled citizen" that goes posted on a blog needs to be treated as a potential criminal, but in this case there was other evidence and reason to believe that it could escalate.
These and all other kinds of threats like this should most definitely be taken seriously. How would someone feel if this man did go through with what he said he was going to and the proper investigation was not enforced. I believe that in this instance there was fair warning to his threat and that is why it is important to take into consideration every kind of threat. It really is better to be safe then sorry. If someone’s threat truly was not meant in a violent way or in fact taken out of context, then that could be decided after an investigation and then there is no harm done. However if it is not investigated when it should have been, then that is just irresponsible.
I believe that verbal threats should be taken into account to a certain extent but at the same time it needs to be considered that there are so many kids out there who don't understand the gravity of their statements. It is unfortunate that we are in a time where we have to take usually empty comments and suspect that there is a chance the worst could happen. I think the background of an individual should be discussed also when deciding whether their statement is coming from true intentions or if it just an immature way of expressing their feelings. As far as adults go, I believe that their statements should probably be taken more seriously due to the fact they are obviously older and know how serious situations haven gotten and they should know better. As far as doing further investigations on blog/online threats, again I think it is very important to understand who the person is making the threat and what their current situation may be.
I feel as though this issue is a double edged sword. On the one hand, there are some people who spend their time venting in their blogs and obviously will never carry out what they say. But then there are the individuals who see it as a way to both express intentions and maybe even get approval. Because of this I really can't blame people for wanting to be safe rather then sorry. There is really no way of knowing. I agree with Caitlin, if someone seems a little "too disgruntled" or gets more vocal and descriptive, or like I said previously looks for approval he/she should probably be investigated.
Well I think that what people say out loud is easier to decipher it's meaning as oppose to what people write in blogs. Now a days people use phrases that are bad but not that they necessarily mean it in a bad way for example "I'm gonna freakin kill you" or "omg" these are things that people say because its already in their vocabulary and they don't realize it or they say it as a joke. But i'm pretty sure that people can tell when someone is being serious and when someone is not. As to taking what is posted on blogs seriously, I agree. One, it's better to be safe than sorry and two, in my opinion when somebody writes a threat its serious because it takes more time and thinking when someone is writing and I don't think anybody would write something like I'm gonna kill you to somebody or maybe, people are crazy idk but thats just my opinion.
As to this particular incident I think it's good that he's being investigated cause he has incriminating evidence. But as to the council not giving him his liquor license just cuz he wrote a different name for his business I don't agree with that. And if this was the case all the council could have done was take his license away afterwards. But agian this is no reason for this guy to go haywire.
With the vast power of the media these days we as a society have started to form a misconception of mass murder and threats. As many already posted...threats happen daily in each of our lives. We as Americans are able to say an awful lot of disturbing things. Whether it may be, "I would kill him," or "I would love to rape that girl," our culture today is bombarded with deviant phrases. There is a difference although between deviant phrases and threats to society. When a subject begins to act upon a threat or a person feels their safety is being jeopardized it is time to act. It is difficult to know what others think so I believe it is important for one another to watch over each other. If someone feels as if their life is in danger, make a formal inquiry to the police. If threats become reality, such as purchasing a gun...these are provoking and concrete actions. In all, I believe it is better reporting to authorities then wishing you did so later.
I think that the world we live in now is pathetic. When someone doesn’t get their way they resort to temper tantrums, instead of changing the action that they were doing. Instead of shooting at people, which only guaranteed that he will not get his license, he should have written a letter to the council explaining his situation. Taking normal steps, he could have taken on a partner, who would have made getting funding easier anyways, and the partner could have applied for the permit. I don’t know if society is doing enough to show people that violence is not going to advance your cause, it only works in the movies. A big public trial and maybe a public beating would teach him a lesson
I agree with the majority of posts that say people everyday including themselves have said things like, "I would kill so and so," and things of that nature, I myself am guilty of it also. But how many of us have actually gone out and purchased an AR-15 assault rifle like Kurt Havelock???
Certain things people say can be trivial but what if they are't? In today's world nothing should be taken with a grain of salt. If something did happen all the warning signs were there. Blog statements, mailed manifestos etc.
I personally feel that people who make such threatening statements should be treated as criminals if their actions have gone above and beyond just words and written declarations. The purchasing of a weapon is something that fits that category.
Not to take an individual case and use it as my sole example, but it seems to be relevant. Whenever we hear of school shootings, it is always , well there were a few warning signs, or something just seemed off. But, to the dismay of the victims thats where it stopped was the thought into the problems the other people are experiencing. It could be a cry for help or just a need for attention but we have to treat every case as seriously as the next. With blog postings, yes they are the freedom of speech, but it also in a way gives the freedom to offend as well. With blogs or postings you can reach an audience unlike never before. As many of us have confessed, a slip of the tounge seems to be pushed aside, but when we look at it after the fact and it fell on deaf ears, we have to give it even the littlest bit of attention.
In a society saturated with violence, I believe that all threats whether substantial or not, should be taken into consideration. There have been far too many cases in which potential warning signs, to large scale deviant acts, have gone unnoticed because no one took the time to investigate them. You can truly never know what is going to cause a person to “snap” and in this case it only took the denial of a liquor license. While I don’t believe that everyone who speaks their mind should be treated like a criminal, the fact that Havelock purchased a rifle and made written threats to the council are obvious red flags of his intent. I believe that by paying attention to cases like this, society can develop more preventative strategies on how to deal with these kinds of individuals before they become a danger to others.
I think we should treat verbal threats and posts on blogs as suspicious behavior and be aware of the possibility that it could lead to criminal behavior. I dont think we should call them criminals right away. In Most cases people say things they dont mean and will never follow through with the threat. but we should be aware of the possibility. In some cases, for example, the columbian massacure, the offenders used the internet to communicate their master plan. This subject is very hard to define because most often people dont mean what they say but in some cases, like Colombian, it is those who will commit criminal behavior. Its hard to identify what is a real threat.
Personally, I know that I say "I'm gonna kill you," probably once a day. Do I mean it? NO! I think that when we say things like this in everyday language, it becomes habit and now, it's part of our use of slang. "Cool" doesn't mean "cold" like it once did and "I'm gonna kill you" is more like "You're an idiot, stop with the sarcasm." Again, like someone said, verbally you can hear tones and tell if someone is serious and whether or not is a credible threat. However, I think that online blog postings or lists that name individuals should be looked at more closely. Megan Meier was a girl in Missouri who committed suicide after being bullied online by a friend's mother. (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/28/us/28hoax.html) You never know to what extent online bulling or blog posts will affect someone.
I agree with Sheena that sometimes what people state online have been taken too seriously. People do say things they do not mean all the time. I probably say things I don't mean everyday. However when people's lives are threatened it is hard to just leave it be without further investigation. What if someone says or recieves a message that "theres a bomb in this movie theater" or "there is a bomb in this school". Police would be called immediately to conduct an investigation and search for this "bomb" because there are many lives at stake. Can this be similar to the blog post? A man writes he will kill and possibly a mass murder will occur. How can one not react to something like that. I feel that further investigation is necessary. Yes I do agree that many people say things they do not mean. But if we don't take any type of precaution we are left with a chance that someone will die when we could have prevented it. With events such as school shootings that have been occurring, we can no longer take a step back from caution. So yes I do feel that investigations should take place in situations where lives are threatened. As sheena said, it is better to be safe that sorry.
Well, I think it depends very much on the person making the statements and the person the statements are made against. And if someone legitamately feels threatened, then yes, something should be done about it. However if it isn't written seriously by someone, and no one takes it seriously, then fine. It goes along with aggravated harassment charges...someone can say "I'm going to kill you" but unless it alarms and scares you, it's not really a crime. So, if someone like that creep makes some statements that are a little too realistic and that either offend or scare some people, then sure, it should be a crime.
Caitlyn C
This is a case that they really need to stay on top of. Havelock made the threats so there is some intention for him to commit the act. these threats have scared people, and no one should live in fear. Many people that commit mass murders at some point make threats, comments, or suggestions about what they are going to do. Most people dont take it serious and then when the murders occur someone is saying "I shouls have seen it coming." After the murders occur they see all the signs pointing straight to the event. Being denied a liquor license gives Havelock no reason to react that way so all his moves should be closely surveilled.
Threats are, for the most part, empty ones. The internet has allowed for the most socially fearful in society to participate online in a forum for all to see, where anyone can say anything. And therein lies the problem. Mostly threats are venting, and things can be taken too seriously, causing more problems than needed to exist at all. Yet sometimes the serious threats can be overlooked (like when some people don't read important memos). There needs to be a better understanding by law enforcement of people to recognize through writing (because human emotion cannot be easily conveyed through text alone), and once that understanding is there (perhaps some psychological training) the credible threats are easier to weed out from the crazies.
-Rose B.
I feel that any violent threat directed towards the masses should be thoroughly investigated. Although the violent comments were made in a blog and people have the right to enjoy their 1st Amendment freedom of speech, certain speech is limited if it creates a "clear and present" danger. It is sometimes difficult to determine whether a statement is a mere joke, but when an individual threatens the lives of a community of people, we are looking at the possibility of a mass murder (especially when the perpetrator is a disgruntled citizen).
While his threats did seem minimal, you have to wonder what he thinking putting it in writing on a blog and all just because he wasn't granted a liquor license. All threats should be investigated because there is that chance that it is real. As mentioned above, if the threat is put in writing or documented by the person in some way, there is an even greater chance that the threat is real and is hard to ignore and to not investigate it. B. Brown
While freedom of speech has its value, so does common sense. Stating on a public website that you are going to change the name of your establishment to something that would prevent your petition from being endorsed, and subsequently preventing your petition from being endorsed, is just ignorance. Likewise, it is entirely appropriate to investigate threats on web pages when they are posted to the public. Even the most basic language skills allow you to circumvent a significant amount of trouble by using synonyms, metaphors, or whatever other figure of speech you please. If you are mad at someone, don't say you're going to kill them on your web site, say that you hate them with every ounce of your being and you get the point across without getting well acquainted with the FBI.
I think people are taking what people post online to seriously. There are millions of people posting comments on the internet that they dont really mean. I can not even count how many times i have said " if you do that i am going to kill you." The term kill gets thrown around way to much to take everyone who says it seriously. I think somehow there needs to be some way we can sensor ther internet better to prevent this from happening.
Threats are made all the time and it is diffcult to sort out the ones that are dangerous. The choice of words in the threat and amount of times said should be the most important factors in determining the seriousness.
Post a Comment