More Dumb Criminals On YouTube: Man Faces 10 Years In Jail For Self-Incrimination By YouTube

from the darwinism-at-work dept

Fri, Mar 6th 2009 3:39pm — Mike Masnick

While some still want to blame YouTube and other sites for the fact that criminals often post evidence of their crimes on the site, others have at least recognized that all YouTube really does is make it that much easier for police to track down and catch criminals. In the latest example, a guy is now facing 10 years in prison after posting a video on YouTube of him holding a gun (and pleading guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm). Not only was the gun unregistered, but it was manufactured outside the state, making it a federal offense. It's like YouTube is a giant filter for dumb criminals.

Filed Under: criminals, videos
Companies: youtube

12 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2009 @ 4:14pm

True dat man.. Tru dat..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Undumb criminal, 6 Mar 2009 @ 4:54pm

Proxies anyone?
Um, anyone with half a brain that knows they are posting self-incriminating evidence or is committing a crime knows that they should be doing such over a high-anonymity proxy from outside of the country. I guess these guys don't have half a brain.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2009 @ 5:02pm

Re: Proxies anyone?
Because that totally hides your face on the camera while you do something illegal.

Moron.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
LOL, 6 Mar 2009 @ 5:25pm

Re: Re: Proxies anyone?
Huh, how will they know your name from your face.

I guess in this special case they would know cuz he's already a felon.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Mar 2009 @ 5:42pm

A Federal Case
Not only was the gun unregistered, but it was manufactured outside the state, making it a federal offense.

I wouldn't have thought that would make it a federal case. If someone commits a crime using a vehicle manufactured outside the state, does that make it a federal case?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Mar 2009 @ 12:26am

I'm assuming ATF would be involved?
Transporting unlicensed firearms across state lines? my best guess.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Oldfart from Wisconsin, 7 Mar 2009 @ 4:48am

True dat man.. Tru dat..
It is fairly safe to assume that the miscreant spoke in such a manner.
By the way, is that supposed to be English??
[ link to this | view in thread ]
LtJackboot, 7 Mar 2009 @ 8:42am

cant blame youtube
If you're gonna tell the whole freakin' world about your crimes you're gonna get caught.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Joe, 8 Mar 2009 @ 4:12pm

Most states, including Virginia, do not require guns to be registered. Not even gun-hostile New Jersey requires registration of firearms.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
boost, 9 Mar 2009 @ 10:28am

Re:
Hand guns must be registered in most states.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2009 @ 11:07am

Re: A Federal Case
Yeah I wondered about that one too - is that specific to firearms . . . seems a little rediculous
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BTR1701, 10 Mar 2009 @ 6:34am

Re: Re:
> Hand guns must be registered in most states.

Only to carry them. Mere ownership of them doesn't require registration except in a handful of states. Certainly not "most" states.
[ link to this | view in thread ]