Dumb Criminal Incriminates Dumb Self With Dumb Selfie [UPDATE: Or Not]

Stupidity

from the well-hello-there dept

Thu, Mar 6th 2014 10:59pm — Timothy Geigner

As pointed out in the comments by Matthew S, this story has now been debunked. Turns out that the drapes in the background were different, and not in her house, as the woman claimed. It appears the photo got on her phone because they had mutual friends on Facebook, and the woman got confused. We apologize for posting this story based on the incorrect info. The original story, crossed out, is below.

So, let's say you're a creepy dude, the kind that likes to brazenly break into other people's homes. Now let's say that, in addition to being a creepy criminal, you're also a complete idiot looking to get caught, the kind we've covered in the past. How exactly do you find the perfect combination of self-incrimination while maintaining the high level of creepiness you've spent so many years cultivating?

Here's one Denver creep's attempt to show us the way:
The victim told police she had no idea the man had been inside her home while she was there — until she checked her cellphone the next day. According to police, on Jan. 29 at approximately 9:20 p.m. a woman was putting her children to bed when an unknown man entered her home and used the woman’s cellphone to take a picture of himself.
Yes, apparently a gentlemen who is working entirely too hard on his Breaking Bad cosplay strategies (see video in the link) also decided to break into a house and take absolutely nothing other than a selfie on his victim's cell phone. Of course, because this is apparently an attempt by the burglar to get himself caught, neighbors recognized him and are working with police to identify the man.
“He doesn’t have glasses when you normally see him walking down the street. Maybe they’re a disguise. I don’t know,” said Gardner. When asked about the facial hair, Gardner replied, “Oh, that’s his, that’s him.”
As of the time of this writing, the man hasn't yet been caught by police, but one imagines that is simply a matter of time. After all, our dumb criminal went ahead and provided the single thing smarter bad guys work as hard as possible to avoid: a picture of his face. That kind of dedication to getting caught deserves our respect and our applause.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: crime, selfie

24 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Alana (profile), 6 Mar 2014 @ 11:23pm

Can we please kill the word "Selfie" already?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JamesF (profile), 7 Mar 2014 @ 12:51am

Just to play devils advocate...
What if this was a misguided attempt to warn the woman that her security was lacking? After all, if he had been a rapist or a murderer instead of a (Going with my theory a second) a well intentioned citizen, he would have walked in and done far worse than taken a picture with her phone. If nothing else, it shows someone could have walked in, nicked her phone and walked out without any problem. If this were true, sure the guy would be creepy, but I don't think it would be a criminal act, particularly looking at the whole 'intent' thing.

Not trying to suggest this really is the case, but more of a 'if this was the case, how would it change things' conversation starter
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Guardian, 7 Mar 2014 @ 1:45am

french fry guys
two guys went to jail once in canada for YUP breaking into a chip truck and not just to rip it off but to cook up some fries....the steam coming out alerted the owner whom called police.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Guardian, 7 Mar 2014 @ 1:46am

@2
smarter way and not to get arrested would still be no picture and maybe a note on your door....

ya know ...how a hacker does websites....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 7 Mar 2014 @ 2:15am

Re:
Perhaps 'Idiot Indicator'? Something with 'narcissist' in it, given the focus on the self?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Mar 2014 @ 3:27am

mad not dumb
guy sound a few cent short of a dollar, so he will wind up being caught, and go to prison, he sounds like the sort of person that will cope with the strict rules, and when he gets out he'll do some other mental thing. repeat cycle.

In the US its too hard to deal with the mentally ill, but you lot have enough prisons.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Mar 2014 @ 4:12am

Re: Just to play devils advocate...
If you added "on the Internet" the USPTO would certainly agree with your theory.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Mar 2014 @ 4:21am

Re: mad not dumb
We love our prisons! They suck up all of our extra tax dollars, are full of people who just transport and sell stuff ( no one likes traveling sales men, am I right? ) and they create great profits for big business.

Mental hospitals waste our tax dollars, are full of creepy people and do nothing to help the economy. Clearly we should shut down the mental hospitals and throw those creepy people in prison for as long as possible.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Mar 2014 @ 4:25am

Re: Re:
Narciste

Selfissist
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 7 Mar 2014 @ 4:51am

Re: Re: mad not dumb
That should have been funny, it really should have, but unfortunately it's far too accurate to be so, as the US loves their prisons and punishment, but has a pretty strong aversion to actually treating prisoners or the mentally ill to keep them from going to, to going back to, prison.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Mar 2014 @ 5:47am

Re: Re: Re: mad not dumb
That's because of where the money is in America. There's plenty of private prisons in the US, but do you ever hear of private asylums?

A private prison typically rakes in $30,000 a year per prisoner. Plus, laws that get people thrown in prison can be changed to give private prisons more 'customers', but such is not the case for an asylum. Private prisons often lobby legislators to have harsher penalties and longer jail time for law breakers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Violated (profile), 7 Mar 2014 @ 5:53am

Mystery
So what crime would he have committed? From the details I have read here that would be none.

There naturally is the crime of breaking in and entry which includes criminal damage but to open the door and to walk in is not a crime.

You can also ponder trespass but without notices on the borders revoking the public right of access you don't have that.

The longest possible shot seems to be a general public nuisance law but beyond him being creepy I can't see this event as much of a nuisance.

So the point here is not that someone can enter your home but what their intentions are doing there. You also can't outlaw all of human nature like entering the wrong house by mistake, trying to find people or pets, to issue a local warning, or simple being lonely and wanting someone to talk to.

In this case since nothing was stolen, including her beloved cell phone, then it could be a case of someone passing and seeing she left the door open and so proceeded inside to warn her to be more careful. However only a few steps inside he changed his mind and oddly left the intended caution on the phone instead.

So best get used to the idea that if you don't want strange people wondering through your home then that is what locks and bolts are for when faith alone won't help you. Strange people naturally have to leave your home and land if you ask them to when it is your property.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 7 Mar 2014 @ 6:38am

Re: Mystery
I'm pretty sure that the inside of someone's house is generally considered by the law to be private, not public, property, whether the door is wide open, or locked shut, and whether or not there's a sign visible stating that it's private property.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 7 Mar 2014 @ 7:03am

Re: Just to play devils advocate...
"'if this was the case, how would it change things'"

It wouldn't change anything at all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 7 Mar 2014 @ 7:07am

Re: Mystery
"You can also ponder trespass but without notices on the borders revoking the public right of access you don't have that."

Not true. He committed trespassing, pure and simple. Further, if he had to actually open a door, even if unlocked, he committed breaking and entering.

You only need notices when there can be reasonable doubt about whether the area is open to the public. Your own private residence presents no such doubt.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Mar 2014 @ 8:13am

Genius!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Matthew S (profile), 7 Mar 2014 @ 8:29am

Debunked
This was all cleared up a couple of weeks ago when they determined that the man was never in her house. In fact, he was in California. His picture ended up on her phone because of Facebook.

http://kdvr.com/2014/02/20/man-accused-of-breaking-into-home-taking-selfie-is-not-a-burglar -at-all/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 7 Mar 2014 @ 9:08am

Re: Debunked
Suddenly, I feel terrible for this man. Someone needs their internet license revoked.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
akp (profile), 7 Mar 2014 @ 9:10am

Re: Debunked
Ah, so the histrionic lady is actually the idiot then.

This was a case of "so and so posted a new photo!" notification that she somehow transformed into "someone broke into my house and put that picture on my phone!"

Baffling.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Mar 2014 @ 9:14am

Re:
How bout Idipict?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Mar 2014 @ 11:15am

Re: Debunked
Yeah, I was pretty surprised to see this story pop up on Techdirt today. This was debunked weeks ago.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 7 Mar 2014 @ 11:15am

Re: Debunked
Aha. Tim had recently checked but not found any update. We've now posted an update. Thanks for sharing that and sorry for posting a bogus story.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Matthew S (profile), 7 Mar 2014 @ 1:19pm

Re: Re: Debunked
Kudos for correcting it quickly. It's too bad the countless other news sites haven't been responsible enough to update their stories as well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
McKay, 8 Mar 2014 @ 8:26am

Isn't this illegal?
Isn't his photo his own copyright? Isn't it illegal to be plastering his work on the news? Even if it is part of a criminal investigation?
[ link to this | view in thread ]