Dumb Criminal Promises To Shoot Someone For 100 Retweets, Is Promptly Arrested
from the how's-your-foot-feel? dept
We've seen dumb criminals do a lot of dumb things with the technology on their fingertips, always resulting in their prompt arrest, because that's how things turn out for dumb criminals. Whether it's sharing the police Facebook post seeking their arrest or college kids celebrating their illegal behavior online, the idea is that for the nefarious criminal, over-sharing can get you into lots of trouble.But for the idiot criminal who wants to set the record for being the biggest assbag, I'll simply point to Dakkari Dijon McAnuff, who was angry enough at apparently being named after a condiment that he sent out the following tweet:
I'll give you three guesses what happened next, but you'll only need one.
Dakkari Dijon McAnuff, of Los Angeles, was booked Wednesday on suspicion of making criminal threats, police said. He remained in jail in lieu of $50,000 bail. The investigation began Wednesday morning when LAPD officers were notified about a photo on Twitter. The photo shows a rifle pointed at a Los Angeles street with the caption "100 [retweets] and I'll shoot someone walking."I have to say, even though you'll often find me wandering the halls of my workplace muttering under my breath about the ridiculous over-prosecution and punishment in our legal system, $50k bail seems a bit light to me. Perhaps McAnuff was joking, except that his joke wasn't funny, it was a promise to harm people. Perhaps he thought people would realize it was an air rifle (as police later determined) and not a hunting rifle, except that really doesn't make any damned difference. And, to my mind, the kind of person who would send this out for any reason whatsoever isn't the kind of person I trust getting back out on the street without a severely taught lesson applied to him.
Here's to you spending some time in jail, Mr. McAnuff. I want you to think real hard about what you've done, now.
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: criminals, self-incrimination
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Criminal?
Then... Criminal? I don;t read anywhere he was a fellon or former inmate...
Bad taste, perhaps.
"Politically Incorrect Person Promises To Shoot Someone For 100 Retweets, Is Promptly Arrested" would be a much more suitable title for this article, I'd say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Criminal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Criminal?
But this was crawling straight into 'psychopath killer zone' with nothing to say this was actually a joke. Nothing taken out of context, no completely absurd statements just a straight up threat. The '100 retweets' could be taken as a joke... but it's kinda weak if placed there on it's own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Criminal?
Words=actions and it's not like words are protected by anything official in the good ol' US of A.
* People in US really need to watch out if saying dumb or objectionable things becomes illegal then they might as well just wall the entire nation. **
** Please do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It indeed really doesn't make a damn difference whether it was an hunting rifle, air gun, toy gun, photoshopped gun, fingers held as a gun, or a piece of bread with a bite out of it. Agreed!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Pragmatic here. On an unrelated note, does anyone know why I keep getting a red "Error" message when I try to post? It's been happening for the last two days and it takes several efforts to get any comment made. I can't use a screen name, that's when the error comes up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
California Code - Title 11.5: CRIMINAL THREATS
Section 422
(a) Any person who willfully threatens to commit a crime which will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, with the specific intent that the statement, made verbally, in writing, or by means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out, which, on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made, is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to convey to the person threatened, a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat, and thereby causes that person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her own safety or for his or her immediate family's safety, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison.
Seems like a vague threat to "shoot somebody" fails the test at being an actual threat to an actual person. It's certainly not an "unequivocal, unconditional, immediate" specific threat with an "immediate prospect of execution" that's likely to put a specific person in "sustained fear" of their safety or their family's safety.
Guy's a bit of an ass, clearly, and hopefully he can be slapped with something to deter him from going around going 'Ha! Gonna shoot somebody!" but if they're actually gonna prosecute under this section as opposed to something else a half competent lawyer should surely be able to generate reasonable doubt on this one pretty easily?
But IANAL so what do I know? :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"with the specific intent that the statement, made"
Where is this "specific" here?
Typical bullshit reporting by a "reporter" who has no clue about the subject he/she writes about. And you are not far.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm not sure who the final paragraph is referring to, but given it ends with the nonsensical "And you are not far." ... well, I think you should be asking yourself if you can actually read what *you* post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Typical bullshit ranting by incoherent 5 year old, I really wish they would stay off mommys computer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
How?
How is "I'm a gonna shoot someone if I get enough retweets" an unequivocal, unconditional, immediate and specific threat to you that has an immediate prospect of execution?
There's nothing in that specific statute which says 'Oh, and by the way, if it's just a rather vague undirected threat that's isn't specific and isn't immediate it still totally counts.'
Oh, and if people did retweet him ... will they be charged as accessories to his crime since he only said he'd do it if he got enough tweets? :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There's also dang little common sense on either side of the fence when it comes to zero tolerance. A finger gun by a kid is not something you go all bananas on. How in the world are you gonna confiscate all those finger guns and exactly how injured are the victims going to be with it?
What is certain, is the finger gun is no danger. Some idiot playing like he has a real weapon is totally different when it shoots something besides verbal bangs.
I keep a bb gun. I live in town. I have no desire to shoot my neighbor or anything like that. I do however want to keep skunks (yes real live ones complete with smell and black and white coat) out of my yard. No one calls the cops that they heard a gun go off, no one is threatened (except the skunk who will live another day after being shot) and no one is going to come expecting someone else is being threatened.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In other words he's already going to be in jail for a long time. I'd say that barring priors he's already gotten his lesson. Thinking otherwise = you're doing "Being a Liberal" wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Air rifle?
Nothing on that message says he'll shoot "with the weapon on this photo". A reasonable reader can easily assume he meant he'll shoot "with something", and the obvious meaning for "something" would be "a weapon", any weapon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Air rifle?
My Gamo .177 caliber will bury a lead pellet over an inch in a live maple tree.
These are not toys - they can kill people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Air rifle?
I was shot in the ass with an air rifle once; the idiot kid doing the shooting thought it was gonna be like a BB gun and sting a little bit.
That lead pellet went deep, and being lead, needed to be dug out. Not fun, it was a bit traumatic for 12-year old me. And I still have a dead spot about three inches across on my butt from nerve damage.
While I'd rather be shot with an air rifle that with a 9mm, I'd rather not be shot at all. The motive power is fucking irrelevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Criminal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What if he was serious, 100 people re-tweeted and he ended up shooting and killing someone? What if 1000 people re-tweeted? Would all 1000 be equally liable?
Now back to reality, and this was caught before any mishap and likely a joke. He definitely deserves some kind of reprimand, but again, what about those that re-tweet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Enhance your calm Timmah
Any maybe? :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What About Twitter?
Bryan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What About Twitter?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
*WORDS* do not equal *ACTION*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This guy said shoot, not kill, with what is obviously an air rifle.
Who determines what is a joke or not and whether it is funny or not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]