4Chan user arrested for posting "in Minecraft" death threat

[midian182]

Facepalm: Just because you present something as a hypothetical scenario in a video game, it doesn't mean you won't be held accountable. A 38-year-old 4Chan user found this out the hard way after posting a death threat that targeted a Florida sheriff but used the words "in Minecraft" at the end. He was later arrested and is being extradited to face felony charges.

Richard Golden posted his message to kill Mike Chitwood on 4Chan's /pol board. The sheriff has been targeted by far-right groups since he called out neo-Nazis after a group distributed anti-Semitic flyers to residents in Daytona Beach, Florida, and hung up banners on pedestrian bridges during the Daytona 500 sporting statements such as "Hitler was right."

"These scumbags came to the wrong county [...] We are not going to tolerate this," Chitwood said in a press conference. "This is not about free speech. This is about violence."

Following the conference, Golden posted a message on 4Chan in a thread titled 'Florida Sheriff declares war on Whites.' It read, "Just shoot Chitwood in the head and he stops being a problem. They have to find a new guy to be the problem."

"But shooting Chitwood in the head solves an immediate problem permanently. Just shoot Chitwood in the head and murder him." Golden then added "in Minecraft" after the comment.

As Know Your Meme explains, people add "in Minecraft" to the end of comments with the intention of removing the realm of real-world possibility from the example. One could compare it to the Simpsons' Milhouse threatening to kick someone's butt… at Nintendo. Or, going back to the nineties, saying "not" after a statement.

But adding the equivalent of "jokes, lol" to the end of a death threat won't placate law enforcement. Central Florida Intelligence Exchange alerted Chitwood to the message, and detectives tracked Golden down to a New Jersey address on March 1. "Once he's extradited, he'll be housed at the happiest place on earth: the Volusia County Branch Jail," Chitwood said.

You can see the video of officers arresting Golden at his mother's house in the video below. Since the arrest, Chitwood has described Golden as a marginalized member of society who spent much of his time in extremist chat rooms.

Chitwood said Golden's bail would be set at $100,000. He is being charged with making written threats to kill or injure, which carries a maximum sentence of 15 years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

Thanks, Dexerto

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/97998-4chan-user-arrested-posting-minecraft-death-threat.html

 

[Nobina]

Why didn't he shoot the sherfit? He said he was gonna!

 

[RudyBob]

He looks the part. As Hannibal might say. "Love the pants"

 

[Tetr1s]

Most "sane" 4chan user, you already know he was reported using the new Microsoft report user feature lmfao

 

[Burty117]

Soo that's what they look like in real life! Exactly as stereo-typed.

 

[TomSEA]

You couldn't find a more perfect example....

 

[truthmonger]

Why didn't he shoot the sherfit? He said he was gonna!

Nope, he ever said any such thing. Don't be like the person who wrote this piece and try to put words in people's mouths or draw false connections between a basement dweller and some imaginary "far-right" group.

 

[Jasuj]

Are credible threats no longer part of US law? Supreme court rulings on death threats established the standard that they have to be credible AND specific to be prosecuted. The quoted is neither. This 40 year old basement dweller wasn't going to shoot anyone and everyone knows it. Does he even own a gun? Somehow, I doubt it.

Also, a $100,000 bail? Sheriffs do not set bail, judges do. This chitwood sounds like he has little man dictator syndrome.

Everyone should read this before commenting:
https://www.scotusblog.com/2015/06/opinion-analysis-internet-threats-still-in-legal-limbo/

So many americans seem happy to completely disregard the law when it's someone they don't like getting prosecuted. That's not how the justice system should work.

 

[yRaz]

Are credible threats no longer part of US law? Supreme court rulings on death threats established the standard that they have to be credible AND specific to be prosecuted. The quoted is neither. This 40 year old basement dweller wasn't going to shoot anyone and everyone knows it. Does he even own a gun? Somehow, I doubt it.

Also, a $100,000 bail? Sheriffs do not set bail, judges do. This chitwood sounds like he has little man dictator syndrome.

Everyone should read this before commenting:
https://www.scotusblog.com/2015/06/opinion-analysis-internet-threats-still-in-legal-limbo/

So many americans seem happy to completely disregard the law when it's someone they don't like getting prosecuted. That's not how the justice system should work.

I think this case is less about ego and more about trying to set legal precedent around free speech. There are lots of "in minecraft" posts on 4chan, many MUCH worse than this. Out of the thousands, if not tens of thousands, of people who post "in minecraft" threats, why this one? why JUST one?

1) he was not making a threat, he was suggesting someone else do it. Something actually has to be the definition of a threat in order for it to then be considered a credible threat.
2)He was suggesting someone do it in a video game. Now, we all know saying that is just a loophole but it is a legal loophole.

It seems to me this case is being brought forward as a way to set a legal precedent. Will previous legal precedents stand up in court or will the court make a new decision that changes the way we interpret free speech?

Now, this kid(I don't care how old he is, he's a man child) is not a credible threat.

 

[p51d007]

Why didn't he shoot the sherfit? He said he was gonna!

Nah...he was only going to shoot the deputy.

 

[nnguy2]

Are credible threats no longer part of US law? Supreme court rulings on death threats established the standard that they have to be credible AND specific to be prosecuted. The quoted is neither. This 40 year old basement dweller wasn't going to shoot anyone and everyone knows it. Does he even own a gun? Somehow, I doubt it.

Also, a $100,000 bail? Sheriffs do not set bail, judges do. This chitwood sounds like he has little man dictator syndrome.

Everyone should read this before commenting:
https://www.scotusblog.com/2015/06/opinion-analysis-internet-threats-still-in-legal-limbo/

So many americans seem happy to completely disregard the law when it's someone they don't like getting prosecuted. That's not how the justice system should work.

You're also the one that will say "No one saw this coming" and "There's not way we could have prevented this" when it does happen.

 

[Manuel Diego]

Are credible threats no longer part of US law? Supreme court rulings on death threats established the standard that they have to be credible AND specific to be prosecuted. The quoted is neither. This 40 year old basement dweller wasn't going to shoot anyone and everyone knows it. Does he even own a gun? Somehow, I doubt it.

Also, a $100,000 bail? Sheriffs do not set bail, judges do. This chitwood sounds like he has little man dictator syndrome.

Everyone should read this before commenting:
https://www.scotusblog.com/2015/06/opinion-analysis-internet-threats-still-in-legal-limbo/

So many americans seem happy to completely disregard the law when it's someone they don't like getting prosecuted. That's not how the justice system should work.

Yes, "Just shoot Chitwood in the head and murder him" is absolutely unspecific, I concur. How can such an open and jocking statement be considered a death threat, I wonder...

 

[kira setsu]

I think this case is less about ego and more about trying to set legal precedent around free speech. There are lots of "in minecraft" posts on 4chan, many MUCH worse than this. Out of the thousands, if not tens of thousands, of people who post "in minecraft" threats, why this one? why JUST one?

1) he was not making a threat, he was suggesting someone else do it. Something actually has to be the definition of a threat in order for it to then be considered a credible threat.
2)He was suggesting someone do it in a video game. Now, we all know saying that is just a loophole but it is a legal loophole.

It seems to me this case is being brought forward as a way to set a legal precedent. Will previous legal precedents stand up in court or will the court make a new decision that changes the way we interpret free speech?

Now, this kid(I don't care how old he is, he's a man child) is not a credible threat.

If you say something like that...you're a threat, bottom line.

it's come to point where we have to take pretty much everything seriously, leave the dude alone and he acts on it or someone else does and everyone will point the finger at evidence and scream why nothing was done, go and arrest him like so and people scream he hasnt done anything except talk, why get him?

so which is it? if you looked at me and said "I hope someone kills you" im not going to just let you wander off and think welp, he didnt do it so im safe forever, no! im going to the police, somebody and say what you did and hope something is done even if its something as simple as a cop saying "dont kill that dude"

it isnt the neckbeard I'm even mad at in this article, it's the fact people are fine with deaththreats. people will go the eff off over a wrong food order but someone mulling over your death? meh.

 

[yRaz]

If you say something like that...you're a threat, bottom line.

it's come to point where we have to take pretty much everything seriously, leave the dude alone and he acts on it or someone else does and everyone will point the finger at evidence and scream why nothing was done, go and arrest him like so and people scream he hasnt done anything except talk, why get him?

so which is it? if you looked at me and said "I hope someone kills you" im not going to just let you wander off and think welp, he didnt do it so im safe forever, no! im going to the police, somebody and say what you did and hope something is done even if its something as simple as a cop saying "dont kill that dude"

it isnt the neckbeard I'm even mad at in this article, it's the fact people are fine with deaththreats. people will go the eff off over a wrong food order but someone mulling over your death? meh.

This meets none of the legal definitions of a threat. While someone saying stuff like that to you might make you uncomfortable it is not a threat. You can't just start throwing people in jail because they make you uncomfortable but I can think of a few states that would like to be able to do that. I could say something, "some one should go out and kill a bunch of seals"(seals are a protected species). If someone goes out and kills a bunch of seals was it my statement that made them do it? at what point does a statement become a suggestion?

This case is walking a very fine line and I bet this guy will walk. A $100,000 bond in a case that doesn't even meet the legal definition of a credible threat? This is a straw man case and it's only here to set a precedent to limit freedom of speech

 

[kira setsu]

This meets none of the legal definitions of a threat. While someone saying stuff like that to you might make you uncomfortable it is not a threat. You can't just start throwing people in jail because they make you uncomfortable but I can think of a few states that would like to be able to do that. I could say something, "some one should go out and kill a bunch of seals"(seals are a protected species). If someone goes out and kills a bunch of seals was it my statement that made them do it? at what point does a statement become a suggestion?

This case is walking a very fine line and I bet this guy will walk. A $100,000 bond in a case that doesn't even meet the legal definition of a credible threat? This is a straw man case and it's only here to set a precedent to limit freedom of speech

a person doesnt need to be thrown in jail, but at minimum should be tossed on some sort of list, handed a fine or something.

someone saying you should be shot in the head is more than just making you uncomfortable. if you had a wife/husband/child and someone said that to them, it just makes you uncomfortable? I agree you should be able to say whatever you want, thats our motto BUT I also believe that since we live in a society with laws and rules and common decency that if you spout dangerous speech you should be willing to handle some consequences also,

no wonder this country has so many shootings and loons taking office, we've been taught to be quiet, a person can be a glowing warning sign but I guess because they're not making you uncomfortable yet it's all good until they shoot another kid or snatch a few more of your rights.

 

[yRaz]

a person doesnt need to be thrown in jail, but at minimum should be tossed on some sort of list, handed a fine or something.

someone saying you should be shot in the head is more than just making you uncomfortable. if you had a wife/husband/child and someone said that to them, it just makes you uncomfortable? I agree you should be able to say whatever you want, thats our motto BUT I also believe that since we live in a society with laws and rules and common decency that if you spout dangerous speech you should be willing to handle some consequences also,

no wonder this country has so many shootings and loons taking office, we've been taught to be quiet, a person can be a glowing warning sign but I guess because they're not making you uncomfortable yet it's all good until they shoot another kid or snatch a few more of your rights.

so I'm assuming guns make you uncomfortable as well? More kids are killed in car accidents than by guns, do cars make you uncomfortable? Each persons comfort level is different and it is subjective. If you want to save the most childrens lives then perhaps we should ban children from riding in cars. After all, car accident deaths are just as unnecessary as gun deaths.

The point I'm trying to make with this is that your freedom ends where my rights begin. You are free to have a subjective opinion of something, you are free to voice that subjective opinion however, you do not get to enforce your opinion on other people

This kid voiced a subjective opinion, one you are free to disagree with, one that I disagree with, but he did not make any threats. Even if he was suggesting someone else do it, he did not make a threat. I think people who wear patchouli oil should be euthanized, that's not a threat, that's an opinion.

Patchouli oil is fowl, that's an objective fact.

Going back to what I was saying about a straw man case, this is a case meant to set precedent. $100,000 bond is absurd, people who commit violent crimes like felony assault don't get $100,000 bonds. Regardless of what your subjective opinion of what is or is not right, you should be raising an eyebrow to this case. The outcome of this case is more dangerous than this kid.

 

[Ohnooze]

You have to admit....the guy is the prefect stereotype for an incel basement dweller.

 

[arrowflash]

I think this case is less about ego and more about trying to set legal precedent around free speech. There are lots of "in minecraft" posts on 4chan, many MUCH worse than this. Out of the thousands, if not tens of thousands, of people who post "in minecraft" threats, why this one? why JUST one?

True, and not only on 4chan. Back when Trump was POTUS I've seen plenty of videos on _Youtube_ of all places, with people (American citizens living on US territory) making death threats or begging for "someone, anyone, please" to murder him. And no "in Minecraft" at the end either. All without any consequence. By the same zeal these people should've been arrested and prosecuted.

There would also be plenty of material during the BLM/GF riots.

 

[kira setsu]

so I'm assuming guns make you uncomfortable as well? More kids are killed in car accidents than by guns, do cars make you uncomfortable? Each persons comfort level is different and it is subjective. If you want to save the most childrens lives then perhaps we should ban children from riding in cars. After all, car accident deaths are just as unnecessary as gun deaths.

The point I'm trying to make with this is that your freedom ends where my rights begin. You are free to have a subjective opinion of something, you are free to voice that subjective opinion however, you do not get to enforce your opinion on other people

This kid voiced a subjective opinion, one you are free to disagree with, one that I disagree with, but he did not make any threats. Even if he was suggesting someone else do it, he did not make a threat. I think people who wear patchouli oil should be euthanized, that's not a threat, that's an opinion.

Patchouli oil is fowl, that's an objective fact.

Going back to what I was saying about a straw man case, this is a case meant to set precedent. $100,000 bond is absurd, people who commit violent crimes like felony assault don't get $100,000 bonds. Regardless of what your subjective opinion of what is or is not right, you should be raising an eyebrow to this case. The outcome of this case is more dangerous than this kid.

First of all that isnt a kid, thats a grown *** man, who wants someone to be shot in the head.

my point is what must someone do to be considered a threat then? from what we see so very often it must be to commit the actual crime then.

what I'm picking up from you is that a person is perfectly justified to say they'll kill someone, maybe stalk em, terrorize em a bit? I guess ride the line but not outright off them right?

but then if or when that person acts or someone on their behalf acts and kills that person like they said they would, then we're allowed to get mad and toss out the thoughts and prayers? because dead bodies make us uncomfortable.

 

[yRaz]

First of all that isnt a kid, thats a grown *** man, who wants someone to be shot in the head.

my point is what must someone do to be considered a threat then? from what we see so very often it must be to commit the actual crime then.

what I'm picking up from you is that a person is perfectly justified to say they'll kill someone, maybe stalk em, terrorize em a bit? I guess ride the line but not outright off them right?

but then if or when that person acts or someone on their behalf acts and kills that person like they said they would, then we're allowed to get mad and toss out the thoughts and prayers? because dead bodies make us uncomfortable.

We are boarding on thought crimes here and that's the problem. How many times have you had a violent thought you had no intention on acting on? How many times have you uttered under your breathe how the world would be better off with someone? Did you have an intent on acting on those threats? Who gets do decide whose thoughts are dangerious and whose are not? What if people who got to decide what thought crimes are were in positions of power? He did not say "I will kill this guy" he said "someone should kill this guy."

I maintain that this is a dangerous court case because it could limit the ability of people to protest. What if someone who had supporting views of a protest said "someone should kill *insert name of person XXX" and those people lost the right to assemble because "someone" said "someone" should kill "someone" and that "someone" might be in that group of people?

And while this idea might seem far fetched in the US there are plenty examples of countries doing things like this around the world. Concentration camps and prisions in China, Public executions for it in the Middle east. But you also have "western" nations like Australia where they don't even have a true freedom of the press.

Laws are designed to protect not just the innocent from the guilty, but from the innocent being persecuted as guilty. You may say "what does it take before we throw someone in jail" but to that I say, "how many innocent people have to be in jail before you feel safe?"

 

[Tantor]

Look no further than the Sheriff's own words. The object is to teach white nationalists (whatever that is) a lesson. They're simply not going to allow people to post horrendous fliers saying that Hitler was right. OMG! You just have to laugh at the irony. To suppress Hitler they act like Hitler.

People forget that the single most important American value is FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

George Orwell wrote "Free speech is my right to say what you don't want to hear."

 

[VoidTheWarranty]

Most "sane" 4chan user, you already know he was reported using the new Microsoft report user feature lmfao

Sane 4chan users... I think being on 4chan already is a massive redflag or cry for help.

 

[Gastec]

Ban 4chan and ban all sheriffs from posting on Twitter! There you go!

 

[Tantor]

a person doesnt need to be thrown in jail, but at minimum should be tossed on some sort of list, handed a fine or something.

someone saying you should be shot in the head is more than just making you uncomfortable. if you had a wife/husband/child and someone said that to them, it just makes you uncomfortable? I agree you should be able to say whatever you want, thats our motto BUT I also believe that since we live in a society with laws and rules and common decency that if you spout dangerous speech you should be willing to handle some consequences also,

no wonder this country has so many shootings and loons taking office, we've been taught to be quiet, a person can be a glowing warning sign but I guess because they're not making you uncomfortable yet it's all good until they shoot another kid or snatch a few more of your rights.

You assume that there is a single, clear definition of common decency. That's simply not true. Most Right Wing values are regarded as indecent, even dangerous, by the Left. And vice versa.

 

[Avro Arrow]

What is 4Chan anyway? I've heard of it in passing but that's about it.

There's one word in this article that makes something this stupid sound so believable.
"FLOR-I-DUH!"

Why is it that the people who pull this crap all look like they belong in a zoo?