Idaho police warn of 'criminal charges' for web sleuths engaged in 'harassing' amid 'misinforma

MOSCOW, Idaho – Police urged the internet's true crime community to tone things down Friday, nearly four weeks after the unsolved slayings of four University of Idaho students captured national attention.

"Investigators have been monitoring online activity related to this ongoing and active case and are aware of the large amount of rumors and misinformation being shared as well as harassing and threatening behavior toward potentially involved parties," Moscow police said in a statement Friday afternoon.

They did not identify the "potentially involved parties."

Idaho police warn of 'criminal charges' for web sleuths engaged in 'harassing' amid 'misinformation'

I'm sort of offended by the idea that the police should concern themselves with public debate.

Admittedly, threatening behavior (presumably reported as such) is their concern.

But it seems this - as reported - doesn't say why the police are 'monitoring' internet discussions about the case. Especially since the utterances of sympathetic - overzealous -'threats' against whatever theoretical perpetrator are common in normal parlance. People often say about a villainous character that they should do 'this or that' to the criminal, or he or she ought to be [fill in the bad end here].

Monitoring conversations is not simply a matter of looking at a transcript, or eavesdropping for a spell... so I cannot be entirely comfortable with it as a practice for spawning public declarations.

For example:

"Anyone engaging in threats or harassment whether in person, online or otherwise needs to understand that they could be subjecting themselves to criminal charges."

— Moscow Police Department

This isn't an admonition of talking about the case, it's a valid piece of information applicable to any similar situation.

Ironically, the final quote in the article reads:

"Your information, whether you believe it is significant or not, might be the piece of the puzzle that helps investigators solve these murders," police said in a statement.

Anyone with information is asked to call the tip line at 208-883-7180 or to email [email protected].

While the article seems to cast a pall on anyone who wants to talk about it - simply by virtue of "We'll be listening to what you say..." under penalty of 'criminal charges.'

[edit to add question]
What is "internets true crime community?" Is that a thing?

this is the police trying to control the narrative due to them either being unable to solve it or not releasing information on the actual shooter for whatever reason. Keep an eye out more and more police departments will start doing this if people allow this to happen.

a reply to: Maxmars

"Anyone engaging in threats or harassment whether in person, online or otherwise needs to understand that they could be subjecting themselves to criminal charges."

— Moscow Police Department

This is interesting to me because I live in an area that is extremely lawless and a hot spot for crimes!

A local journalist (that's what he calls himself) has devoted his life to developing a Facebook page that originally was for posting just mugshots of people arrested each day!

Now that page (over the last 5 or so years) has expanded to include all sorts of local police activities, neighborhood video surveillance footage, crime news from the local area, etc...!

What's interesting though (to me at least) is that law enforcement has in the last few years also started posting and "watching" the goings on with the page! Often posting asking for the communities help in solving cases that would otherwise possibly go unsolved!

That in itself isn't the issue though...they (law enforcement) seems to be heavily monitoring personal messages between members of the group (in the DM format) and using that information also!

I suppose it is uncomfortable...but at the same time I seem to know everything I do electronically can and could be monitored at anytime from anywhere! Still it bothers me though!

Do I have a right to be bothered by it? Maybe not...maybe so...either way I still post and still DM others in the group but it does weigh on my mind that they are listening in!

My two cents for today!

a reply to: jerryznv

Something made me hesitate to respond with my first thought because the last thing I want to do is interfere or cause any harm to the successful prosecution of the case (let's hope it get's there.) But I too feel disturbed by the idea.

In my day we would have called that "spying" now in the name of virtuous justice it's called "monitoring." But we are not children, we can see that as a social convenience. The name change does not change the thing itself.

I think - generally - Our rights are whatever the hell we say they are. We don't need a "body" of government or a committee of social engineers - or ivory-tower elites 'validating' our rights. Considering the fact that it is a non-issue until someone is affected by what we think our rights are - no one should have to intrude upon your understanding of them.

Until someone declares "You have no right" the matter is moot. Until someone must cry out "This is my right!" no one need trouble themselves with the matter.

The declaration "I want to speak with people without being scrutinized and evaluated for any form of criminality" can only be answered: "Sorry friend, those day are over." The only conversations that might be 'private' are face-to-face... and truth is, if someone wants to hear you/observe you badly enough it is possible to take that away too.

My biggest complain is that I know it take a certain kind of analyst to "monitor" conversations ... would law enforcement use those kinds of analysts?... certainly no..., and especially no if it didn't help them make arrests. A hammer only sees nails, and all that.

a reply to: Maxmars

The declaration "I want to speak with people without being scrutinized and evaluated for any form of criminality" can only be answered: "Sorry friend, those day are over." The only conversations might be 'private' are face-to-face... and truth is, if someone wants to hear you/observe you badly enough it is possible to take that away too.

My biggest complain is that I know it take a certain kind of analyst to "monitor" conversations ... would law enforcement use those kinds of analysts?... certainly no..., and especially no if it didn't help them make arrests. A hammer only sees nails, and all that.

Good points! You're right...what are my rights and when do they become my rights? When I'm told they are my rights...or did I have them all along?

For decades before electronic monitoring (and all that encompasses) there were lip readers, microfilms, etc...! Were rights being violated then? Maybe...I certainly think so...but that's a long conversation with many, many arguing points! Do I have the right to expect a certain amount of privacy in my own home...another whole, different conversation! So yes...where do they begin, when, who, how...and can I be upset that they're not being respected?

So to the point of "certain analysts..."! This is my chief complaint too (in a way)! What kind of analysts are needed for this kind of "surveillance" and how are they monitored...what exactly are they monitoring...who is monitoring what they're monitoring...what are they doing with everything they're collecting...is it only for arrests...etc...??? The idea that the list is endless seems a bit scary and not right period! At the same time...are they making more arrests and does that warrant violating my rights...if I had any to begin with of course? I certainly don't think it does!

What is the scope of law for something like this? Does it exist? Maybe to some degree and I'm sure that's a whole other conversation too but how would someone (a regular fellow citizen) know about all this stuff! Is it my duty to remain vigilant and informed about this kind of thing...like they say "ignorance is no excuse"!

originally posted by: jerryznv
a reply to: Maxmars

What is the scope of law for something like this? Does it exist? Maybe to some degree and I'm sure that's a whole other conversation too but how would someone (a regular fellow citizen) know about all this stuff! Is it my duty to remain vigilant and informed about this kind of thing...like they say "ignorance is no excuse"!

The most I can say is there were certain controls on this kind of 'activity,' and those controls were removed to "catch" "terrorism," and I can say it was largely because of the efforts of political appointees and lobbyists. But frankly, any objections don't really matter because: terrorism. At the very least, there was a time when American citizens were never subjected to this kind of effort, no joke, believe it or not.

a reply to: Maxmars

At the very least, there was a time when American citizens were never subjected to this kind of effort, no joke, believe it or not.

Oh I most certainly believe it! That time has come and gone I'm afraid though!

Most know that the war on terrorism is the never-ending war...so ya...any objections don't really matter!

I'm still going to object though...because that's who I am, and political appointees and lobbyists don't represent anything that that I believe to be honorable and best for the people (very, very rarely at best)!!!

a reply to: Maxmars
Perhaps the police have a point, in that speculation and D.I.Y investigation of this kind can easily get libellous. "Libel" has always been one of the limitations on "freedom of speech".

originally posted by: jerryznv
a reply to: Maxmars

...

I'm still going to object though...because that's who I am, and political appointees and lobbyists don't represent anything that that I believe to be honorable and best for the people (very, very rarely at best)!!!

Good on you, my friend. This is the entire point of freedom of speech.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: Maxmars
Perhaps the police have a point, in that speculation and D.I.Y investigation of this kind can easily get libellous. "Libel" has always been one of the limitations on "freedom of speech".

They do have a very good point. But libel is not as cut and dry as making an allegation in casual conversation (which I believe these exchanges are...) Context is not confined to the content of the utterance, it includes the setting (and audience matters too.)

That doesn't change the wisdom of:

"Anyone engaging in threats or harassment whether in person, online or otherwise needs to understand that they could be subjecting themselves to criminal charges."

This is all around sane advice for anyone speaking in public about anything, anytime.

a reply to: Maxmars
The internet is in writing, which probably brings it into the realm of libel.
Spoken conversation is only potential slander (less permanent, more difficult to prove), where things are less stringent.

My god! Do you all live in Salem? Do non of you understand the very principle of a fair trial? Bringing it down to the bottom line (don't give me the BS about free speech) you're all alluding to trial by media. Who in gods name is going to get a fair trial if any of the jury has been tainted by your free speech, because as you know everything on the net is true.
If anyone has anything about the case they should inform the police not flash it all over FB.
If not, that's called "vigilante justice" and you have to hope that that spotlight don't get turned on you, then it's no good shouting about your innocence.

a reply to: Maxmars

I fear this is part of a growing trend with police departments.

What I am seeing in my State is that the cops have been on permanent stand-down orders for at least a year, and in the Metro areas for about 3 years. They make no effort whatsoever to solve crimes, even homicides go unsolved unless there is CCTV footage of the killing. They show up to active shooting scenes AFTER the shootings are done and over with and act as escorts for the ambulance crews. An hour or so later a CSI team shows up, gathers evidence, boxes it up and files it away.

What we are seeing however is the cops diligently monitoring the internet and plucking people up for suspicious postings and in the process, they execute search warrants to confiscate firearms.

Of course, part of this trend has been that most police forces in this State are running at anywhere from 50% to 66% manpower.

Another really odd thing they do is that there's been a huge ramp up of them shooting dogs when they execute search warrants. I don't know why.

Looks like they're creating more drama for the upcoming TV movie series 😎

originally posted by: FrancisDec
this is the police trying to control the narrative due to them either being unable to solve it or not releasing information on the actual shooter for whatever reason. Keep an eye out more and more police departments will start doing this if people allow this to happen.

If you look at this from the perspective of the police it actually makes sense.

The last thing that they want is for a bunch of arm chair detectives to do something stupid that endangers the investigation.

There are reasons why police need things like warrants, and have to be very careful about things like the chain of custody on evidence.

If an armchair detective starts throwing around accusations online they could make it impossible to put that person on trial, because they could argue that the jury pool was contaminated, or that they couldn't get a fair trial because people wouldn't separate the accusations made by the public from the evidence gathered by the police. Or something could be withheld from evidence because some blogger found it, not the police.

a reply to: crayzeed

Fair Trial? Really?

At least as the US is concerned, that concept sailed of a generation or so ago. Today, to merely be accused is to be guilty and the highest court in the land is the court of "Public Opinnion".

I do live not far from Moscow and am well aware of the gossip that tends to turn vigilante on any number of issues when the collective is convinced they know who's guilty.

The Church of Christ 'pastor', Doug Wilson, riled up a rather large group of radical protestors during covid that seriously strained Moscow's small police force. He's the preacher that believes blacks were at their strongest when slave, gays are 'F***ts', and all the other right-wing extremism.

Unfortunately, he has a large and growing following, just as the Aryan Nation did back in the day. It took many years to get them out of Idaho, and Doug seems to have taken over where Butler left off.

I don't know if 'pastor' Doug or his followers are involved in the online sleuth group, but if any of them are LE is wise to try and squash this before it turns into the months-long fiascos this guy is famous for.

To be fair, he's not the only vigilante minded person in Idaho; there are a lot of rednecks here who just don't want to be a part of the modern age and think the old ways of dealing with things were/are better.

IF the sleuth group has identified a 'viable suspect' my guess is they're stalking said person/people. At any rate, the online group has the potential to make the investigatio0n even more difficult.

I quit following the amateur discussions because too many were getting radical/crazy thinking the police weren't going fast enough or are totally incompetent and they could do it better.

I personally think LE has a good idea of who the perp(s) are but need to gather solid, hard evidence that will stand up in court before proceeding. A few key pieces may be missing, and the armchair detectives may be making that more difficult to gather.

JMHO

on one hand, it would be bad if the internet Adrian Monks' knew a name or something and were pushing
the perp/s to ground.

on the other hand it could flush something out into the open by getting them to talk online if they are that comfortable nothing solid has been given out by police.

maybe slip up and say something only the killer knew.

coz they always return to the scene of the crime!

You better watch out,
better be nice because
Idaho police is coming to night

Yep I wonder who they are going to go after people using their brain techniques to solve crimes and speculate from across the border.