What are the odds of this being another William Freund?

Post Reply New Topic

Not a bad follow-up article but it irks me that they still make it out like his posts were coherent and clear threats that one could have definitely acted upon.

They make it sound like he openly made specific threats and announced specific plans, whereas in fact his posts were highly incoherent and some contradicted each other (including the comment about Halloween - he was talking about scaring kids with a laser gun, not about killing anyone!), so it was anything but a clear cut case where you could say with any certainty that he was actually serious, and that the police needed to be informed.

The whole article.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me ... -headlines

November 2, 2005 latimes.com : California Print

Threats Online: Is There a Duty to Tell?
An Aliso Viejo man's menacing postings foretold his rampage. Chat room operators wonder how they would handle a second case.

By Kimi Yoshino, William Lobdell and Christian Berthelsen, Times Staff Writers


The operators of an Asperger's syndrome message board on which an Orange County teen threatened a "terror campaign" in the days before he killed his two neighbors and himself said Tuesday that they felt no responsibility to have alerted authorities to the threat.

Yet within a few hours of the shooting, there was soul-searching and second-guessing among members of the online forum even though they had tried to seek out the shooter's parents before the incident.


The case has renewed questions about the responsibility of website managers to monitor and act on violent comments made online.

"There has been some talk of what do we do in the future when somebody posts. How do we handle this kind of situation?" said Dan Glover, 17, co-founder of wrongplanet.net, a resource for people with Asperger's syndrome. "It's difficult. Whose responsibility is it?"

Those are among the many questions raised in the aftermath of Saturday's shooting in Aliso Viejo in which William Freund donned a dark cape and paintball mask and terrorized his neighborhood. He shot and killed Vernon Smith, 45, and Smith's daughter, Christina, 22. He fired at a house and tried to shoot another neighbor, but his shotgun jammed. Then he walked home and killed himself, firing once into his torso.

The shooting came days after Freund posted messages threatening to "start a Terror Campaign to hurt those that have hurt me." In other messages, he wrote of buying a gun and ammunition and contemplating suicide.

Website moderators tried to contact Freund's parents but did not want to call police, fearing it would complicate his already difficult life. They did alert authorities to Freund's postings after the shootings.

Some of the website operators said they felt guilty and sick to their stomachs. Many agreed they would learn from the experience. Already, they were debating privacy policies and better oversight of the online forums. And one of the founders said they would probably do things differently next time.

Experts agree they had no legal obligation to contact authorities.

"Are we going to impose a legal obligation on a 17-year-old and a 19-year-old who want to do something good for people and to take the time to read all the postings and figure out which ones they need to react to and which ones they can ignore? The law has generally said no," said Jennifer Granick, executive director of the Center for Internet and Society at Stanford University.

"There's a tendency when something terrible like this happens to look for a place to point the finger, but saying that a website owner … has resources and education to stop things like this from happening goes too far."

Orange County Sheriff's Department spokesman Jim Amormino did not assign blame or fault, but said: "Any time somebody becomes aware that anybody is going to commit any kind of violence, law enforcement would love to be notified."

Had they known about Freund, Amormino said, law enforcement officials would have investigated to see whether it was possible for him to carry out the threat and tried to contact him.

"I'm not saying in this case it would have helped," Amormino said. "We may not have been able to locate him in time."

On wrongplanet.net, co-founder Alexander Plank, 19, said members "reached out to this guy. They didn't say, 'Go away. We don't want suicidal people.' They helped him. They worked with him. They got him to a place where he wanted to go to a hospital. If you have that inside you, what people say to you isn't really going to matter."

But they stopped short of calling authorities. Moderators tried to contact his parents but were unsuccessful after finding dozens of Freunds listed in the phone book. They also blocked Freund from posting links to pro-suicide websites.

In the Web's brief history, postings that foreshadowed murders and suicides have prompted extensive debate among ethicists and legal experts.

There is a high legal threshold to prosecute Internet threat cases. Judges have thrown out cases involving Internet messages, including one involving a student's fantasies of raping, torturing and killing a fellow student. Cyberspace is also a place where people exaggerate and say things they would never do. Identifying users can be problematic, especially on ailment-related sites like wrongplanet.net, where anonymity and false names are common and respecting privacy may be an issue.

Kevin Bankston, staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco, said there was no apparent legal duty for Web or online community hosts to monitor users' communications and report problems to authorities unless child pornography was involved.

If there were a requirement, it would be "onerous" and difficult to uphold, said Bankston, whose nonprofit group advocates free speech and innovation.

The federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act prohibits providers of communications from disclosing confidential personal information about their clients to the government unless the provider "reasonably believes that an emergency involving immediate danger of death or serious physical injury to any person" exists.

But that exception allows notification; it does not require it.

In Southern California, several cases involving Internet threats involved students. In 1998, UC Irvine student Richard Machado was convicted of civil rights violations in the first successful prosecution of making threats in cyberspace after he sent e-mails to 62 students with Asian surnames at the school saying he would "find and kill every one of you personally." He was sentenced to one year in prison.

"Here you had a situation where the writer expressed a specific intent to do harm to individuals," said Michael Gennaco, a former assistant U.S. attorney who prosecuted the case.

Freund never specified targets.

Throughout a 10-day period preceding the Oct. 29 shootings, Freund made repeated oblique references to hurting people in posts that were littered with spelling and grammatical mistakes.

"IM gona Cause Alot off damage with my remigton 870," he wrote on Oct. 15. "Its the synthetic Kind so IT looks very modern, And is super heavy to whack people with."

The following day, he wrote of anticipated mayhem on Halloween, and wrote "guess what I have … A real shotgun. ITs gona be a fun halloween."

Also in 1998, a man confessed to an Internet support group for alcoholics that he had killed his 5-year-old daughter in North Dakota. Members debated whether authorities should be alerted. A few members contacted police, and later that year, Larry Froistad Jr. pleaded guilty to the murder and was sentenced to 40 years in prison.

And in 2003, a Riverside Polytechnic High School student was arrested on suspicion of threatening to "shoot up a school" in a message posted on the website of rapper 50 Cent. The FBI's Internet Tip Service was contacted just hours after the message was posted. A Riverside County district attorney's spokeswoman could not release results of the case because the student was charged as a juvenile.

Totally agree Noetic. I didn't like the way they made out that Dan and Alex were shirking responsibility for the massacre either. I may not agree with the way the media has been approached, but you can't fault our admins for caring so much and working so hard. Like they have time to read all posts and report any possibly illegal activity to the authorities?

Although the media haven't been too sensationalist overall, you can't help but read that the reason Will Freund did this horrible thing was because he had Asperger's, even if not all aspies are the same.

Let's get this straight once and for all: his Asperger's may or may not have had anything to do with his behaviour. If not, then even a mention of his Asperger's in any of these articles is inappropiate, let alone the close focus we've been given. Joe Public will be thinking a) Asperger's caused him to do this and b) the public should be potentially scared of Aspies. No doubt about it. There will be a small minority that will think for themselves, but they are probably capable of finding out and understanding Asperger's themselves anyway.
Even someone specifically stating that Asperger's had nothing to do with it will get Mr Average spluttering into his morning coffee, going "yeah right, them autistics are all crazy"...

Sorry, I try to be positive about this exposure for us, but in this context I just can't

We can't even be 100% certain the guy even had Asperger's!

Agreed. I'm uncomfortable with that first line about "no responsibility" too.

On this today's Good Morning America, I didn't like how the narrator asked the rhetorical question of "COULD ASPERGERS CAUSE SOMEONE TO COMMIT ACTS LIKE THIS?"

And there are, of course, some inaccuracies and misrepresentations here and there in the coverage, but it seems to be okay...better than I thought. We just have to keep a close watch on it.

Same. I think that stems from the 'what is the right course of action to take?' and has been misunderstood.

Before I go on here, just want to let you know up front that I'm D-R-J's mom and not D-R-J speaking right now.. I will open my own account (I think I have one too, as I sent my older boys here to join up and participate last year), but didn't want to do that right now and look like one of the other new folks here trying to glean info... Just wanted you to know from where I'm coming from....

I am also very uncomfortable w/that statement by the Times. What also is disturbing is that there were a number of other sites he frequented, like the pro-suicide sites. If all the sudden people are questioning responsibility, Why do they not bear the same amount of responsibility? I'm sure if he made these kinds of statements here, he was probably more graphic and specific there.

To single out this particular community is short-sighted and unfair. I'll be writing to the times about that part--it really needs to be emphasized to them. Why WP is being focused on is because it was the only source that was willing to step forward and stick its neck out (that we know about.. maybe behind the scenes the others have come forth, but I highly doubt it..). Instead of pointing fingers of blame or responsibility, that should be noted and acknowledged in a favorable light.

They are also forgetting to emphasize that this is not a site providing professional help, and none of us are qualified as medical or psychological practitioners because of our participation here. Even if some here are mental health workers, they are not here in that capacity. I help co-moderate a couple of lists. An Asperger list primarily for parents and caregivers, but also many adults w/AS, and a list for parents of children w/Bipolar. In the past we've had some instances and situations where very sticky situations come up like this. More on the Bipolar site. When one of our parents is suicidal, the only thing we are allowed to do is refer them to suicide hotlines and encourage them to get there. We cannot do it for them. If we have a way of contacting loved ones, of course we will do what we can--but we are specifically prohibited from practicing therapy or anything like that. We've gone back and forth between the moderators trying to figure out how we can be proactive and have enough ways to contact loved ones if something like this were to come up. The big thing is there are definite privacy issues and lines that we cannot cross. No one here is personally responsible for what happened, and the administrators of WP are definitely not responsible.

If WF had come forth with a specific threat against a specific person that's a whole different ball game. He didn't do that. Plus usually when one is really going to do something like this, they're not going to be talking about it--what you have to worry about is when they suddenly stop talking about it w/o any indication why.

Anyways, just thought I'd share a few of my thoughts. I definitely will be writing to the times.

This is a really valuable community. I'm glad you're here.

wow!

You made my day.

BeeBee

eyeenteepee

I had a cousin that committed suicide earlier this year it was by a hand gun that he purchased at a gun store. The gun owners just asked a few types of questions, then there is a waiting period for background checks, if You pass them which they contact state and federal agencies that deal in criminal backgound checks. If You pass this then You can go back purchase the gun.

It is more through that You think.

I agree that none of the members or moderators are responsible for what happened. I also agree that when an adult member is suicidal there is not much we can do besides offer as much emotional support as we can, give telephone numbers of suicide hotlines, and urge him or her to seek professional help.

However, Freund threatened to harm other people. The 'starting a terror campaign' post was a good example of this. I am definitely not condemning any administator's actions in dealing with this. Like them, I am young. I am only 18, and do not have enough life experience to know how to effectively handle a situation as difficult as this one.

I have been thinking about how this could have been better handled, before the tragedy occurred. I do believe that in the future, administrators should contact authorities when a member claims to harm to other people. Even though we are not therapists, we could use their general policies. Everything is confidential until there is a threat of endangering other people. Even if threatening posts are discovered to be false, at least we know that no crimes were committed. As the saying goes, 'It is better to be safe, than sorry.'

Last edited by Bec on 02 Nov 2005, 1:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

We can't bring this fellow back but we can learn something from this. I see no reason for any person on this list to feel responsible for the outcome. William Freund is to blame.

Hindsight is easy and always so efficient. What if one of us had found his parents in the phone book? They might have been so jaded from other instances that they might have ignored the call.

What if the police had been contacted? I have a lot of experience in trying to alert police to the possible danger of unstable peers and it is usually fruitless.

We can only do our best. Perhaps the list could have a protocol set up so that if/when another such person appears, a series of actions will be taken to alert families and authorities. But we also have to recognize that some people, no matter what we do, will find a way to avoid help and do themselves in.

The best way to use this incident is to learn from it. None of you are guilty of anything but sadness and compassion for a person who trajically left our world way too early.

Jerry Newport

I wanted to tape it but in the end I forgot to set the VCR. Wretched absentmindedness, ughh...

Jerry, I agree with what you wrote. We should not blame ourselves.

Last edited by magic on 02 Nov 2005, 1:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.

thank you, D-R-J's mum, and jerry.

as one of the "professionals", i absolutely agree with what you say - even if i were here in a professional capacity, the work one can do over the internet is very limited and basic. i wish it were otherwise.

Hi, everyone. I'm new here. This thread is about what alerted me to the existence of this site, and, well, we can hope that there really is no such thing as bad publicity.

This is my first post, so I will let people know a little about me in one paragraph. I am male, overweight, 45, may have a bad heart, live in impoverished circumstances, and not in good mental condition, and yes I am a drama queen, but a straight rendition of my problems sounds really bad. I also have a broken neck that bothers me. I feel like I will not have the cooperation from my mother that I need to get a better job than the one I am looking forward to, or to help me get into the disability system, which takes time that I do not have (winter coming in), and I have a crappy rundown trailer to try to take care of and keep the bills paid. To tell you the truth, I am either going to start catching up tonight, the first day on a new job, or I am going to be hospitalized with a massive heart attack. It is wrong for me to risk my life this way but I've backed myself into a corner. Maybe I was irrational after I lost my last job. I was being mindful of the burning in my chest. I was sick with dread of going to the hospital and having what little remained of my control over my life taken out of my hands. I keep thinking that I am going to finish my book and it's going to make lots of money. This possibility actually looks promising but finishing any project, no matter how simple, is very difficult for me. Of course I also have to take into account the poor success rates for first time authors.

This will sound like I'm selling something, and maybe I am. To me, social responsibility is not fulfilled by calling in the authorities every time it looks like something bad is going to happen. I may or may not be Asperger's myself. The definition at the top of the page is like my problems. I have trouble relating to society. It's like being on the wrong planet, a phrase that I've used before I got here, although I often say that it's the wrong timeline. I look at the ways that people act that are allegedly acceptable to society. I can't believe that it's real. None of that **** can be real. Not even the diagnosed mentally disabled seem to be quite that stupid, in quite that way. Certain kinds of stupidity are learned. The learning disabled are harder to teach to be wilfully stupid.

Truly desparate people need somewhere to go and they need help from people who have good judgement and good hearts. I myself have helped three desparate people substantially in the last five years. Now one of them has a college degree and a good job. Another looks like she will have a decent job and will be living in a better place. A third has a daughter in college and I was instrumental in helping do this. I helped her with homework and materials, and both of them with money for essentials.

Did I screw myself this week by walking into the temp agency, seeing the job that they had to offer, and saying "I'll take it"? I'm anxious. This job could kill me. The last job very nearly did. I'm looking at rewards that could be very good. If I survive the process of adapting to this job, then I can finish my book and publish it and maybe, just maybe retire on the proceeds. Or at least have enough money to buy a car so I can drive to places that have less strenuous jobs like night security. I'm healthy enough to walk at a reasonable pace for hours at a time. If I do make it through the adaptation period, I should be able to settle down and just work it and be fine. If no one decides to mess me up again. We don't have to worry about me doing violence against anyone if they do, though. I will probably be in intensive care afterwards. Maybe I'll be able to listen to the beep of the heart monitor and divine yet another secret of the universe. Anyway, if I pop up here again Friday or Saturday, I've made it through the first week.

More relevant to the thread, I can see why people would think that Freund's posts were fakes and this was a setup. I haven't looked for any yet. I don't know if they are still around to read. I've only read the first and last pages of this discussion. I know where someone who seems to be a phony is coming from. He doesn't know if he's saying what he means, what he wants to say. He snatches cliched phrases out of whatever he reads or hears. Some of this is gallows humor. "I'm just hanging around." Anyway, are we looking for someone to blame? If someone wants to play the blame game, I will happily start a thread for it. We'd be right on one of my favorite axes to grind. It could be fun because I'm a little bit off my axis.

One point I wanted to make is that I think that the schizophrenics or the Asperger's people are the least likely to commit an act of violence. My experience with my own life and with other people, and things I have read all tell me that such people are the targets of violence, often continually used as punching bags by other people. When I was a child, my mother used me as a punching bag. She even punished me for defending myself against bullies. It was just one damn thing after another with that. People sometimes go off their nut and retaliate, having used up the energy of their very souls to try to live a blameless life while dealing with crazy, violent people who seem to hold all the cards and who even grin while they torture people. They've been forced to hold it in, to become a vessel for impacted violence. The worst injustice here is that they always seem to pick people who have a natural inclination against violence, who love puppies and kittens and flowers, who will give someone the cloak off his back and the money out of their pockets if they need it. Then we all get screwed because the idiots then say "Look, he's showing us his violent tendencies. Uhk uhk uhk. Schizos violent. Uhk uhk snort."

"Could Asperger's cause someone to commit an act like that?"

Doesn't that just say it. We automatically say that society doesn't make people do things like that, so we write it off as the symptom of a disease. Anyone who is diagnosed becomes suspect as a potentially violent person. The ones who are not diagnosed then have a free pass. We know what kind of murder and mayhem is committed by the undiagnosed.

Such rhetorical questions and manipulation lead people to believe that it is OK to discriminate against people who are diagnosed with any mental disability, in order to protect society from the ravening hordes of schizophrenics who are bent on destroying it, I guess. Then they think it's OK to perform their tortures that would inspire anyone to acts of violence. A "normal" person is considered to be entitled to a defense of himself and his property. A "mentally disabled" or otherwise suspect person is considered to have a life and house that are open books for inspection and criticism by any number of morons. Even if this isn't completely true legally, it is true socially. Then those who cooperate earn the contempt of those who persuaded them to cooperate.

Remnant

Welcome to WP!! !

We are all trying to answer the questions about why under these trying times.

I hope You better time with WP as the days go on.