Hoax Reports

[Ric Burney]

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcon...s/DN-hoaxes_02tex.State.Edition1.4bd37db.html
Looks like someone is going to get more attention than they wanted... FBI is investigating.

 

[Rob Wadsworth]

This kind of thing happened last year as well. There was a very large thread about it here on Stormtrack. I don't remember the name of that thread - maybe someone will chime in with it and post that link here.

There have been changes made, as far as Tyler Allison's was concerned. I believe it was one of the very reasons that he put out the storm spotter testing online. People who would report storms thru his software online would have to be verified clients.

Of course, this doesn't stop John Q Public from doing the same thing using a telephone and calling in false reports to the NWS. Small wonder the FBI has gotten involved. Under PDS circumstances, someone who knowingly reposts falsely can mislead emergency services from where they may be needed most. Or - confuse those in the NWS who are trying to get adequate warning to those who are in most in need of it. This amounts to terrorism; and the FBI won't stand for that.

Decent subject for a thread; now someone needs to post last years thread as the prime example...

 

[Ric Burney]

Ah, might this be the one? http://www.stormtrack.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21130
I thought I remembered reading this one a while back.
Just goes to show ya, the first three signs of senility are a failing memory and I can't remember the other two.

 

[Stephen Barabas]

Ruh roh. Someone is going to get into trouble! That's not cool at all, though. Jeopardizing peoples lives is stupid. Crying wolf on purpose is the worst thing someone can do in a science where it's hard enough to get truth and accuracy in dangerous weather reports. Stupid stupid people.

 

[Rob Wadsworth]

Ah, might this be the one? http://www.stormtrack.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21130
I thought I remembered reading this one a while back.
Just goes to show ya, the first three signs of senility are a failing memory and I can't remember the other two.

Nah, that isn't the one. But it is just as well that link is also brought in as well.

Some of the vets here can probably remember the name of that thread - I just can't. Drawing a blank...

 

[Chris Lott]

Is everyone talking about the "Bobbie Cookie" thread?

http://www.stormtrack.org/forum/showthread.php?t=18218&highlight=Bobbie+Cookie

 

[Rob Wadsworth]

Thaaaaaats It!!!
Thanks...I couldn't remember the name...Interesting read if you want to read about a 'hoax player'...

 

[David Reimer]

Im glad to see the Dallas Media would pick this up. Im also glad to see something is being done about false reports.

 

[Jim Saueressig]

By all standards it terrorism.

 

[mikedeason]

By all standards it terrorism.

Huh? Could you elaborate on that?

 

[Jason Boggs]

By all standards it terrorism.

I wouldn't quite go that far.

 

[Jim Saueressig]

Huh? Could you elaborate on that?

Using a hoax to terrorize people:

Definitions of terrorize:

terrify: fill with terror; frighten greatly
terrorization - the act of inspiring with fear

We could go on but essentially I could see someone being charged with terrorism for this if they were caught though I think it would be a reach.

 

[Tim Vasquez]

Well, that definition of terrorism would cover most practical jokes. I'm not a lawyer but I'd imagine that this would fall more under the scope of unlawful interference with official duties or emergency services.

Tim

 

[Tim Vasquez]

Actually it occurred to me that the real definition of terrorism is already defined by legal documents, so I looked it up. In USC 18 Section 2331 it says:

(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

I concede the definition does fit, barely, but it's kind of heavy handed and I'm not sure any prosecutor would charge them with that kind of offense unless there was serious loss of life involved.

Tim

 

[Rob Wadsworth]

You certainly did the homework. Tim

However, one must remember that people will often be charged with a greater offense, and then the prosecution would re-file and charge the accused for a more suitable, lesser charge to attain a conviction. Something like terrorism if there is any conspiracy or extensive pre-meditation involved; false report to a fed agency if a prank. But neither is treated lightly, and prosecution will follow. Depending entirely on meditation and extenuating circumstances - of course. Probably a few other factors to boot...

The FBI are rabid and staunch in their zeal to investigate and arrest, and then let the DOJ charge and prosecute. If someone should start a dumb/crazy/stupid/intentional act as this - it compels them to follow through.

Getting someone hurt or mislead emergency crews in the wrong direction by a prank -and if there should be any loss of life because of it? Aii-yii-yii!!!
Something about 'throwing the book' at someone comes to mind...