Police Department Statement Uses Davis-Vanguard-Like Illogic to Conflate Doxxing and Bomb Threats

Comments

14 responses to “Police Department Statement Uses Davis-Vanguard-Like Illogic to Conflate Doxxing and Bomb Threats”

1. Oct 4, 2023 2:40 PM

   Donna Lemongello

   What conflicting people say is one thing, but what actually becomes enforceable law is another.

   Reply
2. Oct 4, 2023 3:26 PM

   South of Davis

   I’ve noticed that “both sides” will bring up a “false flag” if it looks like someone on “their side” did something stupid (like a library bomb threat). I have also noticed that for some reason only those on the political right seem to go to jail when they get caught in a “false flag” (the gay black guy in IL who lied about the white MAGA guys pouring bleach on him never went to jail but the straight white lady in CA that lied about two Hispanic woman kidnapping her did go to jail).
   Despite a law that prohibits protesting in front of judges homes nobody did anything when protestors (who I support since I’m “pro-choice on everything) were in front of Judge Kavanaugh’s home for a month when we all know that if a pack of right wing crazy people showed up in front of judge Brown Jackson’s home today they would be locked up faster than you can can say January 6th…

   Reply
3. Oct 4, 2023 4:54 PM

   Roberta L. Millstein

   Alan, some of the bomb threats were made directly to specific DJUSD employees — to their homes. That makes a connection between doxxing and bomb threats. It’s not to say that it was the same person who doxxed and made bomb threats, of course, but it is a connection.

   Reply
4. Oct 4, 2023 5:19 PM

   Keith

   I hope the chief is looking into over the top rhetoric and doxxing coming from both sides of this issue and not just zeroing in on one side which appears to be the case when reading his statement.

   Reply
5. Oct 4, 2023 6:47 PM

   Alan C. Miller

   RLM – Yes, aware of what may be a connection, but is not, as far as the public knows, a proven connection, which was my objection.
   KO – I suspect the reason there was an implied connection was more city-political influence on that statement than what the police/FBI are actually doing as law-enforcement agents.

   Reply
6. Oct 5, 2023 8:37 PM

   Jeff Shaw

   My understanding is that local person or group posted information about specific DJUSD employee, that was then picked up and spread by Libs of Tik Tok (who has been targeting DJUSD a lot), and the specific bomb threat followed that same morning as the LoTT post. Even without knowing the contents of the bomb threat email, which the police have, and I think Davis Vanguard maybe received, the connection is not that far-fetched or illogical. Just follow Libs of Tik Tok on twitter to see who they target, and who sends them the target.

   Reply
7. Oct 5, 2023 11:38 PM

   Alan C. Miller

   The connection is logical. What I am talking about is causality, intent, blame, responsibility. If someone ‘picks up on’ and ‘spreads’ something publicly posted, and then a loon calls in a bomb threat, is that the fault of the original poster if their intent was not to call in a bomb threat? As I’ve said, I don’t particularly like BB, M4L, or the tactics they have used or their attitude. But unless they intended for a loon to call in a bomb threat, I don’t see how they are any more to blame than Bernie Sanders is for that Bernie supporter who shot at a bunch of congresspersons.
   But if they posted specific things online about individuals that meet a criminal definition of doxxing, then go after them for that. Unless it can be shown their intention (if they crossed that criminal line) was to have someone threaten to bomb their houses and schools, I don’t see how they are at fault.
   What Riley Gaines did I find more having intent, to harass, by giving out the library number to tens-of-thousands of people. Even there I don’t see being able to link that to what a loon decides to do.

   Reply
8. Oct 6, 2023 6:48 AM

   South of Davis

   Alan wrote:

   What Riley Gaines did I find more having intent, to harass, by
   giving out the library number to tens-of-thousands of people.
   I think it is important to make a difference between an intent to just “harass” or an actual intent to “change” something (that may result in a lot of calls and seem like they are just harassing you).
   If a BLM message board posted the number of the Davis library and told people to “harass” them or blow air horns when the phone was answered I think it is a crime, but if they told people to call and ask that they replace the original version of Huck Finn with the new PC version I don’t think it would be a “crime” (despite the fact that all the calls would be a pain for library staff).
   I HATE unsolicited calls and I still think we should ban all “robocalls” (and publicly beat the people that set them up with sticks) but as much as I dislike the calls I don’t think it should be a crime for people to call me at home or work and ask me to change something.

   Reply
9. Oct 9, 2023 4:36 PM

   Jeff Shaw

   When you post a picture of a teachers classroom window with a rainbow flag in it, and a bomb threat happens after that, I’m glad you agree there may be a connection that should be investigated. It seems hardly “illogic” as your headline says. It appears the police think it is logical as well, and they are careful to say “may constitute criminal doxing.”
   While I don’t know what the standard is for “criminal” doxing, posting a photograph of someones window (with whatever flag they are flying in it) seems a bit inflammatory in and of itself.

   Reply
10. Oct 10, 2023 11:54 AM

    Keith

    “While I don’t know what the standard is for “criminal” doxing, posting a photograph of someones window (with whatever flag they are flying in it) seems a bit inflammatory in and of itself.”
    It wasn’t “someone’s” window like a private homeowner’s, it was in the window of a public classroom. If that constitutes criminal doxing then in my opinion we have entered into a scary over authoritarian society.

    Reply
11. Oct 10, 2023 1:03 PM

    Alan C. Miller

    I don’t much like any of the loud players on this issue or how people are acting in public meetings. There is a lot of inflammatory rhetoric, and I don’t take second-hand characterizations of ‘doxxings’ or other acts as absolute fact, but do consider as possible fact. I know many with nuanced views, and few care to speak out for fear of being fried on the third rail.
    What I don’t buy is someone speaking their political views and being a pain in the ass equals their being responsible for setting off a loon or loons to commit the felony of calling in a bomb threat. I don’t like their behavior, nor do I like Riley Gaines giving out the library phone number to tens of thousands of people with a heavy political bent in her camp. These things don’t further discussion, but rather are political stunts. And if the doxxing crosses the line, prosecute. So far we’ve heard nothing that those cases are moving forward (I’m sure DG will blame our DA).
    BUT, my complaint is about the cause and effect, trying to blame someone speaking views one doesn’t like as being the cause of the bomb threat. I feel strongly on this, as I’ve been a left-wing environmental activist all my life, supporting non-violent protest, and have seen activists set-up and framed for ‘environmental terrorism’ for acts they did not commit, by the dogmatic establishment trying to shut down and silence their voices. To be clear, I have never supported violent protest, and for me that includes vandalism, and those people should be prosecuted.
    The principle is the same. Everyone has a voice in this country, even those in small minorities that you don’t like. Protest them, but silence them to your own peril. I don’t like Nazis, but I Muskogee their right to march even if I strongly disagree with their views.

    Reply
12. Oct 11, 2023 9:14 AM

    Ron O

    David Greenwald: “I really was hoping not to have to do another column on the local Moms for Liberty, but unfortunately, I feel that the tactics by the local leadership continue to escalate matters into rather dangerous territory.”
    Uh, huh. You “had to” do so.
    “Several people wrote to the Vanguard late last night, expressing alarm at the latest social media post by Beth Bourne.”
    Another word for those people might be “the usual suspects”. I’ve seen some of the nasty stuff some of them write on Beth’s Facebook page (as well as on the Vanguard and Davisite), which (by allowing it to remain there) exposes them and their views. These people are self-identifying.
    “However, she then wrote, “I’ve also included the names of the 900 plus people in this town who believe it’s okay to tell children that their biological reality means nothing.”
    Coming from an arrogant, narcissistic bully who encourages his own commenters to look up and post the locales of other commenters whom he (and they) disagree with. And then encourage to attack on that basis. (Which incidentally, has nothing to do with potential responsibility for local property/parcel taxes.)
    But at some point, if you’re posting the names of 900 people (which I haven’t actually seen Beth do), you’re not “doxxing” – you’re conducting a census. Anyone trying to target 900 people has their work cut out for themselves. (For that matter, didn’t a lot of those people already publicly lend their name in support of “hatred” of Moms for Liberty?)
    Don’t let the Vanguard and the extremists bully you, Beth. The issues that you raise are legitimate, though it seems to me that the medical interventions are the more-important issue. I feel bad for those who are victimized by a system which encourages and pays for this, especially when they’re minors. And if their parents also “support” this, it’s even more-concerning.
    Some may view you as extreme (and maybe you are), but it usually takes an “extremist” to expose issues. I’m inclined to agree with your description of this as a medical “scandal”, which actually is a societal issue (beyond individuals).
    Despite how this issue is being framed by the “trans rights” extremists, it actually has nothing to do with rights (or acceptance of people, themselves). That’s what you’d call a “red herring”. At least within Davis, no one is going to be attacked or rejected based upon their gender preferences. (As it should be.)
    https://www.davisvanguard.org/2023/10/commentary-tactics-continue-to-escalate-will-law-enforcement-now-follow-through-on-chief-pytels-warning/

    Reply
13. Oct 11, 2023 2:31 PM

    Ron O

    To be clear, it’s the Vanguard itself that encourages doxxing.
    As far as the bomb threats are concerned, the “trans rights” people (as they like to label themselves) are simply using this as yet another tool to encourage hatred toward folks like Beth.
    If one takes those threats at face value (and not a “false flag”), they’re actually not directed toward those who view themselves as transgender. Instead, they’re directed at those who are perceived as “harming children” (whether or not one agrees with that).
    It’s not unlike the George Floyd protestors, who targeted motorists. They weren’t protesting against motorists – even though motorists were the victims. Sometimes literally, in regard to physical attacks against them.
    In contrast, climate change protesters may be protesting against motorists, themselves. But this group strikes me as the most peaceful of all, in that they don’t seem to represent a physical/personal danger to anyone, from the videos I’ve seen. (Just a massive inconvenience, as well as tying up police resources like any other disruptive protester.)

    Reply
14. Oct 16, 2023 5:21 PM

    Civil Discourse

    Alan C Miller- I suppose I just don’t see the “illogic” in the statements made by the Police. This article didn’t clarify that argument for me. Anyway, related to this topic, the local journalism class released this episode: https://kdrt.org/audio/doxing-debacle

    Reply