We've had plenty of stories of dumb criminals being caught in surprising ways thanks to new technology. Particularly common are the criminals who confess via the internet. However, this next one is a new one: a Florida man named Scott Simon just happened to butt dial 911 at the very moment he was discussing plans to kill someone -- plans he followed through on moments later. It did not take long for the police to put two and two together and arrest Simon -- though, they're still looking for others who were with him. Of all the possible places that the phone could have accidentally dialed, it seems rather convenient that 911 was what it ended up on. Those "smartphones" really can be smart sometimes.

We've discussed in the past how tweeting jurors represent a new sort of challenge for courts, who haven't quite figured out what to make of the practice. However, the Arkansas Supreme Court recently overturned a murder conviction and ordered a new trial, because one of the jurors was tweeting occasionally during the case. As in the past, I tend to think this is a pretty big overreaction. From the tweets quoted, it does not appear he actually discussed any specifics of the case at hand, but rather some rather general thoughts:

Mr Franco tweeted: "Choices to be made. Hearts to be broken... We each define the great line."

Other tweets sent included: "The coffee here sucks" and "Court. Day 5. here we go again".

I fail to see how those should lead to the end result being suspect in any way. It doesn't appear he discussed the case at all, but merely shared some of his general thoughts. It appears the court would prefer that he pretend he not even have those thoughts at all. How does that possibly make sense? Denying someone from mentioning what they're thinking doesn't stop them from thinking what they're thinking.

I have to admit that DamnYouAutoCorrect.com has become a regular visit for me -- especially when I need a good laugh. While I get the feeling a bunch of them are faked these days, some of them are amazingly funny (this one seems to be a popular one). However, now there are some (slightly sketchy) reports coming out of the UK that an autocorrect mistake may have resulted in a murder, after some guy thought his friend was calling him a "nutter." Oddly, it was the guy whose phone made the mistake who killed the other guy, but he insists that the recipient of the misplaced "nutter" came over to his apartment with a big knife in response. Of course, the other guy also appears to have prepared himself by placing knives strategically in his apartment so he could respond. And respond he did, as the dead man apparently had over 100 injuries from the knives. I think this guy probably has got bigger problems than just his phone "autocorrecting" messages...

A tip for you would be murderers out there: if you kill someone, it's probably not going to help you stay out of jail if you then brag about it on Facebook. In this case, a teenager in France posted about the murder he had committed, and then told his sister that he did so to brag about it (not out of any kind of remorse). His sister then turned him in.

EFF has the bizarre story of a convicted murderer in Germany who is demanding that Wikipedia censor all mentions of the guy's name. Apparently, he (and his lawyers) are using a part of German law that allows for the protection of "names and likenesses of private persons from unwanted publicity." However, as the EFF points out, he's not a private person. He became a very public person when he was tried and convicted (along with his half-brother) for killing Bavarian actor Walter Sedlmayr. Apparently, his lawyers are going after multiple service providers, trying to get the guy's name taken off the internet. The EFF points out that the press has published the two convicted murderers' names for Sedlmayr's death: Wolfgang Werle and his half-brother Manfred Lauber, and that this appears to be nothing more than an attempt to censor history across multiple borders.

Back in January, we wrote about the murder trial of teenager Daniel Petric, who had killed his mother and shot and wounded his father. Daniel had attempted to use the ever popular "blame the video game" approach, claiming that he was addicted to the game Halo 3, and when his parents took away the game, he was so addicted that he went and shot them both not believing that death was permanent. Luckily, the judge rejected that ridiculous argument, though still did seem to question video games. Of course, there was significant additional evidence, including details that Daniel had planned for weeks beforehand to kill his parents, suggesting this had a lot more to do with a mentally disturbed teen than with an "addiction to violent video games."

But why let that get in the way of a good story. Mark alerts us to the Associated Press's coverage of Petric's sentencing to 23-years in jail, pointing out how ridiculous the AP's opening sentence is:

A Ohio teen who shot and killed his mother and wounded his minister father was sentenced Tuesday to 23 years in prison for crimes rooted in his obsession with video games with violent themes.

Beyond the grammatical mistake (should be "An" not "A"), it's simply not correct that the crimes were "rooted in his obsession with video games with violent themes." The rest of the article again focuses on Daniel's supposed "addiction," as if that's the cause of his actions. Part of it is that the judge seemed to buy into this story as well, claiming:

It's my firm belief that after a while the same physiological responses occur that occur in the ingestion of some drugs. And I believe that an addiction to these games can do the same thing...

The other dangerous thing about these games, in my opinion, is that when these changes occur, they occur in an environment that is delusional. Because you can shoot these aliens, and they're there again the next day. You have to shoot them again. And I firmly believe that Daniel Petric had no idea, at the time he hatched this plot, that if he killed his parents, they would be dead forever.

Now, it may be that Petric had no idea they'd be dead forever, but that wouldn't be because of video games. It would be because of some sort of severe mental problem on his part. Study after study after study has shown that teens can tell reality from fiction. On top of that, as violent video games have become more popular, incidents of youth violence have continued to drop. If video games were really having such an impact, it would be the reverse. Petric was obviously a very disturbed teen, and yes, he played violent video games (just like nearly every other kid his age, I'd imagine), but it's ridiculous to blame his decision to murder his parents on those games. He'll now be locked up for decades, not because of any video game, but because of his own disturbed decision to shoot his parents.

Romenesko points us to the news that a journalism student who witnessed a murder (and took some photos) in San Francisco is now trying to use California's journalist shield law to refuse to cooperate with police. The law is intended to protect journalists from having to reveal sources -- and we've noted a few recent lawsuits where "amateur" journalists have been trying to use such shield laws to protect their sources. In some of those discussions, some people pointed out that people might just automatically declare themselves a journalist to get covered by the law, though it seemed like that could be dealt with on a case-by-case basis -- and this case may push the borderline a bit.

The student was acting as a photo journalist, as part of his senior project, documenting the life of the guy who was shot and killed. His lawyer points out that part of the reason for such shield laws is so that reporters can observe and report without becoming a part of cases as witnesses. However, some would argue that's really meant for reporters who are investigating the details of a crime, not those who witnessed the crime in action. On top of that, there's the issue that, if the student does provide info to the police, his own life would be put in danger as well. I'm a big supporter of shield laws for journalists, and understand what the student is doing, but wonder if a judge might use this case to puncture a hole in those shield laws.

What is it with curmudgeonly journalists who jump at any opportunity to blame the internet? JJ sends in a link to a bizarre column by Christie Blatchford in Toronto's Globe and Mail where she appears to simply go off on all of "cyberspace" due to something having to do with a murder... though, the connection isn't clear at all. Perhaps this is par for the course for Blatchford, who we also mentioned last year when she wrote a nasty column slamming blogging and the idea that readers might want to comment on news stories. To her, "journalism is a monologue." Yet, this latest column seems somewhat disconnected from reality. It pieces together a few separate and somewhat unrelated things to effectively try to indict the entire internet and internet culture for the death of a teen.

To be honest, Blatchford (the professional) does a pretty poor job even explaining what she's so upset about -- but she seems pretty sure that it's the internet to blame. From what I can gather, a woman (or maybe a teen? it's not clear) was killed by a teen, and another teen was convicted of first degree murder for being the "mastermind." Fair enough.

So why is the internet evil?

From what I can parse out, there are four main complaints:

1. Friends of the convicted girl have set up a Facebook group supporting her, despite her conviction.
2. They dared to use her real name as you would expect friends to do -- rather than obeying the Youth Criminal Justice Act, which forbids naming such juvenile offenders.
3. The messages in support from her friends have terrible spelling and grammar.
4. The two teens involved in the murder text messaged each other a lot -- including at least two conversations where they discuss going to the bathroom, and a few conversations where they discuss sexual acts.

And, that's about it. But, you see, all this points out how the internet is such an evil influence. In fact, Blatchford seems quite upset that in the trial convicting the girl, no one has focused on "the role that was played by the web - enabling and empowering at the least" the murder itself. First, it's unclear what the first three awful points raised above had to do with the internet's influence on the murder itself. As for the final point -- it's about SMS text messaging rather than "the web" (but I guess we shouldn't expect a luddite to distinguish), and it's still not clear what role it actually had (if anything). The same conversations could have (and perhaps would have) taken place via voice over the phone as well if SMS wasn't around. These kids were obviously troubled, but there doesn't seem to be any indication (at least from what's presented) that technology (let alone the web) had anything to do with it, whatsoever. But why should that stop an angry columnist from blaming it?

"Wife murdered for Facebook status," screams the headline on the BBC News site. "A man murdered his estranged wife after becoming 'enraged' when she changed her marital status on Facebook to 'single'," it goes on to say, after a man in England was convicted of killing his estranged wife who wouldn't respond to any of his attempts to contact her. Apparently changing the Facebook status was the final straw, but to say she was murdered because of it seems like little more than an overly ambitious attempt to craft a really juicy headline. This woman was murdered because her estranged husband went nuts; Facebook was hardly an accessory. While this may not seem like a huge deal, it's these sorts of stories that spring politicians into action against technology, blaming it for society's ills while ignoring the real underlying problems. I mean, if people are getting killed for their Facebook status, surely we need to ban Facebook statuses, right? To protect the children?

All too often these days, we've seen murderers try to pass off the blame for their crimes by blaming video games. This comes after years of techno panic around weak and often misinterpreted studies concerning links between video games and violence. Despite the fact that there's been no actual evidence that video games lead to increased violence (and the fact that youth violence has continually dropped as video games became more popular should be quite telling), it makes for a great news story -- and, thus, a great excuse for murderers. Luckily, no one's buying it.

In the latest such case, where teen-aged Daniel Petric shot both his parents, killing his mother and wounding his father, after they took away his copy of Halo 3, a judge has rejected Petric's claim that it was his video game addiction that inspired the murder (and subsequent attempt to frame his father). It probably didn't help the teen's case at all that there was evidence he had planned the murder for weeks, rather than spontaneously acting following the video game confiscation. The judge still does, unfortunately, suggest that the video game warped Petric's mind, despite little proof that was true. However, the judge notes that even if he was under the influence of the video game, that's no defense for what he did.

In the meantime, of course, politicians are still overreacting to the still unproven idea that video games lead to violence -- to the point that Rep. Joe Baca has introduced a law that would require health warnings on video games, similar to cigarette warnings, saying that: "WARNING: Excessive exposure to violent video games and other violent media has been linked to aggressive behavior." So, it certainly looks like politicians and the media will continue overreacting when it comes to video games and violence.