Michigan Wolverines football fan who threatened to harm Ohio State players sentenced (Associated Press)

Submitted by GoBlueinEugene on October 27th, 2020 at 1:20 PM

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- A California man's threats to harm college football players because they beat his favored team epitomized "fandom spiraled out of control,'' something that can't be ignored in the age of mass shootings, a federal judge said Tuesday as he handed down sentence of one year and a day over the 2018 threats.

Daniel Rippy, of Livermore, California, a Michigan native and University of Michigan fan, used Facebook Messenger to threaten a shooting at Ohio State University during its annual game against Michigan, and vowed to hurt players on the football team and then-head coach Urban Meyer, authorities said.

And...

Rippy made similar threats against Gonzaga University on its Facebook page three days before the football game, after the Gonzaga men's basketball team defeated Duke University on Nov. 21, 2018, the government revealed for the first time in an Oct. 7 court filing. Rippy is a Duke fan, the government said.

Man, fuck this guy. 

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/30202749/michigan-wolverines-football-fan-threatened-harm-ohio-state-players-sentenced

Maison Bleue

October 27th, 2020 at 1:26 PM ^

Well, someone didn't do their fact-checking... You can't be a Michigan fan AND a Duke fan, science doesn't allow it.

Anyways, I am sure this guy will be okay, he always has his Michigan and Duke degrees to fall back on.

Don

October 27th, 2020 at 1:58 PM ^

 he always has his Michigan and Duke degrees to fall back on.

Nowhere does the article say he's a grad of either Michigan or Duke. Given his career choice, I'm willing to bet the answer is he never spent one minute in a classroom at either institution:

"Rippy, a Michigan fan who grew up in Grand Rapids, Michigan, moved at age 27 to California, where he worked in fast food but couldn't maintain a residence, the government said."

Vote_Crisler_1937

October 27th, 2020 at 1:40 PM ^

Did anyone else wonder if a certain former poster would make an appearance in this article? Yeah. Me neither. 
 

And I totally condemn the fan in the article’s actions and glad he is facing consequences. 

Booted Blue in PA

October 27th, 2020 at 2:20 PM ^

we inexplicably denounce such actions and any individual or group who would make such abhorrent threats

 

we will not speak any further on this topic as to not give the guilty party any more attention

Arb lover

October 27th, 2020 at 3:14 PM ^

The sad thing about defendents with psycological issues is that sometimes they are simply unable to articulate or raise blatantly obvious questions. 

By all accounts this was a guy without a home living in some tent city in California with significant psychological issues. It's really incredible that the defense raised this as an argument but the judge didn't even have him evaluated (he's been incarcerated since January). Judge Marbley, speculated, remotely, in issuing the sentence, that this guy has psycological issues. Maybe that could have, you know, been explored given the half asleep public defender raised it as the defense.

Also, they probably should have discussed whether this crazy person had the intent/means to carry this out. CLEARLY THREATENING VIOLENCE IS REALLY BAD, but there's a point at which it's just a crazy person without a home 2,500 miles away, with no weapon and no means of even getting to the applicable states/cities who probably just needs help. I absolutely think police intervention was appropriate, but mostly to make sure the guy wasn't a threat, and then maybe to book him for therapy and public nuisance. 

Teeba

October 27th, 2020 at 4:44 PM ^

     This story reminds me of the only time I served on a jury. California enacted a "domestic terrorist threat" law as a response to 9/11. A man threatened to kill his girlfriend, drove an hour to her house, and circled the block waiting for her to come home. On her way home, she stopped at a store, called the cops and asked for an escort home just in case. So they were waiting for the guy. He saw them, threw something out the car window (they thought it was a gun but couldn't find it) and then was arrested. We unanimously found him not-guilty of making a terrorist threat. Afterwards, the prosecutor asked to talk with the jury. After the case, the jury is free to go or to talk with the attorneys. They told us this was the first time this new statute was being litigated and the prosecutor's office wanted to see how a jury would interpret the intent of the law. We would have found him guilty of a lesser charge, but "terrorism" seemed like an overreach.