|
On September 14 2011 23:21 Fir3fly wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2011 23:09 Thorakh wrote:On September 14 2011 23:04 Fir3fly wrote:On September 14 2011 22:28 Cain0 wrote:
He's a fat little dwarf. He's probably just trying to make himself feel better by hurting others.
Also, 4 months isn't enough for what he did, I think it should be more like a year. im offended by your comment, i want you to go to jail for a year, i was left in shock and almost in tears from it. Grow the fuck up and realise that not everyone has an ironclad skin. Get some respect, honestly. Not every person can handle the most horrible verbal abuse you can think off. Great post Brett. Its not about having ironclad skin, its about cutting your losses and not getting in a vulnerable situation. you want internet? then you're going to have to deal with assholes. you want to get anywhere in business? then you're going to have to deal with assholes. you want to work in a pub? then you're going to have to deal with assholes. you want to work as a policeman? then you're going to have to deal with assholes. dont be such a moron. :o, i called you a moron, are you going to cry about it? or are you going to think "hmm, he is an angry young man with clearly different morales and opinions than me" or "this is making me angry, i should ignore him before i get more angry" the only way you'll ever get anywhere and learn anything is if you put away your tear-ducts and learn about other peoples opionions and morals. Kids of today are growing up like pansys because "OH BETTER NOT HURT THE CHILDREN." Also, i agree, it is a good post by Brett, sheding some light on the legality of it. EDIT: so i dont have to double post. im still at loss of words for the facebook memorium, i mean, that IS what drew attention to it. what, did she want "50,000 [random] likes for my dead daughter plz" we dont need that shit on facebook. and if she didnt put it up there then none of this would've happened.
Just because people will exhibit behaviour X, does not mean that society or the law can, will or should tolerate it, ignore it, or fail to prosecute it.
If a person leaves their car unlocked, it should not be stolen. Sure, the dumbass should have locked the car, but it's still an offence to jump into another person's car and drive off with it without their permission.
If a person doesn't erect 3 metre high fences around their property, their white feature wall should not be subjected to graffiti. Sure, it might be a good idea for them to take precautionary measures to protect their property, but it's still an offence to go and draw a big hairy dick on your neighbour's wall.
If a person decides to make a facebook memorial page, and doesn't put certain restrictions on it for some reason or another, it should not be subjected to derogatory, offensive and malicious communications. Sure, it might have been a good idea to restrict it, but it's still an offence to harass the shit out of the page's author.
The law does not require people to act to the n'th degree to protect their rights, property, freedoms and general enjoyment because the law is that protection and the person acting against that law DOES NOT HAVE TO PURSUE THEIR ACTIONS. They don't have to steal that car. They dont have to grafiti the wall. They dont have to harass grieving family members by shitting on the memory of the deceased. Sure, intelligent people will act to protect themselves from these criminals, but they shouldnt have to. They are doing nothing wrong.
|
|
|
I believe that it is right that this troll has been put to justice. What he has done is very messed up, and I can only wonder what has happened with humankind. Where are we heading in this world?
|
On September 14 2011 23:37 Brett wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2011 23:21 Fir3fly wrote:On September 14 2011 23:09 Thorakh wrote:On September 14 2011 23:04 Fir3fly wrote:On September 14 2011 22:28 Cain0 wrote:
He's a fat little dwarf. He's probably just trying to make himself feel better by hurting others.
Also, 4 months isn't enough for what he did, I think it should be more like a year. im offended by your comment, i want you to go to jail for a year, i was left in shock and almost in tears from it. Grow the fuck up and realise that not everyone has an ironclad skin. Get some respect, honestly. Not every person can handle the most horrible verbal abuse you can think off. Great post Brett. Its not about having ironclad skin, its about cutting your losses and not getting in a vulnerable situation. you want internet? then you're going to have to deal with assholes. you want to get anywhere in business? then you're going to have to deal with assholes. you want to work in a pub? then you're going to have to deal with assholes. you want to work as a policeman? then you're going to have to deal with assholes. dont be such a moron. :o, i called you a moron, are you going to cry about it? or are you going to think "hmm, he is an angry young man with clearly different morales and opinions than me" or "this is making me angry, i should ignore him before i get more angry" the only way you'll ever get anywhere and learn anything is if you put away your tear-ducts and learn about other peoples opionions and morals. Kids of today are growing up like pansys because "OH BETTER NOT HURT THE CHILDREN." Also, i agree, it is a good post by Brett, sheding some light on the legality of it. EDIT: so i dont have to double post. im still at loss of words for the facebook memorium, i mean, that IS what drew attention to it. what, did she want "50,000 [random] likes for my dead daughter plz" we dont need that shit on facebook. and if she didnt put it up there then none of this would've happened. Just because people will exhibit behaviour X, does not mean that society or the law can, will or should tolerate it, ignore it, or fail to prosecute it. If a person leaves their car unlocked, it should not be stolen. Sure, the dumbass should have locked the car, but it's still an offence to jump into another person's car and drive off with it without their permission. If a person doesn't erect 3 metre high fences around their property, their white feature wall should not be subjected to graffiti. Sure, it might be a good idea for them to take precautionary measures to protect their property, but it's still an offence to go and draw a big hairy dick on your neighbour's wall. If a person decides to make a facebook memorial page, and doesn't put certain restrictions on it for some reason or another, it should not be subjected to derogatory, offensive and malicious communications. Sure, it might have been a good idea to restrict it, but it's still an offence to harass the shit out of the page's author. The law does not require people to act to the n'th degree to protect their rights, property, freedoms and general enjoyment because the law is that protection and the person acting against that law DOES NOT HAVE TO PURSUE THEIR ACTIONS. They don't have to steal that car. They dont have to grafiti the wall. They dont have to harass grieving family members by shitting on the memory of the deceased. Sure, intelligent people will act to protect themselves from these criminals, but they shouldnt have to. They are doing nothing wrong.
100% Agree. Let's have people tell us how to behave and totally disregard personal responsibility because it's really working out so far. Besides, I'm pretty sure if you're negligent in securing your property you won't be covered by insurance. Isn't that based in law?
|
On September 14 2011 23:37 Brett wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2011 23:21 Fir3fly wrote:On September 14 2011 23:09 Thorakh wrote:On September 14 2011 23:04 Fir3fly wrote:On September 14 2011 22:28 Cain0 wrote:
He's a fat little dwarf. He's probably just trying to make himself feel better by hurting others.
Also, 4 months isn't enough for what he did, I think it should be more like a year. im offended by your comment, i want you to go to jail for a year, i was left in shock and almost in tears from it. Grow the fuck up and realise that not everyone has an ironclad skin. Get some respect, honestly. Not every person can handle the most horrible verbal abuse you can think off. Great post Brett. Its not about having ironclad skin, its about cutting your losses and not getting in a vulnerable situation. you want internet? then you're going to have to deal with assholes. you want to get anywhere in business? then you're going to have to deal with assholes. you want to work in a pub? then you're going to have to deal with assholes. you want to work as a policeman? then you're going to have to deal with assholes. dont be such a moron. :o, i called you a moron, are you going to cry about it? or are you going to think "hmm, he is an angry young man with clearly different morales and opinions than me" or "this is making me angry, i should ignore him before i get more angry" the only way you'll ever get anywhere and learn anything is if you put away your tear-ducts and learn about other peoples opionions and morals. Kids of today are growing up like pansys because "OH BETTER NOT HURT THE CHILDREN." Also, i agree, it is a good post by Brett, sheding some light on the legality of it. EDIT: so i dont have to double post. im still at loss of words for the facebook memorium, i mean, that IS what drew attention to it. what, did she want "50,000 [random] likes for my dead daughter plz" we dont need that shit on facebook. and if she didnt put it up there then none of this would've happened. Just because people will exhibit behaviour X, does not mean that society or the law can, will or should tolerate it, ignore it, or fail to prosecute it. If a person leaves their car unlocked, it should not be stolen. Sure, the dumbass should have locked the car, but it's still an offence to jump into another person's car and drive off with it without their permission. If a person doesn't erect 3 metre high fences around their property, their white feature wall should not be subjected to graffiti. Sure, it might be a good idea for them to take precautionary measures to protect their property, but it's still an offence to go and draw a big hairy dick on your neighbour's wall. If a person decides to make a facebook memorial page, and doesn't put certain restrictions on it for some reason or another, it should not be subjected to derogatory, offensive and malicious communications. Sure, it might have been a good idea to restrict it, but it's still an offence to harass the shit out of the page's author. The law does not require people to act to the n'th degree to protect their rights, property, freedoms and general enjoyment because the law is that protection and the person acting against that law DOES NOT HAVE TO PURSUE THEIR ACTIONS. They don't have to steal that car. They dont have to grafiti the wall. They dont have to harass grieving family members by shitting on the memory of the deceased. Sure, intelligent people will act to protect themselves from these criminals, but they shouldnt have to. They are doing nothing wrong.
GREAT POST Sir!!
|
On September 14 2011 23:33 hypnoxide wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2011 23:26 Brett wrote:On September 14 2011 23:12 hypnoxide wrote:On September 14 2011 23:09 brachester wrote:On September 14 2011 23:07 hypnoxide wrote:On September 14 2011 23:05 brachester wrote:On September 14 2011 22:46 hypnoxide wrote:On September 14 2011 22:44 brachester wrote:On September 14 2011 22:28 Fir3fly wrote:oh god oh god. dont even get me started. all he needed was a banned from the facebook page.then it would've stoped and that would be it. and at any rate, what sort of mother makes a shitty facebook page in memoriam? thats more fucked up than what he did imo. this is honestly nothing but "hurr durr cyber bullies" if you guys think this is bad, you should've read some of the old archives of ED. (before it turned shithouse) some kid killed himself cause he lost his ipod = a bunch of people "hacked" into his myspace and made him the golden ipod award infront of all his friends and family. (its also where the phrase "an hero" came from) this is fucking pathetic and more proof of how the older people do not know about the younger technologies. we're literally in a fucked up time right now. and im going to end before i start up on freedom of speech. + Show Spoiler +hurr durr cant say how i feel cause i might hurt some retard's feelings :c :c :c :c what's your problem really? what he did was not merely a "troll", it was on another level of disrespect toward a dead person. Would you ever steps on the corpse of your dead grandfather? If you say yes, i have nothing more to say. I always have to laugh at this modern conception of "respect". Why are corpses and dead people venerated? On September 14 2011 22:46 Holgerius wrote:On September 14 2011 22:44 hypnoxide wrote:On September 14 2011 22:38 Holgerius wrote:
[quote]
So you suggest we shouldn't have laws against battery, because it might be hard to say where the line goes between nudging someone and actually beating someone?
Laws are hard to define so that they're 100% clear and set in stone, and many of them are up to interpretation to a certain degree. 1. an unlawful application of force 2. to the person of another 3. resulting in either bodily injury or an offensive touching. Laws are clear and set and stone otherwise they are poorly written. And FYI, if you don't get it, nudging someone accidentally is not offensive touching. How is ''an offensive touching'' clearly defined? XD You're trying to be a smart ass and it's not really working out for you. Offensive touching is qualified by the preceding requirement "an unlawful application of force", ergo, offensive touching would be an unlawful application of force not resulting in bodily injury. your response makes me lose hope in humanity I like how you clearly define why you feel that way. It lets me know your opinion is of worth. Nowadays the word "respect" is thrown around too often and people expect it to be automatically given instead of earned. your point sir? That I hope you don't expect me to dwell on your opinion if you can't justify or reason it. On September 14 2011 23:09 Thorakh wrote:On September 14 2011 23:04 Fir3fly wrote:On September 14 2011 22:28 Cain0 wrote:
He's a fat little dwarf. He's probably just trying to make himself feel better by hurting others.
Also, 4 months isn't enough for what he did, I think it should be more like a year. im offended by your comment, i want you to go to jail for a year, i was left in shock and almost in tears from it. Grow the fuck up and realise that not everyone has an ironclad skin. Get some respect, honestly. Not every person can handle the most horrible verbal abuse you can think off. Great post Brett. Hell yeah. Be sanctimonious, take the moral high ground and insult people just like those you're getting mad about. On September 14 2011 23:11 Brett wrote:On September 14 2011 23:04 Fir3fly wrote:On September 14 2011 22:28 Cain0 wrote:
He's a fat little dwarf. He's probably just trying to make himself feel better by hurting others.
Also, 4 months isn't enough for what he did, I think it should be more like a year. im offended by your comment, i want you to go to jail for a year, i was left in shock and almost in tears from it. Don't be stupid. Gain an understanding of the offence and the state of the law, or you should probably stay out of this discussion. Your overexaggeration is not assisting you in making any relevant counter argument. No, the point being made is that people feel insulted and become offended for different things. What if he was legitimately upset about the comments posted? The definition being so flimsy and people getting insulted by an array of different things make this so ridiculous. The obvious and relevan counter point which largely settles this issue and makes his point stupid is that the law and the experience of the people making law has not come down in the last shower. Law makers in this instance and many others world wide have seen fit to make it illegal to make malicious communications to others via various means. What constitutes a malicious communication is determined either by statutorily defined limits or CENTURIES of case law being interpreted by experienced practitioners of the law. Do not sit here and try to argue that it is reasonable for Fir3fly to be 'offended, shocked, and almost in tears' for this man to be called a fat little dwarf, the law and those charged with upholding it are not so daft. And please dont sit there and insinuate that that one comment correlates to the parents of deceased children receiving continued communications designed (or at the very least known or understood) to illicit such emotional reaction... Your arguments are weak enough as it is. I never said he was justified in his over-exaggeration, I was saying that the German law posted by the user (whose name I don't remember) was open to interpretation and, in my opinion it is thus a poor law. If every moron thinks they can seek legal recourse because some asshole insulted them on the internet it would likely result in a slowed down justice system which is, depending on where you are from, slow enough as it is. Just because a legal practitioner isn't completely stupid and knows that it has no grounds doesn't mean that some random on the street is going to know that.
well as mentioned. It just isn't that easy as quoted in the law. The definition of this isn't dealt with in the law itself cause this would probably fill a couple of books and is dealt with by experts who've been argueing about that kind of stuff for ages and at last by the judges.
I do agree that it's not transparent for the general public to understand it, because it's not even explained there. However, it's just not that simple that you could add it to the paragraph within a couple pages.
|
Just 5 months? Well I'm glad he got at least that and I hope he gets his tough ass handled there.
|
On September 14 2011 23:43 RA wrote:
Just 5 months? Well I'm glad he got at least that and I hope he gets his tough ass handled there.
^ You heard it first here folks, rape the kid with Aspergers in jail and give him more than five months for saying some shit.
How is it all these people are of this state of mind yet a majority of TL seems to be against capital punishment? (Yet I agree with it in some cases and still think this is stupid?!)
On September 14 2011 23:37 Brett wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2011 23:21 Fir3fly wrote:On September 14 2011 23:09 Thorakh wrote:On September 14 2011 23:04 Fir3fly wrote:On September 14 2011 22:28 Cain0 wrote:
He's a fat little dwarf. He's probably just trying to make himself feel better by hurting others.
Also, 4 months isn't enough for what he did, I think it should be more like a year. im offended by your comment, i want you to go to jail for a year, i was left in shock and almost in tears from it. Grow the fuck up and realise that not everyone has an ironclad skin. Get some respect, honestly. Not every person can handle the most horrible verbal abuse you can think off. Great post Brett. Its not about having ironclad skin, its about cutting your losses and not getting in a vulnerable situation. you want internet? then you're going to have to deal with assholes. you want to get anywhere in business? then you're going to have to deal with assholes. you want to work in a pub? then you're going to have to deal with assholes. you want to work as a policeman? then you're going to have to deal with assholes. dont be such a moron. :o, i called you a moron, are you going to cry about it? or are you going to think "hmm, he is an angry young man with clearly different morales and opinions than me" or "this is making me angry, i should ignore him before i get more angry" the only way you'll ever get anywhere and learn anything is if you put away your tear-ducts and learn about other peoples opionions and morals. Kids of today are growing up like pansys because "OH BETTER NOT HURT THE CHILDREN." Also, i agree, it is a good post by Brett, sheding some light on the legality of it. EDIT: so i dont have to double post. im still at loss of words for the facebook memorium, i mean, that IS what drew attention to it. what, did she want "50,000 [random] likes for my dead daughter plz" we dont need that shit on facebook. and if she didnt put it up there then none of this would've happened. Just because people will exhibit behaviour X, does not mean that society or the law can, will or should tolerate it, ignore it, or fail to prosecute it. If a person leaves their car unlocked, it should not be stolen. Sure, the dumbass should have locked the car, but it's still an offence to jump into another person's car and drive off with it without their permission. If a person doesn't erect 3 metre high fences around their property, their white feature wall should not be subjected to graffiti. Sure, it might be a good idea for them to take precautionary measures to protect their property, but it's still an offence to go and draw a big hairy dick on your neighbour's wall. If a person decides to make a facebook memorial page, and doesn't put certain restrictions on it for some reason or another, it should not be subjected to derogatory, offensive and malicious communications. Sure, it might have been a good idea to restrict it, but it's still an offence to harass the shit out of the page's author. The law does not require people to act to the n'th degree to protect their rights, property, freedoms and general enjoyment because the law is that protection and the person acting against that law DOES NOT HAVE TO PURSUE THEIR ACTIONS. They don't have to steal that car. They dont have to grafiti the wall. They dont have to harass grieving family members by shitting on the memory of the deceased. Sure, intelligent people will act to protect themselves from these criminals, but they shouldnt have to. They are doing nothing wrong.
I disagree that this should be against the law in the first place. I do think all those other things you mentioned should be against the law and they don't even have the easily places safeguard that a banstick is.
Again though, let's see you prosecute everyone who tells someone else to die over the internet, because that's clearly the best use of law enforcement funds.
|
On September 14 2011 23:46 HereticSaint wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2011 23:43 RA wrote:
Just 5 months? Well I'm glad he got at least that and I hope he gets his tough ass handled there. ^ You heard it first here folks, rape the kid with Aspergers in jail and give him more than five months for saying some shit. How is it all these people are of this state of mind yet a majority of TL seems to be against capital punishment? (Yet I agree with it in some cases and still think this is stupid?!)
Knee-jerking over-reactionaries.
|
On September 14 2011 23:28 HereticSaint wrote:
Here's the thing man, I completely understand why in an otherwise utopian society this would be such a big deal, however we aren't in such a society. I understand laws and how laws and laws and if you break them you should be punished (Again, whether this should be punishable is another issue), however that isn't the direct issue here. The direct issue here is this is such a rampant problem, (AKA: If I game online not a day goes by that I don't get a death threat, mocked about someone in my family dying, attacks that are racist or homophobic in nature, etc) that when you get down to the nitty gritty of it, you aren't going to stop it or really even slow it down by prosecuting one individual.
Either ramp it up, or knock it off and I'm inclined to say knock it off when you consider that there are a million other larger issues that could use those funds in a better way but instead are being wasted on this issue which has methods of stopping it or at least significantly slowing it down already, such as banning the accounts and or IP's of the individuals, are there ways around it? Sure, at least until those start getting circumvented this shouldn't even be considered a "maybe" court issue.
That's also neglecting his Aspergers.
All I'm going to say regarding you is that your side of the debate already appears to be the minority and yet you are contradicting one another in what seems every other post, you say it's "centuries of case law" and yet someone else says "it's because the mother was offended". Well bub, until every single troll is going to court you're wrong.
Well, with respect, the fact of the matter is that the criminal law, in some way, shape or form, has been in place for thousands of years. Crime continues to exist despite this fact. But nobody else seems to think that we should stop prosecuting all those other crimes. Why? Because there are other factors to be considered in the prosecution of crime other than the concept of general deterrence. Go and look into sentencing principles. It will show you a myriad of reasons for prosecutions to continue despite inefficacy of criminal prosecutions with respect to the concept of general deterrence.
This sort of harassment has real, lasting psychological effects on those concerned. It is worthy of prosecution. That's not really up for discussion....
As to your last paragraph, sure, a minority in this very small internet forum thread. Step outside of this sphere however, particularly into the 18+ demographic away from the internet and I'm absolutely certain that I'm not in the minority.
Also, my reference to case law is not contradictory at all. It can be both. Case law often provides PRINCIPLES, not strict examples to be followed, because every case is different and the specific circumstances of each case need to be considered and applied to the elements of each offence.
|
On September 14 2011 23:46 HereticSaint wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2011 23:43 RA wrote:
Just 5 months? Well I'm glad he got at least that and I hope he gets his tough ass handled there. ^ You heard it first here folks, rape the kid with Aspergers in jail and give him more than five months for saying some shit. How is it all these people are of this state of mind yet a majority of TL seems to be against capital punishment? (Yet I agree with it in some cases and still think this is stupid?!)
I think you will find that a vast majority of all the people who argue that it's right to prosecute this guy will agree that this guy's comment was dumb.
|
On September 14 2011 23:41 hypnoxide wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2011 23:37 Brett wrote:On September 14 2011 23:21 Fir3fly wrote:On September 14 2011 23:09 Thorakh wrote:On September 14 2011 23:04 Fir3fly wrote:On September 14 2011 22:28 Cain0 wrote:
He's a fat little dwarf. He's probably just trying to make himself feel better by hurting others.
Also, 4 months isn't enough for what he did, I think it should be more like a year. im offended by your comment, i want you to go to jail for a year, i was left in shock and almost in tears from it. Grow the fuck up and realise that not everyone has an ironclad skin. Get some respect, honestly. Not every person can handle the most horrible verbal abuse you can think off. Great post Brett. Its not about having ironclad skin, its about cutting your losses and not getting in a vulnerable situation. you want internet? then you're going to have to deal with assholes. you want to get anywhere in business? then you're going to have to deal with assholes. you want to work in a pub? then you're going to have to deal with assholes. you want to work as a policeman? then you're going to have to deal with assholes. dont be such a moron. :o, i called you a moron, are you going to cry about it? or are you going to think "hmm, he is an angry young man with clearly different morales and opinions than me" or "this is making me angry, i should ignore him before i get more angry" the only way you'll ever get anywhere and learn anything is if you put away your tear-ducts and learn about other peoples opionions and morals. Kids of today are growing up like pansys because "OH BETTER NOT HURT THE CHILDREN." Also, i agree, it is a good post by Brett, sheding some light on the legality of it. EDIT: so i dont have to double post. im still at loss of words for the facebook memorium, i mean, that IS what drew attention to it. what, did she want "50,000 [random] likes for my dead daughter plz" we dont need that shit on facebook. and if she didnt put it up there then none of this would've happened. Just because people will exhibit behaviour X, does not mean that society or the law can, will or should tolerate it, ignore it, or fail to prosecute it. If a person leaves their car unlocked, it should not be stolen. Sure, the dumbass should have locked the car, but it's still an offence to jump into another person's car and drive off with it without their permission. If a person doesn't erect 3 metre high fences around their property, their white feature wall should not be subjected to graffiti. Sure, it might be a good idea for them to take precautionary measures to protect their property, but it's still an offence to go and draw a big hairy dick on your neighbour's wall. If a person decides to make a facebook memorial page, and doesn't put certain restrictions on it for some reason or another, it should not be subjected to derogatory, offensive and malicious communications. Sure, it might have been a good idea to restrict it, but it's still an offence to harass the shit out of the page's author. The law does not require people to act to the n'th degree to protect their rights, property, freedoms and general enjoyment because the law is that protection and the person acting against that law DOES NOT HAVE TO PURSUE THEIR ACTIONS. They don't have to steal that car. They dont have to grafiti the wall. They dont have to harass grieving family members by shitting on the memory of the deceased. Sure, intelligent people will act to protect themselves from these criminals, but they shouldnt have to. They are doing nothing wrong. 100% Agree. Let's have people tell us how to behave and totally disregard personal responsibility because it's really working out so far. Besides, I'm pretty sure if you're negligent in securing your property you won't be covered by insurance. Isn't that based in law?
WTF does the a person's insurance policy have to do with the criminality of the grafiti artist's actions? Nothing. Stay on topic.
Further, you're right, this is entirely about personal responsibility. The responsibility of the criminal NOT to commit criminal offences... Nobody forced this idiot to pursue his course of action.
|
I don't think he should be jailed, what he did isn't a crime, instead they could just let the girl's father have a go at him
|
Knee-jerking over-reactionaries.
Well I'd rather say that a lot of people get off on that stuff. You have those in basically every online community - usually a bunch of people who wouldn't dare to speak up the slightest bit outside.
Anyways I was laughing just a couple weeks ago how ridiculous it was that they arrested people for clapping in Belarus. Now they arrest someone for something that is at best an insult in the uk. Great world here.
|
On September 14 2011 23:51 Brett wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2011 23:28 HereticSaint wrote:
Here's the thing man, I completely understand why in an otherwise utopian society this would be such a big deal, however we aren't in such a society. I understand laws and how laws and laws and if you break them you should be punished (Again, whether this should be punishable is another issue), however that isn't the direct issue here. The direct issue here is this is such a rampant problem, (AKA: If I game online not a day goes by that I don't get a death threat, mocked about someone in my family dying, attacks that are racist or homophobic in nature, etc) that when you get down to the nitty gritty of it, you aren't going to stop it or really even slow it down by prosecuting one individual.
Either ramp it up, or knock it off and I'm inclined to say knock it off when you consider that there are a million other larger issues that could use those funds in a better way but instead are being wasted on this issue which has methods of stopping it or at least significantly slowing it down already, such as banning the accounts and or IP's of the individuals, are there ways around it? Sure, at least until those start getting circumvented this shouldn't even be considered a "maybe" court issue.
That's also neglecting his Aspergers.
All I'm going to say regarding you is that your side of the debate already appears to be the minority and yet you are contradicting one another in what seems every other post, you say it's "centuries of case law" and yet someone else says "it's because the mother was offended". Well bub, until every single troll is going to court you're wrong. Well, with respect, the fact of the matter is that the criminal law, in some way, shape or form, has been in place for thousands of years. Crime continues to exist despite this fact. But nobody else seems to think that we should stop prosecuting all those other crimes. Why? Because there are other factors to be considered in the prosecution of crime other than the concept of general deterrence. Go and look into sentencing principles. It will show you a myriad of reasons for prosecutions to continue despite inefficacy of criminal prosecutions with respect to the concept of general deterrence. This sort of harassment has real, lasting psychological effects on those concerned. It is worthy of prosecution. That's not really up for discussion.... As to your last paragraph, sure, a minority in this very small internet forum thread. Step outside of this sphere however, particularly into the 18+ demographic away from the internet and I'm absolutely certain that I'm not in the minority. Also, my reference to case law is not contradictory at all. It can be both. Case law often provides PRINCIPLES, not strict examples to be followed, because every case is different and the specific circumstances of each case need to be considered and applied to the elements of each offence.
Maybe I'm wrong but it still feels like even the people being more reasonable about this but still thinking he deserves harsher punishment than being banned from social networking are glazing over the issue that we don't have infinite space in our prison systems nor for investigations and prosecutions. There are bigger issues out there, sure we still prosecute robberies even though there are murders and assaults, but I dunno to me it just feels that this is a minor enough issue with other safeguards in place (such as banning accounts and IP's) that unless someone circumvents those measures that this shouldn't even be considered a possible court case.
|
On September 14 2011 23:37 Brett wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2011 23:21 Fir3fly wrote:On September 14 2011 23:09 Thorakh wrote:On September 14 2011 23:04 Fir3fly wrote:On September 14 2011 22:28 Cain0 wrote:
He's a fat little dwarf. He's probably just trying to make himself feel better by hurting others.
Also, 4 months isn't enough for what he did, I think it should be more like a year. im offended by your comment, i want you to go to jail for a year, i was left in shock and almost in tears from it. Grow the fuck up and realise that not everyone has an ironclad skin. Get some respect, honestly. Not every person can handle the most horrible verbal abuse you can think off. Great post Brett. Its not about having ironclad skin, its about cutting your losses and not getting in a vulnerable situation. you want internet? then you're going to have to deal with assholes. you want to get anywhere in business? then you're going to have to deal with assholes. you want to work in a pub? then you're going to have to deal with assholes. you want to work as a policeman? then you're going to have to deal with assholes. dont be such a moron. :o, i called you a moron, are you going to cry about it? or are you going to think "hmm, he is an angry young man with clearly different morales and opinions than me" or "this is making me angry, i should ignore him before i get more angry" the only way you'll ever get anywhere and learn anything is if you put away your tear-ducts and learn about other peoples opionions and morals. Kids of today are growing up like pansys because "OH BETTER NOT HURT THE CHILDREN." Also, i agree, it is a good post by Brett, sheding some light on the legality of it. EDIT: so i dont have to double post. im still at loss of words for the facebook memorium, i mean, that IS what drew attention to it. what, did she want "50,000 [random] likes for my dead daughter plz" we dont need that shit on facebook. and if she didnt put it up there then none of this would've happened. Just because people will exhibit behaviour X, does not mean that society or the law can, will or should tolerate it, ignore it, or fail to prosecute it. If a person leaves their car unlocked, it should not be stolen. Sure, the dumbass should have locked the car, but it's still an offence to jump into another person's car and drive off with it without their permission. If a person doesn't erect 3 metre high fences around their property, their white feature wall should not be subjected to graffiti. Sure, it might be a good idea for them to take precautionary measures to protect their property, but it's still an offence to go and draw a big hairy dick on your neighbour's wall. If a person decides to make a facebook memorial page, and doesn't put certain restrictions on it for some reason or another, it should not be subjected to derogatory, offensive and malicious communications. Sure, it might have been a good idea to restrict it, but it's still an offence to harass the shit out of the page's author. The law does not require people to act to the n'th degree to protect their rights, property, freedoms and general enjoyment because the law is that protection and the person acting against that law DOES NOT HAVE TO PURSUE THEIR ACTIONS. They don't have to steal that car. They dont have to grafiti the wall. They dont have to harass grieving family members by shitting on the memory of the deceased. Sure, intelligent people will act to protect themselves from these criminals, but they shouldnt have to. They are doing nothing wrong.
touche, sir.
i simply did not think about it like that.
however, i do believe that "telling the police whenever he gets a mobile with internet" is a bit overdramatic, same as the 4 months of prison. although i suppose it does depend on how far he took it, if it was just defacing some facebook page, then that is nothing really of concern in my honest opinion, coninuing with your analogy, its as though she put the paint cans right next to the wall, or left the keys in the car and put a sign up: "free car", sure it doesnt MEAN that they HAD TO TAKE IT, but its purely asking for it. what more is there to expect?. unless he was seriously stalking the woman, a fine or such, would be more than enough.
|
@hypnoxyde : you realize there's a difference between being willingly witty and acting like a douche ? Because it seems not and it makes the reading of this topic extremly uninteresting.
|
On September 14 2011 23:54 jace32 wrote:
I don't think he should be jailed, what he did isn't a crime, instead they could just let the girl's father have a go at him
Yeah, society would be real great if we used methods like that...
|
On September 14 2011 23:55 Holgerius wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2011 23:54 jace32 wrote:
I don't think he should be jailed, what he did isn't a crime, instead they could just let the girl's father have a go at him Yeah, society would be real great if we used methods like that...
It accomplishes just as much as jailing the guy with Aspergers for doing it, especially with some peoples lovely comments about how they hope he gets raped and or beaten in prison.
|
On September 14 2011 23:53 Brett wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2011 23:41 hypnoxide wrote:On September 14 2011 23:37 Brett wrote:On September 14 2011 23:21 Fir3fly wrote:On September 14 2011 23:09 Thorakh wrote:On September 14 2011 23:04 Fir3fly wrote:On September 14 2011 22:28 Cain0 wrote:
He's a fat little dwarf. He's probably just trying to make himself feel better by hurting others.
Also, 4 months isn't enough for what he did, I think it should be more like a year. im offended by your comment, i want you to go to jail for a year, i was left in shock and almost in tears from it. Grow the fuck up and realise that not everyone has an ironclad skin. Get some respect, honestly. Not every person can handle the most horrible verbal abuse you can think off. Great post Brett. Its not about having ironclad skin, its about cutting your losses and not getting in a vulnerable situation. you want internet? then you're going to have to deal with assholes. you want to get anywhere in business? then you're going to have to deal with assholes. you want to work in a pub? then you're going to have to deal with assholes. you want to work as a policeman? then you're going to have to deal with assholes. dont be such a moron. :o, i called you a moron, are you going to cry about it? or are you going to think "hmm, he is an angry young man with clearly different morales and opinions than me" or "this is making me angry, i should ignore him before i get more angry" the only way you'll ever get anywhere and learn anything is if you put away your tear-ducts and learn about other peoples opionions and morals. Kids of today are growing up like pansys because "OH BETTER NOT HURT THE CHILDREN." Also, i agree, it is a good post by Brett, sheding some light on the legality of it. EDIT: so i dont have to double post. im still at loss of words for the facebook memorium, i mean, that IS what drew attention to it. what, did she want "50,000 [random] likes for my dead daughter plz" we dont need that shit on facebook. and if she didnt put it up there then none of this would've happened. Just because people will exhibit behaviour X, does not mean that society or the law can, will or should tolerate it, ignore it, or fail to prosecute it. If a person leaves their car unlocked, it should not be stolen. Sure, the dumbass should have locked the car, but it's still an offence to jump into another person's car and drive off with it without their permission. If a person doesn't erect 3 metre high fences around their property, their white feature wall should not be subjected to graffiti. Sure, it might be a good idea for them to take precautionary measures to protect their property, but it's still an offence to go and draw a big hairy dick on your neighbour's wall. If a person decides to make a facebook memorial page, and doesn't put certain restrictions on it for some reason or another, it should not be subjected to derogatory, offensive and malicious communications. Sure, it might have been a good idea to restrict it, but it's still an offence to harass the shit out of the page's author. The law does not require people to act to the n'th degree to protect their rights, property, freedoms and general enjoyment because the law is that protection and the person acting against that law DOES NOT HAVE TO PURSUE THEIR ACTIONS. They don't have to steal that car. They dont have to grafiti the wall. They dont have to harass grieving family members by shitting on the memory of the deceased. Sure, intelligent people will act to protect themselves from these criminals, but they shouldnt have to. They are doing nothing wrong. 100% Agree. Let's have people tell us how to behave and totally disregard personal responsibility because it's really working out so far. Besides, I'm pretty sure if you're negligent in securing your property you won't be covered by insurance. Isn't that based in law? WTF does the a person's insurance policy have to do with the criminality of the grafiti artist's actions? Nothing. Stay on topic. Further, you're right, this is entirely about personal responsibility. The responsibility of the criminal NOT to commit criminal offences... Nobody forced this idiot to pursue his course of action.
I was referring to your first example. You try to assert that the owner of the vehicle assumes no responsibility to secure his car and instead it is left up to society to make sure it isn't stolen by choosing not to steal it. How about you just lock your fucking door? I'm not saying this kid shouldn't take responsibility, I'm saying that without an opportunity he wouldn't have committed a "crime".
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
