It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Emoji = PRISON!

page: 5
28
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 03:50 PM
link   
I definitely agree with some of the posters here. Just because it's cartoony or cute doesn't make it any less of a threat. Would all of you who think this is no big deal feel the same if it were sent by a stalker to a female victim whom he had attempted to assault before? The fact is that these two men attempted to assault the victim in his own home before. They then sent this message and probably thought they were being cute about it and could get away with it in a way that they wouldn't had they actually written out the threat. But the threat is clear. We are going to beat you up and put you in the hospital. I don't buy the "gun" symbol, though. I think they are just pointing to the victim or to the ambulance.

I am all for solving my own problems and not calling the police. But I'm not going to fault a man who I know absolutely nothing about for being unwilling to fight two men himself. For all we know the man is weak, sick, disabled or just a wimp. I'm not going to fault him for it. I don't want people arrested for silly things either. But this was a threat and a real one.a reply to: hefficide




posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

So you are of the opinion that "fist leads to ambulance ride" is grounds to be put into prison, facing five years? That it's viable enough to warrant long term imprisonment of the person saying it?

Even if I verbally told somebody that "fist leads to ambulance ride" the idea that a five year prison sentence would be even remotely possible as a punishment is mind boggling, much less that three emoticons, lined up, could qualify as being a valid and realistic danger to anyone.

Earlier I talked about slippery slopes. Now I am just flatly convinced that the slippery slope is somewhere behind us and that we're already in the valley of "way too late to fix things now".



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 03:56 PM
link   
did you read the WHOLE article???



Of course, this wasn’t the only incident that led to the arrest of Fuentes and Cowan. An incident report filed during May 2015 indicated that the Fuentes and Cowan attempted to assault the unnamed man at his home. The emoji messages were basically the final straw that led deputies to arrest the two men and charge both with stalking charges. Both men now face up to five years in prison if convicted of the charges.


Apparently they were stalking and harassing the guy before this, so it was OTHER events leading up to the arrest, not JUST the emotes.



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: HomerinNC

Been discussed in detail Homer. A previous event that is listed as "attempted assault" ( whatever that constitutes ) but that did not warrant an arrest at the time. IE how bad could it have been?

With laws like this, we won't need to worry about education any longer because every kid in the US is headed for prison. You should hear the smack they talk to each other. Way more graphic than "fist go ambulance".

It's like people are begging for the First Amendment to be taken away.


+2 more 
posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 04:00 PM
link   
Sans a police report, I can only guess...

1. Two dudes try to assault a man at his home
2. Alleged victim files a report
3. Police follow up and tow dudes say "no we didn't"
4. Police say "fine, but if you contact alleged victim again or threaten him in any manner, we're going to arrest you
5. Dudes "OK"
5. Dudes sent threatening emojies to alleged victim.
6. Police arrest dudes

We can have a wider discussion on whether emojies are actionable by police in general, but at the end of the day, context will play a key in any specific case.



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: hefficide

it was a cumulation of events that brought about the arrest, not just the ONE incident, the DA probably said enough is enough, theyre not leaving this guy alone



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 04:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: hefficide
a reply to: ignorant_ape

So you are of the opinion that "fist leads to ambulance ride" is grounds to be put into prison, facing five years? That it's viable enough to warrant long term imprisonment of the person saying it?

Even if I verbally told somebody that "fist leads to ambulance ride" the idea that a five year prison sentence would be even remotely possible as a punishment is mind boggling, much less that three emoticons, lined up, could qualify as being a valid and realistic danger to anyone.

Earlier I talked about slippery slopes. Now I am just flatly convinced that the slippery slope is somewhere behind us and that we're already in the valley of "way too late to fix things now".





You are right. It is way too late now. Because fists leads to ambulance ride being said out loud in English or written in a text in English. Would lead to the police arresting you, if the person you said or sent it to, reported you. That is how it has been for years. Threatening words can get you arrested.

The police state is not new. It has been here for years. Its just now starting to affect more people. So those people are now noticing what has slowly been put into law.

If you want to complain about the laws, I am right behind you. But complaining about the form of the threat that is being interpreted by said law, is... well... silly. As silly as an Emoji.


edit on 17-6-2015 by karmicecstasy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 04:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: Urantia1111

There would be even more people in the over crowded prison system if we locked up everyone who ever made a "menacing" remark about another human being.

I don't see these emoji's as a specific, direct threat. More of a general "i have a desire to hurt you".

You know, I've had the desire to harm other people before...shameful, but I'll be honest. I've told people that if I could, I'd smack the hell out of them. Do I deserve to be in prison for that?


It doesnt matter what YOU see as a threat. The LAW doesnt allow someone to threaten violence on another. Im not using the word "menacing" by choice. Thats the name of the charge you will face if someone you threaten decides to report you for it and the officers decide they believe them. Or if youre dumb enough to put it writing as was done here.



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 04:15 PM
link   
I'm with you on this, Heff. There's a reason why the current standard list of emojis lacks a testicles emoji. Society has lost their own and sees no need to seek them out again. But hey, this new enlightened era in which skins are so thin a butterfly landing on an arm causes a gash that sprays blood several feet out from the victim will eventually pass, too.



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 04:20 PM
link   
I've been pondering on this since my last post.
Hmmm

What if back in the big bad gangster days Al Capone couldn't get nabbed for tax evasion, not the other BIG crimes he committed.

To catch a criminal, they sometimes look for loopholes?



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 04:32 PM
link   
I'm fairly certain the Secret Service has been intercepting and investigating threats on the POTUS long enough now to have some kind of dichotomy to differentiate credible, actionable threats from nonsense threats.

There are so many things being put out on a daily basis against the POTUS that it would overwhelm the Secret Service if some kind of line in the sand wasn't drawn. These people are no doubt experts at what constitutes a credible "threat" from a non-threat.

Threats that have details and specifics indicate that significant mental thought was put into them. Generally speaking, people that put more thought into something tend to take action. If, after thinking about something they still have the feelings they have -- they are more likely going to carry through with their threats.

As I have pointed out, emoji's are icons -- icons are "iconic" in their nature. We use icons because they are universally understood.



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 04:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: zazzafrazz
I've been pondering on this since my last post.
Hmmm

What if back in the big bad gangster days Al Capone couldn't get nabbed for tax evasion, not the other BIG crimes he committed.


He would have continued his "crimes" of shooting other bad guys, selling bootleg hooch that would become legal again in just a few year's time, and would have died from syphilis just the same...



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Them were the GREAT days!



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: zazzafrazz

Again, slippery slope IMO. The US already leads the word ( every existing nation and every other nation in recorded history ) in per capita incarceration, thanks mostly to a failed war on drugs. Then came the specter of "terror" and now the idea of "preemptive punishment" has become not only acceptable, but casual ( in war and in every day life ). When a legal system begins trying to side pocket prosecutions because they can't make a major case stick? The doors that it opens? It's inching towards the sort of society where criticism becomes dissidence.

I'm honestly and truly taken aback by the reaction to this story. ATS is a community steeped in a general distrust or outright hatred of the system in almost all things... and yet somehow it seems that the majority are OK with this story and agree that these guys deserve to be in prison for sending an emote based message.

The source article mentions another case where somebody posted guns pointed at police figures and that got him jailed - for having a gun and pot... conspicuously NOT for threats.

The Fourth Amendment seems to be a bit offended by all of this, I guess is my point.


edit on 6/17/15 by hefficide because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: hefficide

Wow this story really is a.. bad apple

A little off topic.. but I remember a while back of a woman being pursued by a debt collection company because on her mobile phone contract because her Emojis on her IPhone each counted as individual picture messages, unbeknown to her, and this as you can well imagine ran up a massive debt which was inconceivable.


In Scotland, a woman ran up bills totalling over £1,000 after adding emoticons to text messages.

Link

So this doesn't surprise me that these days such social cues as: Emojis, memes or #hashtag whatever, are all taken very seriously.



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 04:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bone75
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Well let's see...

we have a fist, and a finger pointing to an ambulance. I really don't think the message could have been articulated anymore precisely or efficiently than that lol.


Emotes are supposed to represent the posters own feelings.

So the message equates to.... I feel like punching you really hard.

If you say out loud...oooh I feel like killing you right now to someone, it is not that same as saying you are going to kill someone right now. Every married couple would be in prison if that was unlawful to express personal feelings as opposed to outright threats.

More frivolous nonsense mucking up the courts, the most this could lead to is harassment if a pattern is shown and a restraining order could be issued. Then any contact would be criminal.



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 05:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: hefficide

originally posted by: maria_stardust
a reply to: hefficide

Then by your reasoning, threats of violence are not criminal offenses because they do not measure up an actual act of violence. It's only a matter of speech.

So threats against a person, such as the POTUS, should be ignored.

Or, bomb threats.

Or, any type of threat, really. Because they are all merely words until they're followed up by actions. In which case, a threat is no longer a threat but a bona fide act.

Got it.



a reply to: maria_stardust

That is an absolute straw man argument. If I tell somebody that I am going to punch them in the nose that is nowhere near the same as threatening to kill the POTUS or to set off bombs. There is nothing at all in common with this article and the dots you are attempting to connect here. This is an example of absolutist thought taken to an incomprehensible extreme.

The implication in the real world is that there is now apparently a zero tolerance policy for offending others or making them feel insecure. Real threats should absolutely be taken seriously. But this? If this qualifies as a "real threat" then we are about half an inch away from considering eye contact to be murder/rape/criminal trespassing. I mean after all - looking at somebody can make them feel uncomfortable in a myriad of ways? Why not give the "victims" the benefit of the doubt and prosecute based upon how they feel?


I'm glad you were able to infer the intent of my post in light of the spirit in which it was offered.

A reduction to the absurd.

Which is really not that different from the stance you're making. Namely, that a threat is not a threat if it is presented in the form of emojis. Reduction to the absurd.



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 05:08 PM
link   
When using an emoji there's no way to know if fist+ambulance means:

1. I want to punch you

-OR-

2. I am going to punch you

We can't ascertain from an ICON the intent. If we cannot ascertain the intent, this should be a non-issue, and dropped. If the guy had sent a simple message saying, "I'm going to kick your butt" we'd have intent to harm. A simple icon cannot determine intent to harm.

Simply wanting to punch someone isn't a crime. Saying you WILL punch someone actually is a credible threat that indicates an intent to carry further physical action.

I know it's hard kids, communication is rough. Trying to decipher the intent of an emoji is like staring at a note from a girl you like in 3rd grade, wondering if the heart she drew over the "I" means she really likes you or not.

Let's grow up people. Pretty soon a lightning bolt on a t-shirt may be considered a "threat" by TSA and you won't be able to board a plane.



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 05:09 PM
link   
a reply to: maria_stardust

Then you've misunderstood my general opinion entirely. My premise is not that it's not a threat simply because emoji's were involved - though the use of emoji's does add to the absurdity.

My angst is that anything that mundane could be and apparently is legally considered not just a threat - but an act punishable by five years in prison.

Good God, if that's a threat worthy of five years in the pen - then my 20 year old nephew is earning life sentences every time he plays Halo because the things he says on the game are by far and away more graphic and direct.

Can you, in all conscience, look at what they posted and feel that it merits five years in prison?

For reference an actual and real assault averages about two years of incarceration. Murder is about ten years.

So, extrapolating - three emoji's = half of a murder.

It's absolute nonsense.


edit on 6/17/15 by hefficide because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 05:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: hefficide
I'm honestly and truly taken aback by the reaction to this story. ATS is a community steeped in a general distrust or outright hatred of the system in almost all things... and yet somehow it seems that the majority are OK with this story


Welcome to my world following the report that America had killed "Osama bin Laden." That dichotomy of mistrust and doe-eyed innocence makes you really wonder about how much of our lives truly are one big ass psy-op, doesn't it?



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join