Man Threatens to ‘Smash’ Woman’s Computer Over Trump Sticker

originally posted by: DrakeINFERNO
a reply to: buster2010

You actually can respond to threats so you are wrong. If he was in a different location she couldnt drive over and do it, but they were in the same room. She is legally fine, he may not be.

Theyn were in class. The article clearly states Campus Security is handling it. There was a threat and there was an assault (both legally speaking). He threatened, she assaulted.

I don't really see either one of them being charged with a crime. Maybe the OP can keep us updated on this important breaking news.

If I were her, as a side note, I would complain to whatever company is housing the threat- twitter or instagram or both and have the original removed and to complain about his account actions.

This is the world we live in now.

Where people defend someone because that person embraces their ideology.

No right or wrong.

Just my side versus yours.

originally posted by: DrakeINFERNO
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Lol ridiculous. So you are saying this woman had no reason to be in any fear of a person who takes a picture of them and posts in on social media and says they will attack them if they get 7k retweets??? Whatever. World is nuts.

Im sure that guy was terrified that trump would lile to punch hik in the face.

I'd say the guy threatened by Trump was in FAR GREATER DANGER. Trump commands an entire army of loyal followers, any of them could have tracked the guy down after that rally and beat him senseless.

Who's this other guy? A nobody.

No, when someone of Trump's stature makes statements like that, they bear much more weight and significance.

I'm impressed and also amazed you can't see how this is so.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

So you are justifying the destruction of property and possible bodily harm simply because someone has beliefs that are different from yours.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
This is the world we live in now.

Where people defend someone because that person embraces their ideology.

No right or wrong.

Just my side versus yours.

I just had to change state residence.

I may not even register this time.

a reply to: Annee

I think that only local elections will ever illustrate change.

On the federal level, they have us at a disadvantage.

originally posted by: reldra
I cannot believe this post has gone on so long. It has gone on longer than his getting 7k tweets and her throwing water.

You've posted in this thread A LOT. Perhaps you should leave if you're being triggered/bored.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Considering it got past 15k retweets when he only asked for 7k to let loose a threat?

So far its the anti-trumps that are the entire army of loyal followers, any of them could have tracked the gal down after that rally and beat her laptop senseless

a reply to: SprocketUK

wow hold on... Do NOT compare someone who does not provide a SERVICE to someone that they disagree with, with someone who threatens to destroy someone else's personal property because they don't agree with them.

If the tow truck driver had hooked up a chain to the car and flipped it around destroying it because it had a bernie sticker on it, then you might have a valid point.

Jaden

a reply to: andy06shake

Neither do you apparently, especially since we don't LIVE in a DEMOCRACY...but instead a republic based on a free market.

Destroying someone's property because you don't agree with them is not even CLOSE to comparable with someone refusing to provide a service to someone because they don't agree with them.

Jaden

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: DrakeINFERNO
Its pretty cut and dry, he doesnt create a threatening environment for a female peer bu inciting viollence, he doesnt have to dry himself off or let evaporation take place.

lol if you think a cup of water is assault you have lived a very shelted life.

Legally, it is. He did threaten her, but the response should have been to alert campus security. I am pretty sure the school would agree.

well, i know im being technical here....but he threatened her computer. Not her.

In other words, even in Texas were he to then approach her menacingly, she would not be in her right to shoot him during daylight hours, even in her own front yard. He has only threatened property, not person.

a reply to: buster2010

what the hell is psychichal action, is that like from the movie scanners? Is that making their heads explode with your mind?

Did you mean physical action??? and no that is not true, you can legally take physical action against someone who threatens you in certain circumstances.

Do those apply here? Not sure, depends on state law and the specific sequence of events, etc...

Jaden

For all those lefties and liberals that have a little trouble understanding the situation on the OP and are openly insulting the cognitive capabilities of the other members, when in fact it is your own understanding that is flawed, read along:


The guy is actually doing the following fault (not federal, mistake. But it is still considered harassment):

Cyberstalking

"Cyberstalking" generally refers to stalking someone through the internet, email, text messages, or other means of electronic communication. Many states have revised their harassment and/or stalking laws to explicitly include harassing electronic communications. Some states also punish actions akin to cyberstalking under laws aimed at improper uses of computers or electronic communications networks.

Federal law makes it a crime to "transmit in interstate commerce" (which includes the internet) a communication containing a threat to kidnap or physically harm someone.

See more at: criminal.findlaw.com...


This is considered criminal harassment according to tort law; which in this circumstance is considered threatening behavior.


Harassment:
What constitutes criminal harassment varies by state, but it generally entails targeting someone else with behavior meant to alarm, annoy, torment or terrorize, and creating reasonable fear in the victim for their safety or the safety of their family.


Thus by the above, by intentionally making a threat to her person (or property) he is in fact causing reasonable fear for safety in the victim.


Tort Law says he is doing assault with intent; explained bellow.

Assault: Definition
The definitions for assault vary from state-to-state, but assault is often defined as an attempt to injure to someone else, and in some circumstances can include threats or threatening behavior against others. One common definition would be an intentional attempt, using violence or force, to injure or harm another person. Another straightforward way that assault is sometimes defined is as an attempted battery. Indeed, generally the main distinction between an assault and a battery is that no contact is necessary for an assault, whereas an offensive or illegal contact must occur for a battery.

Assault: Act Requirement
Even though contact is not generally necessary for an assault offense, a conviction for assault still requires a criminal "act". The types of acts that fall into the category of assaults can vary widely, but typically an assault requires an overt or direct act that would put the reasonable person in fear for their safety. Spoken words alone will not be enough of an act to constitute an assault unless the offender backs them up with an act or actions that put the victim in reasonable fear of imminent harm.

Assault: Intent Requirement
In order commit an assault an individual need only have "general intent". What this means is that although someone can't accidentally assault another person, it is enough to show that an offender intended the actions which make up an assault. So, if an individual acts in a way that's considered dangerous to other people that can be enough to support assault charges, even if they didn't intend a particular harm to a particular individual. Moreover, an intent to scare or frighten another person can be enough to establish assault charges, as well.


By definition he does in fact did the threatning act with intent to cause fear, torment, annoy, and terrorize the victim.



Then under this circumstances the girl took the decision of confronting him and made the battery allegation, which in fact is justified by the following:

The defenses available in assault and battery cases can vary widely depending on the facts and circumstances, mainly because such cases can range from the straight-forward to the extremely complex. However, operating under the assumption that the basic elements of an assault / battery exist in a case (i.e. it is not a case of mistaken identity or some other fundamental error), the following are some possible defenses to assault and battery charges:

Self-defense

Self-defense is probably the most common defense used in assault and battery cases. In order to establish self-defense, an accused must generally show:

- a threat of unlawful force or harm against them;
- a real, honest perceived fear of harm to themselves (there must be a reasonable basis for this perceived fear);
- no harm or provocation on their part; and there was no reasonable chance of retreating or escaping the situation.


Now note, all of the conditions above are validated in the arguments throughout this post.

Note: Particularly I believe people will try to justify with the line "she did not retreat because she had the chance", faulting the third condition.
But the same condition says "or escaping the situation", in other words one of both have to be valid, which in fact she could not escape the unprovoked situation where she was victim of cyber harassment, as explained in my other post. Where, if left unattended it could've escalated to actual physical action by the guy. And she did it with reasonable force, without the intent of harming him, rather giving a message.

OR

The fact he threatened the computer only, note that harassment is considered assault in this case due to the intentional threating behavior to destroy her property, which is considered a physical and emotional threat in order to torment her.

To all those bashing the other members, please stop throwing stupid and incorrect statements to validate you own point of view. While at the same time insulting them based on conjecture.

Thank You

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: buster2010

what the hell is psychichal action, is that like from the movie scanners? Is that making their heads explode with your mind?

Did you mean physical action??? and no that is not true, you can legally take physical action against someone who threatens you in certain circumstances.

Do those apply here? Not sure, depends on state law and the specific sequence of events, etc...

Jaden

In th estate of Texas, you can only shoot someone while defending your property if:

- its night while you are still on your property but not in your domecile
- if they are in your domecile at any time during the day without being invited. "in your domecile" means if their pinkie breaks the plane of any point of entry

So its not likely she would be able to do much to defend herself with force short of him approaching him on her property at night, or amending his threat to include bodily harm and not just property harm.

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: SprocketUK

wow hold on... Do NOT compare someone who does not provide a SERVICE to someone that they disagree with, with someone who threatens to destroy someone else's personal property because they don't agree with them.

If the tow truck driver had hooked up a chain to the car and flipped it around destroying it because it had a bernie sticker on it, then you might have a valid point.

Jaden

I disagree, she made the call, they agreed terms, he turned up and left her in the lurch.

If that had been my wife, I'd have been waiting at his depot.

If you take on a lucrative contract like that you have a duty to fulfil your contract. She can support who the hell she likes, so can he, but a tow truck driver tows broken down vehicles. If he fails in that he deserves to lose his licence. Allowing this hit and miss rubbish endangers the whole system. How can anyone have faith in the service when operators can arbitrarily withold service?

Over and above that, he left a vulnerable person alone on the side of the road.
He wasn't a christian, he was a rat.

originally posted by: efabian
For all those lefties and liberals that have a little trouble understanding the situation on the OP and are openly insulting the cognitive capabilities of the other members, when in fact it is your own understanding that is flawed, read along:


The guy is actually doing the following federal fault:

Cyberstalking

"Cyberstalking" generally refers to stalking someone through the internet, email, text messages, or other means of electronic communication. Many states have revised their harassment and/or stalking laws to explicitly include harassing electronic communications. Some states also punish actions akin to cyberstalking under laws aimed at improper uses of computers or electronic communications networks.

Federal law makes it a crime to "transmit in interstate commerce" (which includes the internet) a communication containing a threat to kidnap or physically harm someone.

using the word liberal....

anyway, wrong. He didn't threaten her physically. Unless she is the computer he threatened.

See more at: criminal.findlaw.com...


This is considered criminal harassment according to tort law; which in this circumstance is considered threatening behavior.

At best there's a civil lawsuit possibility. At best. But there is nothing in your link to indicate its criminal.

a reply to: DBCowboy

There is something a little cock-eyed about that, isn't there?

Let me understand this.

This lady has a trump sticker on her laptop.

This guy doesn't like it.

He takes a picture, tweets it, asking for 7000 approvals to go smash her computer.

...and got 'em?

...and people wonder why I don't tweet, or facebook.

THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated.

Thomas Paine wrote these words. Guess who the would be tyrant is in this little episode. Here's a clue: It ain't her.

This is truly rather sickening. Attacked because of a sticker? Really?

originally posted by: Domo1

originally posted by: reldra
I cannot believe this post has gone on so long. It has gone on longer than his getting 7k tweets and her throwing water.

You've posted in this thread A LOT. Perhaps you should leave if you're being triggered/bored.

No, not a 'LOT'. Triggered, as in what? I don't use that word, but an awful lot of conservatives do here. Bored, not really. Just thought it had gone on too long.

That was odd coming from you, Domo.

a reply to: DBCowboy

It's the ABSOLUTE opposite.. we are becoming bigger pussies, not more violent. Back in the day, someone threatened to bust your stuff, you busted their mouth, no more threatening. They threatened your girl,sister, mother etc, you busted their mouth.

There was far less rhetoric because you got your mouth busted for it. People were more civil when there was the potential for calm violence.

Now it's all about getting a mob together, or gang bull#... no one on one, fist for fist... Now it's let's burn them down...

Jaden

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: DrakeINFERNO
Its pretty cut and dry, he doesnt create a threatening environment for a female peer bu inciting viollence, he doesnt have to dry himself off or let evaporation take place.

lol if you think a cup of water is assault you have lived a very shelted life.

Legally, it is. He did threaten her, but the response should have been to alert campus security. I am pretty sure the school would agree.

well, i know im being technical here....but he threatened her computer. Not her.

In other words, even in Texas were he to then approach her menacingly, she would not be in her right to shoot him during daylight hours, even in her own front yard. He has only threatened property, not person.

True. So in eather case, she should have or had someone, calll campus security.