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.

 

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

page: 11
38
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2016 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan


I understand your point, my mistake there. It is not federal.

But that is only to prove that the use of the internet is applicable to a fault for harassment.
Keep reading until you hit the harassment part and why it is criminal.


edit on 6-5-2016 by efabian because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 6 2016 @ 03:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: DBCowboy

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



Right and wrong didn't used to depend on ideology.

Right and wrong used to be absolutes.

But we've changed. We defend what is morally bankrupt. We defend lying, cheating, stealing. We defend violence. If it supports our narrative.

Sure, we'll shake our heads and say, "tsk, tsk" but inside, we are happy that people got silenced, that people got hurt.

Notice how I'm using "we".

No one is innocent, no ideology is innocent.

No one has a moral compass worth a damn anymore.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 03:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Masterjaden
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


You may be correct.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 03:14 PM
link   

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


Depends on the state and what the threat is. A social media comment attempting to raise retweets, probably does not rise to the level of imminent personal danger.

Shame on you for making so much of a typo.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 03:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: SprocketUK

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.


Hold on, it depends on whether he is an independent owner operator or not. If he is, then you can't take his license for refusing service. Now if he represents AAA or something, then they can most certainly revoke his ability to get contracts from them. He also becomes liable for damages to their credibility because of the fiduciary role he played for them which makes them liable for his actions.

Still, can't take his license for it though...lol

Jaden



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Who the # said ANYTHING about shooting someone???lol the "estate" of Texas???? I'm not aware of any such place... Who owns said estate?

You most certainly can defend yourself physically based on a threat if said person then comes at you in a threatening manner and you don't even have to be on your own property...lol.

He could have approached her laptop in a manner that would be consistent with intent to destroy her property which gives her the right to use physical force to protect her property... That doesn't mean she can SHOOT him...lol....

Jaden
edit on 6-5-2016 by Masterjaden because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: efabian

I read the whole thing. Its not harassment in a criminal sense. Maybe civil suit worthy...but not criminal.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 03:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Masterjaden

originally posted by: SprocketUK

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.


Hold on, it depends on whether he is an independent owner operator or not. If he is, then you can't take his license for refusing service. Now if he represents AAA or something, then they can most certainly revoke his ability to get contracts from them. He also becomes liable for damages to their credibility because of the fiduciary role he played for them which makes them liable for his actions.

Still, can't take his license for it though...lol

Jaden


Maybe, I know over here you need a licenice.
Either way, allowing someone like this to work means the service can't be trusted.

And beyond that, what kind of moron can't accept someone else's political viewpoint?

I'm not remotely pro Christian, but what I know of it, the bottom line is you help people.

He's filth. Like I said previously, he's a bully and wouldn't have dared treated a bloke that way.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 03:29 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan


Quote from the initial post:

"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."

He did mean to torment, terrorize, annoy, and insist fear in the girl; ergo, this is criminal harassment.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan


My initial point is that she is not at fault for anything here, not if it is a criminal or civil fault.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 03:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: buster2010

Actually you can defend yourself IF you think a attack is incoming. its called a pre emptive strike,and its not just for armies. If you are in fear of your life and person its legal to do so.


Seems like it would be kind of hard to prove in court that you made a decision to approach a person and throw a liquid at them, purely for the purpose of defending your safety... seems like a kind of counter productive act, lol.

Can't believe this thread got so much responses and became so heated. A teenage boy made an immature joke and a teenage girl responded angrily... first world issues.

Who needs reality tv shows and soap operas, when I can just come here and read a 12 page thread of overly emotional people, who are acting like some minor altercation between two teenagers is the crime of the century.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 03:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

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.



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.


From what I understand, that is exactly what happened: his Twitter account was suspended because of the threats.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 03:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: buster2010

Actually you can defend yourself IF you think a attack is incoming. its called a pre emptive strike,and its not just for armies. If you are in fear of your life and person its legal to do so.


No, not if you *think* the attack is incoming, but if it is in fact incoming and you are there defending yourself. Not preemption.

You have the right to self defense during attack. You do not have the right of preemption.

If you *think* the guy across the room is going to come over and hit you because of something he (or even you) posted online, you do NOT have the right to walk over and punch him first. Period.

If you *think* your neighbor is going to come over to your house and harm you, that does not give you right to go to his house and hurt him first.

Why do people have such a hard time understanding that point in this thread? Smh.

ETA:

Hell, even if he SAID that's what he was going to do, you don't have the right to walk over and hit him first.
edit on 6-5-2016 by Liquesence because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 03:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence
From what I understand, that is exactly what happened: his Twitter account was suspended because of the threats.


He should have been sent to prison, yet all they do is suspend his twitter account?...



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 03:41 PM
link   
It would seem the idiot who threatened her was more interested in his own online fame I mean, trying to get 7000 ppl to agree with you and surpassing that quota isn't exactly going to go unnoticed.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 03:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Liquesence
From what I understand, that is exactly what happened: his Twitter account was suspended because of the threats.


He should have been sent to prison, yet all they do is suspend his twitter account?...


That statement alone speaks volumes. Just throw him in prison.

So much for due process, eh?

Figures.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 03:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Liquesence
From what I understand, that is exactly what happened: his Twitter account was suspended because of the threats.


He should have been sent to prison, yet all they do is suspend his twitter account?...


That statement alone speaks volumes. Just throw him in prison.

So much for due process, eh?

Figures.


Maybe not throw him into prison, just kick the hell out of him until he learns not to threaten those weaker than he is. Or, here's a thought, leaves everyone alone.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

This is what I picture every time I hear a story like this:




posted on May, 6 2016 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence

He will never get more than a slap on the wrist. The BLM will advocate for him claiming the girl is racist or some other crap.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 03:48 PM
link   
I get so confused over this social justice BS.
So his harassment online was acceptable here.
Yet this man called a woman a **** on twitter and the left set out on a witch hunt demanding his head.
He lost his job and is now serving 6 months in jail over some words.
Please explain to me how it's acceptable here but not in the other case?
I just don't understand how you SJW's determine if someone has violated your code of ethics when others do the same thing and somehow get a pass...



new topics




 
38
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join