FBI arrests man for (sending) seizure-inducing tweet to Dallas journalist Kurt Eichenwald

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: UKTruth

you don't need evidence. What you need is the proof that he premeditated the assault, which is there.

I don't have to actually kill you to violate a law. Just trying is a crime.

 

Im feeling more like LesMis above. There's something wrong when you can be charged with assault and jailed while never having been in proximity, or having never hired someone to be in proximity.

It feels like there might be a niche market for a coder who can create an app that filters strobing graphics to protect an epileptic user.

Yeah , agreed. I just wanted to know if he actually had a fit.

Any physiological impact felt by the individual as a result of deliberate, intentional actions on the part of another person should be seen as assault.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Well as near as I can tell he was charged with cyberstalking, not assault. No idea where that narrative is coming from, as it's not in anything I've read, and it's mildly interesting to watch how the story is already getting shifted.

A Maryland man was arrested today on a federal criminal complaint charging him with cyberstalking a Dallas, Texas resident, announced Acting Assistant Attorney General Kenneth A. Blanco of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and U.S. Attorney John Parker of the Northern District of Texas.

FBI press release

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Seizures can kill or cause brain damage. They are not to be taken lightly. They can also kill or wound secondarily if someone falls and sustains a head injury. A quick google search on "seizure disorder death" will demonstrate this.

If someone knows you have a peanut allergy that could be deadly with even minor exposure, and they Mail peanut flour to you in an envelope, is that not a personal attack?

If someone knowingly and maliciously sends a strobing light to someone with a seizure disorder, that is a very personal and dangerous attack.

I do not agree with you are Les Mis on this one. It is a crime.

It is hilarious on the other hand, the first ever memetic assault was carried out by "Jew Goldstein".

Truly stranger than fiction.

a reply to: RomeByFire

What logic. Hey guiz, it's completely okay to send mank demez with flashing images to those prone to epileptic seizures to cause said seizures - because the lulz.

You do realize, here in the States, there is federal legislation regarding warnings and epileptic seizures?

To purposefully go out of ones way to cause a seizure to another human being is absolutely insane - and to defend it? Wow.

Not to mention the "why," here - considering this was done because of the mans opinion (and of course, what he had to say politically).

With your logic, I should eBomb any poster I feel like and DDoS them because I don't agree with what they have to say, and I should have my actions defendable.

With your logic words and images can manipulate matter, they can assault people. That's superstition. Enjoy that.

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Seizures can kill or cause brain damage. They are not to be taken lightly. They can also kill or wound secondarily if someone falls and sustains a head injury. A quick google search on "seizure disorder death" will demonstrate this.

If someone knows you have a peanut allergy that could be deadly with even minor exposure, and they Mail peanut flour to you in an envelope, is that not a personal attack?

If someone knowingly and maliciously sends a strobing light to someone with a seizure disorder, that is a very personal and dangerous attack.

I do not agree with you are Les Mis on this one. It is a crime.

That's false. If he has a risk of photosensitize epileptic seizures, he should know the risk of looking at screens. It's his own fault.

a reply to: Shamrock6

That makes more sense. It sounds like Eichenwald was fibbing...again.

"After a 3 month investigation, the FBI this morning arrested the man who assaulted me using a strobe on twitter that triggered a seizure."

Twitter

Edit: After actually reading the statement, and not the assuming from the charge of cyberstalking, I suppose Eichenwald's tweet could be true.

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Seizures can kill or cause brain damage. They are not to be taken lightly. They can also kill or wound secondarily if someone falls and sustains a head injury. A quick google search on "seizure disorder death" will demonstrate this.

If someone knows you have a peanut allergy that could be deadly with even minor exposure, and they Mail peanut flour to you in an envelope, is that not a personal attack?

If someone knowingly and maliciously sends a strobing light to someone with a seizure disorder, that is a very personal and dangerous attack.

I do not agree with you are Les Mis on this one. It is a crime.

The difference lies in the peanut flour being an actual item. LIke sending a bomb. Its a chemical, like sending a disease or ricin.

The Tweet, however, is a service where strobing images may or may not be expected to be seen at any given moment. Its the internet, were random things are posted, and where strobing images are part of pop culture. Where an entire genre of animation loved by our children can cause seizures. ATS is strict on it because we care. Not every internet site is as careful.

I assert that the internet is a dangerous place for people who have seizures, and that as such they should employ some level of personal protection.

From a legal standpoint, the same can be said of hotel bathrooms. If you are an ADA guest and you slip and fall in the shower, you likely will have no claim. Bathrooms are dangerous places. Short of gross negligence, anyway.

The fact that the kid KNEW what he was doing, and hoping to cause physical harm, though....

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

This is going to a good one to follow. I am interested to see how they handle this.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

This is going to a good one to follow. I am interested to see how they handle this.

It should fall under "Caveat Emptor".

I suspect the nanny state will say differently.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Of course he is lying. He saw an opportunity to make money.

He should be the recipient of the wuss of the century award, but that goes to the tub of crap that cried after shooting an AR.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
I'm wondering if it's okay to mock him.

I mean, when Michael Savage was simply reported to have been beaten, those on the left said he had it coming and deserved it.

Hell, they were mock-worried about his dog and not the person.

To the leftists that revel in raping the First Lady, insulting the children of the president, fantasizing about assassinating the president, this should be a golden opportunity to be outraged and full of mock-indignation.

The silence of the hypocrite racist fascist left is deafening

It IS ok to mock the loser who got tweeted. He's an anti American fascist leftist.

originally posted by: Bobaganoosh
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Of course he is lying. He saw an opportunity to make money.

He should be the recipient of the wuss of the century award, but that goes to the tub of crap that cried after shooting an AR.

Ha ha haaaaaa!
That loser who cried after firing a rifle, what a twat.
But yep, THIS loser is definitely lying! He did not have a seizure. Over reaction is typical of the fascist left and lying is their core behaviour.

Besides, the ONLY people I see physically attacking others based SOLELY on their political beliefs, are leftists.

"Think how I think or I'll attack you" - the very definition of fascism.

a reply to: Bobaganoosh

Of course he is lying. He saw an opportunity to make money.

He should be the recipient of the wuss of the century award, but that goes to the tub of crap that cried after shooting an AR.

He's lied about many things. The one first one that comes to mind is that DJT was institutionalized (if I remember correctly).

For a laugh, here is when he was on Tucker Carlson, which is now legendary.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Assault, in the law world : In criminal and civil law, assaultis an attempt to initiate harmful or offensive contact with a person, or a threat to do so. It is distinct from battery, which refers to the actual achievement of such contact.

Most people get this confused. So this person can absolutely be charged with assault because they attempted to initiate harmful or offensive contact. In this case, contact was via a social media app.

originally posted by: Breakthestreak

originally posted by: Bobaganoosh
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Of course he is lying. He saw an opportunity to make money.

He should be the recipient of the wuss of the century award, but that goes to the tub of crap that cried after shooting an AR.

Ha ha haaaaaa!
That loser who cried after firing a rifle, what a twat.
But yep, THIS loser is definitely lying! He did not have a seizure. Over reaction is typical of the fascist left and lying is their core behaviour.

Besides, the ONLY people I see physically attacking others based SOLELY on their political beliefs, are leftists.

"Think how I think or I'll attack you" - the very definition of fascism.

I'm stunned that you can't see how ironic it is that you post something like this when it's somebody on the left that was on the receiving end of an apparently deliberate attempt to provoke physical injury...

It's awe inspiring to behold such an utterly detached-from-reality mind.

And before you get all ranty on me, no I'm not a lefty

My oldest son has severe trypophobia. So anything pod like kills him to see.

This image would send him into a panic attack:



I'd hate to think we are moving in a direction where sending him that image would get you arrested, though.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Right? Think about the Facebook people that post clown pics to people afraid of clowns. That is now assault.... Lol.

a reply to: Whatsreal

Most people get this confused. So this person can absolutely be charged with assault because they attempted to initiate harmful or offensive contact. In this case, contact was via a social media app.

He is being charged with cyberstalking.