Emoji = PRISON!

a reply to: maria_stardust

By that logic, giving someone the middle finger in traffic is a threat of sexual assault and we don't even want to get into the international terrorism implications of this ATS emoji:

a reply to: burdman30ott6

We didn't really kill Bin Laden? *gasp*

a reply to: hefficide

So, it's really not the issue of emojis that's got your goat. But rather, the arbitrary nature of our judicial system.

Apples and oranges, Heff.

And a threat still remains a threat, no matter how mundane its appearance. And if a prosecutor or judge deems that merits prison time, it is determined on a case by case basis.

The judicial system can seem unfair at times, but in the end it comes down to the discretion of those we elect to these positions.

What about this?



Does that mean I like spam to eat? Does that mean I like spam in my email?

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: burdman30ott6

We didn't really kill Bin Laden? *gasp*

There is more evidence and proof that the two jackasses in Heff's OP were intending to beat down this guy following their emoji superhappyfun post than there was evidence that Seal Team 6 offed bin Laden. I'd love to place a multiplier on this statement and say "there's is 100-times more evidence that these men intended a throw down," but we'd be multiplying it by zero... which is pretty much pointless.

a reply to: maria_stardust

The emoji's add to the ambiguity and make what we consider a "threat" even more of a gray area. I, for one, don't like the idea that a snarky FB post has the potential to put me in prison. I doubt that anyone reading this thread - even in the opposition - would like it much either.

Apples and oranges have little to do with it. The First and Fourth Amendments are getting raked over the coals in this particular case - on multiple levels... And apparently we're so conditioned, at this point, that "threat" is equal to "action" in public opinion.

Given that level of qualification - is there a single person reading these words who can honestly say that they have not said or typed something in anger over the past few years? Something at least as crass as:



I certainly have verbalized much more specific and graphic statements to a couple of people over the years, in anger or in reaction to some perceived provocation. And knowing as many people as I know, I'd wager that few, if any, could honestly say that they have not engaged in an angry outburst.

What becomes apples and oranges is when we seek to qualify ONE event as a crime and excuse others as simply venting. Or, worse, when we reach the point, as it appears we may have, where venting or reacting viscerally is not just a cause for apologies later on - but prison time.

The Framers would be reading this thread and bruising their jaws on their desks right about now. This is NOT what they intended at all.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
What about this?

Does that mean I like spam to eat? Does that mean I like spam in my email?

Why do you insist on tossing aside the context? If you and I were on a lunch break together and you broke out a spam sandwich who's smell alone made me puke, then a week later you send me a message consisting of nothing but , then of course I'm going to know what you're talking about... loud and clear.

a reply to: hefficide

Here is where I can draw the line and why I think justice was actually served here. The victim already had problems with said person, and because of that history the person already felt traumatized through terror. Was it the victims fault or the bullies? Sorry, if you hurt someone I do believe in Karma and justice when it comes to bullies. The question here is, who started it? If the victim did not start it, then the bullies are trespassing without clear invitation into the victim's life.

I saw the message loud and clear through the emotes and it clearly is a threat. It reads " I will use violence against you and send you to the hospital."

Now, if the victim started it, then the tables switches around until he takes responsibility for his/her actions.


On the other hand, I can see your concern, that using emotes might land people in jail for 'non violent acts." However in the case of the Original Post, there WAS a threat through the use of violence. And if this is unwarranted or unwanted, then the victim did correctly in taking the step to protect his or herself. (doesnt matter gender specific, since im generalizing.). However to me it clearly is a threat , and taking into account the already established bad history. It simply adds up to a case against the perpetrators.

Sorry OP, this one is justified.

EDIT:
One other thing I will add, ninety plus percent of communication is done through body language. You can learn more from a person this way, which is why it is near impossible to know someone based on written text alone. However, imagery can be said to be somewhat like body language. And that is exactly what was delivered to the victim. A message through imagery. ( which is no different than body language.)

a reply to: hefficide

What becomes apples and oranges is when we seek to qualify ONE event as a crime and excuse others as simply venting.

The Cowan dude was out on $80K bail awaiting trial, so he decides to attempt assault one someone during this period, then after being accused of that decides to send an obviously threatening message to that person via emojies. I really think this guy that would be a loophole. He probably could have sent one of these and experienced the same fate.

Oh, and I found another previous arrest from 2011

Seems Matthew needs to find new friends.

a reply to: hefficide

The two guys aren't going to jail because of emoticons like your thread title suggests. Nor is this some silly anonymous online facebook thing like your thread title suggests.

Had this been just a simple one-time anonymous facebook thing, there would be no case for criminal charges.

The point is: These two guys were not anonymous people on the internet, they were known by the victim in real life... with an actual for real history of violence against this victim prior to the emoticon thing.

BIG DIFFERENCE.

The judge charged them with a legitimate crime - stalking - because that's exactly what they did when they refused to leave the guy alone after trying to kick the crap out of him the first time.

Context is everything in this particular case.

I'm rather baffled as to why you seem to be ignoring the context of this incident and, instead, are choosing to focus on just the emoticon thing ?

When you focus on just the emoticon thing, then yes, the criminal charges sound rather ridiculous doesn't it ?

But that's not the case here.

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: hefficide

The two guys aren't going to jail because of emoticons like your thread title suggests. Nor is this some silly anonymous online facebook thing like your thread title suggests.

Had this been just a simple one-time anonymous facebook thing, there would be no case for criminal charges.

The point is: These two guys were not anonymous people on the internet, they were known by the victim in real life... with an actual for real history of violence against this victim prior to the emoticon thing.

BIG DIFFERENCE.

The judge charged them with a legitimate crime - stalking - because that's exactly what they did when they refused to leave the guy alone after trying to kick the crap out of him the first time.

Context is everything in this particular case.

I'm rather baffled as to why you seem to be ignoring the context of this incident and, instead, are choosing to focus on just the emoticon thing ?

When you focus on just the emoticon thing, then yes, the criminal charges sound rather ridiculous doesn't it ?

But that's not the case here.

Are you suggesting there is an agenda some follow to spin every little thing to look Orwellian?
Finally, a real conspiracy.

a reply to: CranialSponge

I am not ignoring context at all. In fact the OP discusses the ONE other event between the parties. I'm now at a loss as to how two events equates to "stalking".

Criminal activity consisting of the repeated following and harassing of another person.Stalking is a distinctive form of criminal activity composed of a series of actions that taken individually might constitute legal behavior. For example, sending flowers, writing love notes, and waiting for someone outside her place of work are actions that, on their own, are not criminal. When these actions are coupled with an intent to instill fear or injury, however, they may constitute a pattern of behavior that is illegal. Though anti-stalking laws are gender neutral, most stalkers are men and most victims are women.

Stalking first attracted widespread public concern when a young actress named Rebecca Shaeffer, who was living in California, was shot to death by an obsessed fan who had stalked her for two years. The case drew extensive media coverage and revealed how widespread a problem stalking was to both celebrity and noncelebrity victims. Until the enactment of anti-stalking laws, police had little power to arrest someone who behaved in a threatening but legal way. Even when the suspect had followed his victim, sent her hate mail, or behaved in a threatening manner, the police were without legal recourse. Law enforcement could not take action until the suspect acted on his threats and assaulted or injured the victim.

Source

And, again, if our society deems two events to be a pattern? Well then we need to rewrite the dictionary to change the definition of pattern. Because two is NOT a pattern.

What we know is that there was an event, classified as an "attempted assault", which did not lead to any arrests, detentions, or charges - followed by a FB post. Period.

If the first event was not strong enough to qualify as a crime, then how in the name of God can the second event be seen as expounding upon a crime when no crime existed to begin with?

THIS is what has me stymied and chewing at the bit. This is PC gone way past the point of no return. This is thoughtcrime manifest. It's Unconstitutional and wrong.

I reiterate the main message - if the first event was not enough to qualify for an arrest, then how can the second possibly qualify as criminal?

Why didn't the guy get a restraining order? I don't get that.

originally posted by: hefficide
a reply to: CranialSponge

I am not ignoring context at all. In fact the OP discusses the ONE other event between the parties. I'm now at a loss as to how two events equates to "stalking".

Criminal activity consisting of the repeated following and harassing of another person.Stalking is a distinctive form of criminal activity composed of a series of actions that taken individually might constitute legal behavior. For example, sending flowers, writing love notes, and waiting for someone outside her place of work are actions that, on their own, are not criminal. When these actions are coupled with an intent to instill fear or injury, however, they may constitute a pattern of behavior that is illegal. Though anti-stalking laws are gender neutral, most stalkers are men and most victims are women.

Stalking first attracted widespread public concern when a young actress named Rebecca Shaeffer, who was living in California, was shot to death by an obsessed fan who had stalked her for two years. The case drew extensive media coverage and revealed how widespread a problem stalking was to both celebrity and noncelebrity victims. Until the enactment of anti-stalking laws, police had little power to arrest someone who behaved in a threatening but legal way. Even when the suspect had followed his victim, sent her hate mail, or behaved in a threatening manner, the police were without legal recourse. Law enforcement could not take action until the suspect acted on his threats and assaulted or injured the victim.

Source

And, again, if our society deems two events to be a pattern? Well then we need to rewrite the dictionary to change the definition of pattern. Because two is NOT a pattern.

What we know is that there was an event, classified as an "attempted assault", which did not lead to any arrests, detentions, or charges - followed by a FB post. Period.

If the first event was not strong enough to qualify as a crime, then how in the name of God can the second event be seen as expounding upon a crime when no crime existed to begin with?

THIS is what has me stymied and chewing at the bit. This is PC gone way past the point of no return. This is thoughtcrime manifest. It's Unconstitutional and wrong.

I reiterate the main message - if the first event was not enough to qualify for an arrest, then how can the second possibly qualify as criminal?

After the first act of violence any subsequent contact would be stalking. Absent physical contact, If someone is stalking then yes more than two is needed to show a pattern other than coincidence.

from your linked story,

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.

They were violating the mans rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

Maybe harassing that guy brought happiness to the guy in jail?

By not allowing himself to be harassed, this guy is infringing upon that other guy's right to happiness.

We can go back and forth all day with this circular logic chop.

At the end of the day an emoji itself does not constitute an immediate threat to one's safety. If so, how many people would be rounded up daily by the secret service for threats on the president?

You can block people from sending you messages and not have contact with people on Facebook anyway.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Maybe harassing that guy brought happiness to the guy in jail?

By not allowing himself to be harassed, this guy is infringing upon that other guy's right to happiness.

We can go back and forth all day with this circular logic chop.

At the end of the day an emoji itself does not constitute an immediate threat to one's safety. If so, how many people would be rounded up daily by the secret service for threats on the president?

You can block people from sending you messages and not have contact with people on Facebook anyway.

In order for your argument to compare apples to apples, the person harassing the President would have had to have assaulted the President in his home prior to the not so happy face messages.

a reply to: hefficide

It's the same thing with first-time offenders.

The first time around, you get a slap on the wrist. The second time around, the judge throws the book at you.

Because of the previous incident, the judge cannot ignore the second incident, no matter how 'trivial' it may seem.

A "silly little" threat (emoticons and all) becomes the real deal when the offender already has a history of following through with said threats. That means any further contact with the victim will be taken seriously and handled accordingly.

That's what it all boils down to.

a reply to: CranialSponge

The "history", again, consisted of a singular incident ( as far as the article and all evidence so far provided ) that did not result in an arrest and was listed as an "attempted assault".

Personally I would love to know what constituted "attempted assault" in this case - as stated previously I cannot comprehend how one can attempt assault. It's either assault or not. I imagine that it was probably a case something along the lines of standing outside of the guys house and calling him out to fight.

Is that adult? Nope. Is it good? Not at all. But is that and three emoji's enough to merit 5 years in prison? I do not see that as being rational at all. This is right in the gray area of "actual threat" versus " personally perceived threat". And that is some scary ground to have law enforcement making decisions upon.

I just found an article that discusses this exact topic on Wired that I think coherently discusses all sides of it.

Oh, and for the record, the other case I mentioned at some point ( the kid who was arrested for using emoji guns pointing at an emoji cop? Charges dropped. However the Silk Road case apparently relied heavily upon emoticons and emoji as presented in chat and text conversations.

a reply to: hefficide

This particular guy has a history of violence.

Therefore, I guess the judge took his rap sheet into consideration alongside with these two incidents with this victim, and obviously felt that this person was a threat to society based on all those things put together.

As to whether or not he "stood outside the door yelling threats", that's just assumption on your part to justify your train of thought that this incident is a non-issue. We have no idea what the previous attempted assault entailed or what all happened.

Does the emoticon incident and previous attempted assault justify 5 years in prison ? Hell no. But apparently the judge felt the history of violence did justify it. I could see a lighter sentence being proper, but certainly not 5 years worth.

Welcome to the prison industrial complex.