3 ms·

Weird. I guess if someone in your family is being stalked and threatened the offender can just fob it off as bullshit after they’re caught. And when someone go

Weird. I guess if someone in your family is being stalked and threatened the offender can just fob it off as bullshit after they’re caught. And when someone goes vigilante they can say they didn’t really mean it after they gun down the stalker.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
I’m not seeing anything in his messages that screams clear and present danger. Telling people you don’t like to die in a hole is rude, but it shouldn’t be criminal.
- paddw 3y ago
  I think there is a contextual difference between telling someone to "die" as a way of expressing contempt in a public forum and directly messaging them, with details about where they live etc...
  - phendrenad2 3y ago
    Is that what happened in this case? If not, why say it?
- eyelidlessness 3y ago
  > I’m not seeing anything in his messages that screams clear and present danger. I’m not sure that’s the standard applied. The standard seems to be that the speaker understands the speech can be taken as threatening. The examples in the article easily satisfy the reception portion of that, and the decision seems to rely heavily on presuming lack of understanding of that.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    But why should that be outright criminal? I haven’t read the case. But wouldn’t first steps involve getting a restraining order and then finding breach of that? That gives someone who may not understand how their words are understood a fair warning. What if I perceive your comment to be threatening? Do we really want judges adjudicating on something so subjective?
    - eyelidlessness 3y ago
      I didn’t comment on what should be, just my understanding of what reasoning was applied. I’m also not very familiar with the case and it’s not immediately obvious what steps were taken prior to this becoming a criminal matter. It’s not clear whether any legal steps were taken before the stalking charge. But it is clear that the stalking persisted for years before this legal action. There are many circumstances where a threat is blatant enough that a single instance at a single time is clear enough. There are also many circumstances where people under threat are motivated by fear not to pursue justice when they’d be objectively right to pursue it. I’m inclined to believe that someone feeling threatened for multiple years shouldn’t need to fulfill an additional waiting period to be relieved from persistent threats, while the person threatening them is basically in a “don’t do it more than the last multiple years” probational period. And maybe that shouldn’t automatically escalate to criminal charges (if that’s what happened), but “you’ve endured years of threats, now you have to wait for potential escalation with no restraint on the person threatening you” isn’t the answer either.
      - Jiro 3y ago
        The problem is that when you convict someone, it's important that you convict him for the correct crime with the correct evidence. Letting him be convicted for threats without having to demonstrate that he meant it, and without other stalking-related evidence, may have caught a stalker. But it would have been bad precedent if you ever told someone on the Internet to FOAD and you got thrown in jail for it. It's like letting someone out of jail because the police searched him without a warrant. The correct thing to do here is to let the criminal go free; maybe the police will get a warrant next time. The fact that the ACLU supported the guy should be a sign that something is up other than just catching a stalker.
- CamperBob2 3y ago
  I don't understand why people keep quoting the "Die" message, when there are others that were much, much worse: "Was that you in the white Jeep? ... I am unsupervised. I know, it freaks me out too, but the possibilities are endless.” These messages clearly would have been considered threats by most reasonable people. Disagree? Send some similar ones to your least-favorite SCOTUS justice and see how that goes for you.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    Enough to get a restraining order or even civil damages, yes. Enough to slap a criminal charge on someone, I don’t think so.
    - CamperBob2 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - Pigalowda 3y ago
        I’d love to see an unhinged person message his sister/wife/mother thousands of times with threatening messages and see how he would respond.
        CamperBob2 3y ago
        Totally. It's not just about the language, it's one of those cases where the sheer quantity of threatening messages has a quality all its own. It's as if the court simply refused to consider the whole picture. I tend to agree with those who say that they (as well as the ACLU) blew this one.
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        I’d get a restraining order. Then, if it continues, it’s a violation of the restraining order. That’s an objective and established crime. Would note that your comment could reasonably be taken as inducement to a threat. I don’t actually think you “would love” to see harm come to the (only female?) members of my family. But I’m not 100% sure, as I’m not sure that you could be sure I couldn’t find a cop who might agree.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

I’m not seeing anything in his messages that screams clear and present danger. Telling people you don’t like to die in a hole is rude, but it shouldn’t be criminal.

paddw 3y ago
I think there is a contextual difference between telling someone to "die" as a way of expressing contempt in a public forum and directly messaging them, with details about where they live etc...
- phendrenad2 3y ago
  Is that what happened in this case? If not, why say it?
eyelidlessness 3y ago
> I’m not seeing anything in his messages that screams clear and present danger. I’m not sure that’s the standard applied. The standard seems to be that the speaker understands the speech can be taken as threatening. The examples in the article easily satisfy the reception portion of that, and the decision seems to rely heavily on presuming lack of understanding of that.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  But why should that be outright criminal? I haven’t read the case. But wouldn’t first steps involve getting a restraining order and then finding breach of that? That gives someone who may not understand how their words are understood a fair warning. What if I perceive your comment to be threatening? Do we really want judges adjudicating on something so subjective?
  - eyelidlessness 3y ago
    I didn’t comment on what should be, just my understanding of what reasoning was applied. I’m also not very familiar with the case and it’s not immediately obvious what steps were taken prior to this becoming a criminal matter. It’s not clear whether any legal steps were taken before the stalking charge. But it is clear that the stalking persisted for years before this legal action. There are many circumstances where a threat is blatant enough that a single instance at a single time is clear enough. There are also many circumstances where people under threat are motivated by fear not to pursue justice when they’d be objectively right to pursue it. I’m inclined to believe that someone feeling threatened for multiple years shouldn’t need to fulfill an additional waiting period to be relieved from persistent threats, while the person threatening them is basically in a “don’t do it more than the last multiple years” probational period. And maybe that shouldn’t automatically escalate to criminal charges (if that’s what happened), but “you’ve endured years of threats, now you have to wait for potential escalation with no restraint on the person threatening you” isn’t the answer either.
    - Jiro 3y ago
      The problem is that when you convict someone, it's important that you convict him for the correct crime with the correct evidence. Letting him be convicted for threats without having to demonstrate that he meant it, and without other stalking-related evidence, may have caught a stalker. But it would have been bad precedent if you ever told someone on the Internet to FOAD and you got thrown in jail for it. It's like letting someone out of jail because the police searched him without a warrant. The correct thing to do here is to let the criminal go free; maybe the police will get a warrant next time. The fact that the ACLU supported the guy should be a sign that something is up other than just catching a stalker.
CamperBob2 3y ago
I don't understand why people keep quoting the "Die" message, when there are others that were much, much worse: "Was that you in the white Jeep? ... I am unsupervised. I know, it freaks me out too, but the possibilities are endless.” These messages clearly would have been considered threats by most reasonable people. Disagree? Send some similar ones to your least-favorite SCOTUS justice and see how that goes for you.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  Enough to get a restraining order or even civil damages, yes. Enough to slap a criminal charge on someone, I don’t think so.
  - CamperBob2 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - Pigalowda 3y ago
      I’d love to see an unhinged person message his sister/wife/mother thousands of times with threatening messages and see how he would respond.
      - CamperBob2 3y ago
        Totally. It's not just about the language, it's one of those cases where the sheer quantity of threatening messages has a quality all its own. It's as if the court simply refused to consider the whole picture. I tend to agree with those who say that they (as well as the ACLU) blew this one.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        I’d get a restraining order. Then, if it continues, it’s a violation of the restraining order. That’s an objective and established crime. Would note that your comment could reasonably be taken as inducement to a threat. I don’t actually think you “would love” to see harm come to the (only female?) members of my family. But I’m not 100% sure, as I’m not sure that you could be sure I couldn’t find a cop who might agree.