4 ms·

I don't know if it's fair to say he intentionally disrupted emergency communications. He unintentionally disrupted emergency communications in the course of in

I don't know if it's fair to say he intentionally disrupted emergency communications. He unintentionally disrupted emergency communications in the course of intentionally disrupting ordinary people's communications. I doubt he ever thought "I've got a good idea, I'll disrupt emergency communications". He did a thing, on purpose, that had a side-effect of disrupting emergency communications. I don't know whether you'd say that qualifies as "intentional". If it qualifies as intentional, are we saying that all possible unintended consequences are de facto intentions? Or only in this case?

IMTDb 9mo ago
He intentionally disrupted all communications including, but not limited to, emergency ones. In process he tried to unilaterally control a public resource based on his own authoritarian view of what is "good" vs "bad". He is lucky he is not in jail.
phil21 9mo ago
It’s the legal definition of intentional. If you intentionally perform an act that reasonably can foresee an outcome, then it is by definition intentional. If you rob a liquor store while armed and accidentally discharge your weapon - it’s an intentional murder. Doesn’t matter if you went in there thinking the gun was unloaded or if you told your friend in writing before you went in that you had no intention of hurting anyone. Unintentional would be he had a jammer for hobbyist use and it somehow turned on by itself while it was being transported in his backpack. If he pressed the power button in an intentional manner and reasonably knew the outcome of what a jammer does it is intentional behavior. He may not have had the explicit goal of disrupting emergency communication, but he absolutely knew he was doing so and intentionally performed the act anyways.
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
- ranger_danger 9mo ago
  > He may not have had the explicit goal of disrupting emergency communication, but he absolutely knew he was doing so How could you prove that though? They could absolutely claim ignorance and be right, they might not have known... but it's still illegal and they'll still be punished. As the saying goes... "ignorance of the law is no excuse." What I'd really like to know though, is the history of how/why it became that way. Who got to decide that everyone must be presumed to know all the laws at all times, and why? How is it fair that we expect everyone to know all applicable laws? I realize that claiming ignorance would just lead to widespread abuse, but at the same time I don't think it's fair because laws are massively complex and ever-changing... no single person can reasonably be expected to know it all.
  - deleted 9mo ago
    [deleted]
  - chaostheory 9mo ago
    > How could you prove that though? In the FCC link: “Mr. Humphreys admitted to the agents that he purchased, owned, and used the device to block cell phone communications of nearby drivers for 16 to 24 months.” Even if he claimed ignorance, it’s not a good defense when you’ve been doing this for close to two years
  - phil21 9mo ago
    You could claim ignorance that you had no idea what the box in your bag was, and thought it was a radiotherapy device that had health benefits or something. If you could then prove that you bought it from a website advertising it as such and had a true belief you had no idea it jammed communications in any manner then you’d have a case of an unintentional act. Here the guy bought a jammer that has exactly one use - jamming communications. He then presumably brought it with him on purpose and intentionally hit the power button to turn it on. It’s not really a borderline case like some things could be. It’s roughly the same as shooting at someone you hate who happens to be in a crowd and hitting a bystander on accident. It’s still an intentional act and you would be guilty of intentional murder of some type if they died.
    - deleted 9mo ago
roywiggins 9mo ago
at a certain point indifference is depraved enough to be indistinguishable from malice. there's entire bodies of law about it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depraved-heart_murder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depraved-heart_murder
knome 9mo ago
you're responsible for understanding the ramifications of things you do if a reasonable person should recognize those ramifications. any reasonable person would have known they were interrupting emergency services. not a lawyer, but surely something akin to gross negligence would apply?
- jstanley 9mo ago
  Certainly it was negligent.
bdcravens 9mo ago
Hence the low fine and the lack of a jail sentence. And yes, penalty for unintended consequences are a thing. Involuntary manslaughter, property damage caused by DWI, etc.
deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
registeredcorn 9mo ago
Maybe saying something like this would make things clearer: > His directed intention was to disrupt communication. He did not explicitly target EMS calls, however, his actions impacted EMS communications because of his intentions to disrupt communications. Example: If I poison the water for a city, my directed intention may be, "to lower pollution in the region". I am not specifically targeting children, however, a consequence of my intentions of poisoning the water will cause the death of children. This fellow intentionally took a disruptive action. The consequences of those directed disruptions may have caused (had caused?) catastrophic consequences - that is part of why what he did was illegal. In breaking that law, he became culpable for the outcome for all of the harm caused, targeted or otherwise. Ultimately, it was an intention which presupposed, "My personal opinion supersedes all others." It's an self-centered obscenity without regard to others.

IMTDb 9mo ago

He intentionally disrupted all communications including, but not limited to, emergency ones. In process he tried to unilaterally control a public resource based on his own authoritarian view of what is "good" vs "bad". He is lucky he is not in jail.

phil21 9mo ago

It’s the legal definition of intentional. If you intentionally perform an act that reasonably can foresee an outcome, then it is by definition intentional. If you rob a liquor store while armed and accidentally discharge your weapon - it’s an intentional murder. Doesn’t matter if you went in there thinking the gun was unloaded or if you told your friend in writing before you went in that you had no intention of hurting anyone. Unintentional would be he had a jammer for hobbyist use and it somehow turned on by itself while it was being transported in his backpack. If he pressed the power button in an intentional manner and reasonably knew the outcome of what a jammer does it is intentional behavior. He may not have had the explicit goal of disrupting emergency communication, but he absolutely knew he was doing so and intentionally performed the act anyways.

deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
ranger_danger 9mo ago
> He may not have had the explicit goal of disrupting emergency communication, but he absolutely knew he was doing so How could you prove that though? They could absolutely claim ignorance and be right, they might not have known... but it's still illegal and they'll still be punished. As the saying goes... "ignorance of the law is no excuse." What I'd really like to know though, is the history of how/why it became that way. Who got to decide that everyone must be presumed to know all the laws at all times, and why? How is it fair that we expect everyone to know all applicable laws? I realize that claiming ignorance would just lead to widespread abuse, but at the same time I don't think it's fair because laws are massively complex and ever-changing... no single person can reasonably be expected to know it all.
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
- chaostheory 9mo ago
  > How could you prove that though? In the FCC link: “Mr. Humphreys admitted to the agents that he purchased, owned, and used the device to block cell phone communications of nearby drivers for 16 to 24 months.” Even if he claimed ignorance, it’s not a good defense when you’ve been doing this for close to two years
- phil21 9mo ago
  You could claim ignorance that you had no idea what the box in your bag was, and thought it was a radiotherapy device that had health benefits or something. If you could then prove that you bought it from a website advertising it as such and had a true belief you had no idea it jammed communications in any manner then you’d have a case of an unintentional act. Here the guy bought a jammer that has exactly one use - jamming communications. He then presumably brought it with him on purpose and intentionally hit the power button to turn it on. It’s not really a borderline case like some things could be. It’s roughly the same as shooting at someone you hate who happens to be in a crowd and hitting a bystander on accident. It’s still an intentional act and you would be guilty of intentional murder of some type if they died.
  - deleted 9mo ago

roywiggins 9mo ago

at a certain point indifference is depraved enough to be indistinguishable from malice. there's entire bodies of law about it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depraved-heart_murder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depraved-heart_murder

knome 9mo ago

you're responsible for understanding the ramifications of things you do if a reasonable person should recognize those ramifications. any reasonable person would have known they were interrupting emergency services. not a lawyer, but surely something akin to gross negligence would apply?

jstanley 9mo ago
Certainly it was negligent.

bdcravens 9mo ago

Hence the low fine and the lack of a jail sentence. And yes, penalty for unintended consequences are a thing. Involuntary manslaughter, property damage caused by DWI, etc.

deleted 9mo ago

[deleted]

registeredcorn 9mo ago

Maybe saying something like this would make things clearer: > His directed intention was to disrupt communication. He did not explicitly target EMS calls, however, his actions impacted EMS communications because of his intentions to disrupt communications. Example: If I poison the water for a city, my directed intention may be, "to lower pollution in the region". I am not specifically targeting children, however, a consequence of my intentions of poisoning the water will cause the death of children. This fellow intentionally took a disruptive action. The consequences of those directed disruptions may have caused (had caused?) catastrophic consequences - that is part of why what he did was illegal. In breaking that law, he became culpable for the outcome for all of the harm caused, targeted or otherwise. Ultimately, it was an intention which presupposed, "My personal opinion supersedes all others." It's an self-centered obscenity without regard to others.