Man facing severe prison time for a tweet!

[miketx]

nazi libs are always trying to shut down free speech. This will fail in the court. I know why and how it will, and I will NOT post it.

 

[Faun]

John Rivello, Twitter troll, faces new aggravated assault charge in Texas

The jew will stop at nothing to criminalize free speech in this country.I hope a SANE jury finds him not guilty he did nothing wrong. That dipshit "journalist" can't take the heat stay the hell off of twitter.

If I was on that jury, he would walk!

No one really needed more evidence of what an ignorant tool you are. Without even hearing all the evidence, you've already decided the guy must be innocent. Hopefully, if a jury is involved, they will be less biased than morons like you.

 

[miketx]

John Rivello, Twitter troll, faces new aggravated assault charge in Texas

The jew will stop at nothing to criminalize free speech in this country.I hope a SANE jury finds him not guilty he did nothing wrong. That dipshit "journalist" can't take the heat stay the hell off of twitter.

If I was on that jury, he would walk!

No one really needed more evidence of what an ignorant tool you are. Without even hearing all the evidence, you've already decided the guy must be innocent. Hopefully, if a jury is involved, they will be less biased than morons like you.

I don't need to hear the anything more than an image on the internet cause his seizure. That's enough for "NOT GUILTY".

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

This one is pretty weird.
Can the journalist prove he had a seizure or are we just taking his word for it?

He's a known epileptic.

Thats already been established.
Did he actually have a seizure,or are we supposed to just take his word for it?
I know I wouldnt.

 

[Preacher]

And now liberals are trying to justify their assault on free speech.

 

[Jackson]

John Rivello, Twitter troll, faces new aggravated assault charge in Texas

The jew will stop at nothing to criminalize free speech in this country.I hope a SANE jury finds him not guilty he did nothing wrong. That dipshit "journalist" can't take the heat stay the hell off of twitter.

If I was on that jury, he would walk!

I woulod want to hear more evidence but I am inclined to support a "guilty" finding.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

This one is pretty weird.
Can the journalist prove he had a seizure or are we just taking his word for it?

He's a known epileptic.

So we're taking his word for it.

 

[ricechickie]

This one is pretty weird.
Can the journalist prove he had a seizure or are we just taking his word for it?

He's a known epileptic.

Thats already been established.
Did he actually have a seizure,or are we supposed to just take his word for it?
I know I wouldnt.

The article didn't say if there were witnesses, and I don't know if a doctor can tell if someone had a seizure after the fact.

Why wouldn't you believe the reporter?

 

[TNHarley]

I can somewhat understand the judges logic. But i just dont know if i would say its criminal. Its a ******* TWEET. Images on the internet? Come on now..

So a piece of shit, sends a strobe gif to a known epileptic. He discusses with someone else the possibility that the reporter will die.

The piece of shit who did that deserves jail time. There was intent to harm.

A retard could intend to hurt you with a piece of paper as well. This is an IMAGE on the INTERNET. We are talking a collaboration of color that moves..

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

John Rivello, Twitter troll, faces new aggravated assault charge in Texas

The jew will stop at nothing to criminalize free speech in this country.I hope a SANE jury finds him not guilty he did nothing wrong. That dipshit "journalist" can't take the heat stay the hell off of twitter.

If I was on that jury, he would walk!

I woulod want to hear more evidence but I am inclined to support a "guilty" finding.

If he actually had a seizure I'd be inclined to agree.
But if he has no hard evidence I give the guy a slap on the wrist and tell him not to do it again.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Why wouldn't you believe the reporter?

Personally, I do. But I thought we need PROOF

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

This one is pretty weird.
Can the journalist prove he had a seizure or are we just taking his word for it?

He's a known epileptic.

Thats already been established.
Did he actually have a seizure,or are we supposed to just take his word for it?
I know I wouldnt.

The article didn't say if there were witnesses, and I don't know if a doctor can tell if someone had a seizure after the fact.

Why wouldn't you believe the reporter?

Are you fuking kidding me?

 

[ricechickie]

I can somewhat understand the judges logic. But i just dont know if i would say its criminal. Its a ******* TWEET. Images on the internet? Come on now..

So a piece of shit, sends a strobe gif to a known epileptic. He discusses with someone else the possibility that the reporter will die.

The piece of shit who did that deserves jail time. There was intent to harm.

A retard could intend to hurt you with a piece of paper as well. This is an IMAGE on the INTERNET. We are talking a collaboration of color that moves..

The guy sent a strobe. Along with aessage that the reporter deserved to die. He knew the guy was epileptic. I don't know if he knew that the reporter was susceptible to seizures when exposed to strobe lights, or if he made a guess.

If someone is allergic to peanuts, and it's well-known, and someone else knowingly added peanut oil to the allergic person's meal, would you defend that as just trying to feed the victim?

 

[TNHarley]

I can somewhat understand the judges logic. But i just dont know if i would say its criminal. Its a ******* TWEET. Images on the internet? Come on now..

So a piece of shit, sends a strobe gif to a known epileptic. He discusses with someone else the possibility that the reporter will die.

The piece of shit who did that deserves jail time. There was intent to harm.

A retard could intend to hurt you with a piece of paper as well. This is an IMAGE on the INTERNET. We are talking a collaboration of color that moves..

The guy sought out a strobe. He knew the guy was epileptic. I don't know if he knew that the reporter was susceptible to seizures when exposed to strobe lights, or if he made a guess.

If someone is allergic to peanuts, and it's well-known, and someone else knowingly added peanut oil to the allergic person's meal, would you defend that as just trying to feed the victim?

That isnt an image on the internet.
I think the guy is an asshole, i just dont agree it is illegal.

 

[Faun]

John Rivello, Twitter troll, faces new aggravated assault charge in Texas

The jew will stop at nothing to criminalize free speech in this country.I hope a SANE jury finds him not guilty he did nothing wrong. That dipshit "journalist" can't take the heat stay the hell off of twitter.

If I was on that jury, he would walk!

No one really needed more evidence of what an ignorant tool you are. Without even hearing all the evidence, you've already decided the guy must be innocent. Hopefully, if a jury is involved, they will be less biased than morons like you.

I don't need to hear the anything more than an image on the internet cause his seizure. That's enough for "NOT GUILTY".

Hmm, who's the forum to believe on this topic? A confirmed moron like you? Or the Mayo Clinic?

Precipitation of epileptic seizures by visual stimuli has been known since antiquity. Either simple visual precipitants, such as light or patterns, or complex visual excitations, such as television, video games, or reading, may trigger visually induced seizures. Photosensitive epilepsy, characterized by epileptic seizures provoked by intermittent light stimulation, is by far the most frequent and well-studied type of visually induced seizures.

http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(11)63178-9/fulltext​

Tough call, huh?

 

[ricechickie]

Why wouldn't you believe the reporter?

Personally, I do. But I thought we need PROOF

All I've got is an article.

But honestly, the intent of the perpetrator seems to be supported by lots of proof.

 

[ricechickie]

I can somewhat understand the judges logic. But i just dont know if i would say its criminal. Its a ******* TWEET. Images on the internet? Come on now..

So a piece of shit, sends a strobe gif to a known epileptic. He discusses with someone else the possibility that the reporter will die.

The piece of shit who did that deserves jail time. There was intent to harm.

A retard could intend to hurt you with a piece of paper as well. This is an IMAGE on the INTERNET. We are talking a collaboration of color that moves..

The guy sought out a strobe. He knew the guy was epileptic. I don't know if he knew that the reporter was susceptible to seizures when exposed to strobe lights, or if he made a guess.

If someone is allergic to peanuts, and it's well-known, and someone else knowingly added peanut oil to the allergic person's meal, would you defend that as just trying to feed the victim?

That isnt an image on the internet.
I think the guy is an asshole, i just dont agree it is illegal.

This wasn't just an image. It was particular lighting known for causing seizures.

 

[ricechickie]

This one is pretty weird.
Can the journalist prove he had a seizure or are we just taking his word for it?

He's a known epileptic.

Thats already been established.
Did he actually have a seizure,or are we supposed to just take his word for it?
I know I wouldnt.

The article didn't say if there were witnesses, and I don't know if a doctor can tell if someone had a seizure after the fact.

Why wouldn't you believe the reporter?

Are you fuking kidding me?

No knowing your particular track that carries your train of thought, I have to ask: are you skeptical because he's a reporter, because he's Jewish, or because you just think people lie in general? Or is the guy gay or too liberal?

Help me out. Why wouldn't you give his testimony any weight?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I can somewhat understand the judges logic. But i just dont know if i would say its criminal. Its a ******* TWEET. Images on the internet? Come on now..

So a piece of shit, sends a strobe gif to a known epileptic. He discusses with someone else the possibility that the reporter will die.

The piece of shit who did that deserves jail time. There was intent to harm.

A retard could intend to hurt you with a piece of paper as well. This is an IMAGE on the INTERNET. We are talking a collaboration of color that moves..

The guy sent a strobe. Along with aessage that the reporter deserved to die. He knew the guy was epileptic. I don't know if he knew that the reporter was susceptible to seizures when exposed to strobe lights, or if he made a guess.

If someone is allergic to peanuts, and it's well-known, and someone else knowingly added peanut oil to the allergic person's meal, would you defend that as just trying to feed the victim?

Feeding someone peanuts that is allergic to them is guaranteed to cause a reaction.
Strobes dont always set off an epileptic seizure among those that are susceptible.
Did the guy open the tweet and stare at it? I would think the first time it flashed he would have looked away immediately.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

This one is pretty weird.
Can the journalist prove he had a seizure or are we just taking his word for it?

He's a known epileptic.

Thats already been established.
Did he actually have a seizure,or are we supposed to just take his word for it?
I know I wouldnt.

The article didn't say if there were witnesses, and I don't know if a doctor can tell if someone had a seizure after the fact.

Why wouldn't you believe the reporter?

Are you fuking kidding me?

No knowing your particular track that carries your train of thought, I have to ask: are you skeptical because he's a reporter, because he's Jewish, or because you just think people lie in general? Or is the guy gay or too liberal?

Help me out. Why wouldn't you give his testimony any weight?

I find it hard to believe you dont understand why the reporter would lie in this case.