Man facing severe prison time for a tweet!

[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.

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

It is a collaboration of moving color. Thats all it is. If that is a weapon, I fucked Elvis in 2037 AD

 

[ricechickie]

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.

It is a collaboration of moving color. Thats all it is. If that is a weapon, I fucked Elvis in 2037 AD

And peanuts are just food.

 

[TNHarley]

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.

It is a collaboration of moving color. Thats all it is. If that is a weapon, I fucked Elvis in 2037 AD

And peanuts are just food.

And anti-freeze is just a chemical to keep your car from overheating.

 

[ricechickie]

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.

I find it hard to believe that you would leap to that conclusion. On one hand, we've got a man who set out to do harm, and on the other hand, we've got the man who claimed harm. You choose to disbelieve, in the absence of any other evidence, the person who is not facing jail time, and who was targeted for harm.

You haven't explained why, yet.

 

[ricechickie]

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.

It is a collaboration of moving color. Thats all it is. If that is a weapon, I fucked Elvis in 2037 AD

And peanuts are just food.

And anti-freeze is just a chemical to keep your car from overheating.

Isn't it a chemical to stop the water from freezing?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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.

I find it hard to believe that you would leap to that conclusion. On one hand, we've got a man who set out to do harm, and on the other hand, we've got the man who claimed harm. You choose to disbelieve, in the absence of any other evidence, the person who is not facing jail time, and who was targeted for harm.

You haven't explained why, yet.

Holy shit!!!
Are you really saying the reporter has no animosity towards the guy who sent the tweet?
Are you really going to go with that?

 

[TNHarley]

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.

It is a collaboration of moving color. Thats all it is. If that is a weapon, I fucked Elvis in 2037 AD

And peanuts are just food.

And anti-freeze is just a chemical to keep your car from overheating.

Isn't it a chemical to stop the water from freezing?

Yes. Also, it is critical for heat transfer in combustible engines to stop it from overheating.

 

[Preacher]

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?

Ohhhh! We should charge every tv show he watched,video game he played and every author of every book he read! Can't just nit pick gotta nail them ALL!

 

[ricechickie]

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

It is a collaboration of moving color. Thats all it is. If that is a weapon, I fucked Elvis in 2037 AD

And peanuts are just food.

And anti-freeze is just a chemical to keep your car from overheating.

Isn't it a chemical to stop the water from freezing?

Yes. Also, it is critical for heat transfer in combustible engines to stop it from overheating.

Then why isn't it called "anti-overheat"????

 

[ricechickie]

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.

I find it hard to believe that you would leap to that conclusion. On one hand, we've got a man who set out to do harm, and on the other hand, we've got the man who claimed harm. You choose to disbelieve, in the absence of any other evidence, the person who is not facing jail time, and who was targeted for harm.

You haven't explained why, yet.

Holy shit!!!
Are you really saying the reporter has no animosity towards the guy who sent the tweet?
Are you really going to go with that?

Oh, he's probably pissed.

Do you think every victim of a crime who is angry about assault lie about their injuries?

 

[TNHarley]

It is a collaboration of moving color. Thats all it is. If that is a weapon, I fucked Elvis in 2037 AD

And peanuts are just food.

And anti-freeze is just a chemical to keep your car from overheating.

Isn't it a chemical to stop the water from freezing?

Yes. Also, it is critical for heat transfer in combustible engines to stop it from overheating.

Then why isn't it called "anti-overheat"????

no idea rice

 

[ricechickie]

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?

Ohhhh! We should charge every tv show he watched,video game he played and every author of every book he read! Can't just nit pick gotta nail them ALL!

No, only those who targeted him with something likely to cause a seizure.

 

[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?

Ohhhh! We should charge every tv show he watched,video game he played and every author of every book he read! Can't just nit pick gotta nail them ALL!

No, you ignorant Nazi. Intent is a factor. Show where every TV show and video game he played intended to give him a seizure....

Damn, are you stupid.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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.

I find it hard to believe that you would leap to that conclusion. On one hand, we've got a man who set out to do harm, and on the other hand, we've got the man who claimed harm. You choose to disbelieve, in the absence of any other evidence, the person who is not facing jail time, and who was targeted for harm.

You haven't explained why, yet.

Holy shit!!!
Are you really saying the reporter has no animosity towards the guy who sent the tweet?
Are you really going to go with that?

Oh, he's probably pissed.

Do you think every victim of a crime who is angry about assault lie about their injuries?

Show me the evidence that he was harmed in anyway.
.....oh,it's pretty hard to claim that the guy you beat the shit out of is lying when his face looks like a bag of hammered shit.

 

[ricechickie]

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.

I find it hard to believe that you would leap to that conclusion. On one hand, we've got a man who set out to do harm, and on the other hand, we've got the man who claimed harm. You choose to disbelieve, in the absence of any other evidence, the person who is not facing jail time, and who was targeted for harm.

You haven't explained why, yet.

Holy shit!!!
Are you really saying the reporter has no animosity towards the guy who sent the tweet?
Are you really going to go with that?

Oh, he's probably pissed.

Do you think every victim of a crime who is angry about assault lie about their injuries?

Show me the evidence that he was harmed in anyway.
.....oh,it's pretty hard to claim that the guy you beat the shit out of is lying when his face looks like a bag of hammered shit.

His testimony is evidence.

You choose to ignore that.

Almost as if the intended victim is on trial.

 

[Faun]

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.

I find it hard to believe that you would leap to that conclusion. On one hand, we've got a man who set out to do harm, and on the other hand, we've got the man who claimed harm. You choose to disbelieve, in the absence of any other evidence, the person who is not facing jail time, and who was targeted for harm.

You haven't explained why, yet.

Holy shit!!!
Are you really saying the reporter has no animosity towards the guy who sent the tweet?
Are you really going to go with that?

Oh, he's probably pissed.

Do you think every victim of a crime who is angry about assault lie about their injuries?

Show me the evidence that he was harmed in anyway.
.....oh,it's pretty hard to claim that the guy you beat the shit out of is lying when his face looks like a bag of hammered shit.

Fire a gun at someone with intent to hit them and you're still charged with a crime even if you miss them and they're not harmed.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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

I find it hard to believe that you would leap to that conclusion. On one hand, we've got a man who set out to do harm, and on the other hand, we've got the man who claimed harm. You choose to disbelieve, in the absence of any other evidence, the person who is not facing jail time, and who was targeted for harm.

You haven't explained why, yet.

Holy shit!!!
Are you really saying the reporter has no animosity towards the guy who sent the tweet?
Are you really going to go with that?

Oh, he's probably pissed.

Do you think every victim of a crime who is angry about assault lie about their injuries?

Show me the evidence that he was harmed in anyway.
.....oh,it's pretty hard to claim that the guy you beat the shit out of is lying when his face looks like a bag of hammered shit.

His testimony is evidence.

You choose to ignore that.

Oh but he'd never lie about it....

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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

I find it hard to believe that you would leap to that conclusion. On one hand, we've got a man who set out to do harm, and on the other hand, we've got the man who claimed harm. You choose to disbelieve, in the absence of any other evidence, the person who is not facing jail time, and who was targeted for harm.

You haven't explained why, yet.

Holy shit!!!
Are you really saying the reporter has no animosity towards the guy who sent the tweet?
Are you really going to go with that?

Oh, he's probably pissed.

Do you think every victim of a crime who is angry about assault lie about their injuries?

Show me the evidence that he was harmed in anyway.
.....oh,it's pretty hard to claim that the guy you beat the shit out of is lying when his face looks like a bag of hammered shit.

Fire a gun at someone with intent to hit them and you're still charged with a crime even if you miss them and they're not harmed.

Big difference between attempted murder and murder.
And if there are no witnesses and no evidence of harm it's a he said she said situation.

 

[ricechickie]

I find it hard to believe that you would leap to that conclusion. On one hand, we've got a man who set out to do harm, and on the other hand, we've got the man who claimed harm. You choose to disbelieve, in the absence of any other evidence, the person who is not facing jail time, and who was targeted for harm.

You haven't explained why, yet.

Holy shit!!!
Are you really saying the reporter has no animosity towards the guy who sent the tweet?
Are you really going to go with that?

Oh, he's probably pissed.

Do you think every victim of a crime who is angry about assault lie about their injuries?

Show me the evidence that he was harmed in anyway.
.....oh,it's pretty hard to claim that the guy you beat the shit out of is lying when his face looks like a bag of hammered shit.

His testimony is evidence.

You choose to ignore that.

Oh but he'd never lie about it....

1. He may be, just like any witness might be lying.

2. The intended victim is not on trial.

3. Do you disbelieve all witness testimony?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Holy shit!!!
Are you really saying the reporter has no animosity towards the guy who sent the tweet?
Are you really going to go with that?

Oh, he's probably pissed.

Do you think every victim of a crime who is angry about assault lie about their injuries?

Show me the evidence that he was harmed in anyway.
.....oh,it's pretty hard to claim that the guy you beat the shit out of is lying when his face looks like a bag of hammered shit.

His testimony is evidence.

You choose to ignore that.

Oh but he'd never lie about it....

1. He may be, just like any witness might be lying.

2. The intended victim is not on trial.

3. Do you disbelieve all witness testimony?

He's not a witness.
And no I'm not going to take the guys word on it when he has a vested interest in seeing the guy get screwed over as much as possible.
This is no different than a divorce case where both sides lie through their teeth just to get back at the otherside.

GIVE ME HARD EVIDENCE!