Man facing severe prison time for a tweet!

[ricechickie]

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!

He's a witness.

 

[Faun]

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.

Of course there is a difference, but it's still a crime due to the intent. Assault does not require the victim be harmed. If someone threatens someone else's life, they could be charged with assault, even though their victim is not harmed.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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!

He's a witness.

Hahahaha...no he's not he's the plaintiff.
Who of course has a reason to lie to achieve his goal.

 

[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.

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.

Of course there is a difference, but it's still a crime due to the intent. Assault does not require the victim be harmed. If someone threatens someone else's life, they could be charged with assault, even though their victim is not harmed.

Not if they dont have any proof.
I could go down to my local police station and say you threatened to kill me but if I have no evidence it's going nowhere.

What the guy did was a shitty thing but I wouldnt lock him up if the plaintiff cant prove harm. Now if there were witnesses and they saw the guy flopping around like a fish out of water than yes I could see the guy going to the pokey.

 

[ricechickie]

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!

He's a witness.

Hahahaha...no he's not he's the plaintiff.
Who of course has a reason to lie to achieve his goal.

If he's on the stand testifying to what he saw, he's a witness.

And unless it's civil court, there's no plaintiff. In a criminal trial, the state (or federal gov) brings charges, not the victim.

 

[Faun]

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.

Of course there is a difference, but it's still a crime due to the intent. Assault does not require the victim be harmed. If someone threatens someone else's life, they could be charged with assault, even though their victim is not harmed.

Not if they dont have any proof.
I could go down to my local police station and say you threatened to kill me but if I have no evidence it's going nowhere.

What the guy did was a shitty thing but I wouldnt lock him up if the plaintiff cant prove harm. Now if there were witnesses and they saw the guy flopping around like a fish out of water than yes I could see the guy going to the pokey.

There is proof he intended to harm the reporter. The graphic he tweeted, along with a message hoping it would induce a seizure, is proof he intended to harm the reporter.

And again, assault doesn't require harm.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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!

He's a witness.

Hahahaha...no he's not he's the plaintiff.
Who of course has a reason to lie to achieve his goal.

If he's on the stand testifying to what he saw, he's a witness.

And unless it's civil court, there's no plaintiff. In a criminal trial, the state (or federal gov) brings charges, not the victim.

So you're going to believe a guy who has a vested interest in seeing the defendant go down when he has no evidence?

 

[Faun]

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!

He's a witness.

Hahahaha...no he's not he's the plaintiff.
Who of course has a reason to lie to achieve his goal.

If he's on the stand testifying to what he saw, he's a witness.

And unless it's civil court, there's no plaintiff. In a criminal trial, the state (or federal gov) brings charges, not the victim.

So you're going to believe a guy who has a vested interest in seeing the defendant go down when he has no evidence?

Again, in terms of assault, it doesn't matter if the reporter suffered a seizure or not. The intent was to injure him.

What is ASSAULT

An unlawful attempt or offer. on the part of one man, with force or violence, to inflict a bodily hurt upon another. An attempt or offer to beat another, without touching him; as if one lifts up his cane or his fist in a threatening manner at another ; or strikes at him, but misses him. 3 Bl. Comm. 120; 3 Steph. Comm. 469. Aggravated assault is one committed with the intention of committing some additional crime; or one attended with circumstances of peculiar outrage or atrocity. Simple assault is one committed with no intention to do any other injury. An assault is an unlawful attempt, coupled with a present ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another. Pen. Code Cal.

Law Dictionary: What is ASSAULT? definition of ASSAULT (Black's Law Dictionary)

What is ASSAULT? definition of ASSAULT (Black's Law Dictionary)​

 

[ricechickie]

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!

He's a witness.

Hahahaha...no he's not he's the plaintiff.
Who of course has a reason to lie to achieve his goal.

If he's on the stand testifying to what he saw, he's a witness.

And unless it's civil court, there's no plaintiff. In a criminal trial, the state (or federal gov) brings charges, not the victim.

So you're going to believe a guy who has a vested interest in seeing the defendant go down when he has no evidence?

Not in absence of other corroborating evidence.

1. The defendant sent a tweet with a gif with the intent to cause of seizure.

2. The defendant sent along with it a message that the reporter deserved to die.

3. The reporter has a well-established history of epilepsy, triggered by strobe lights.

If the reporter never suffered a seizure in his life, I'd be suspect of his claim. The article does not say if anyone else was present during his seizure, or if his doctor could tell he recently suffered one. Those things would be evidence, too.

I don't understand how you immediately jumped to the conclusion that this witness is probably lying. Because he was mad at the defendant? What victim isn't mad at someone who tried to hurt or kill them?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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!

He's a witness.

Hahahaha...no he's not he's the plaintiff.
Who of course has a reason to lie to achieve his goal.

If he's on the stand testifying to what he saw, he's a witness.

And unless it's civil court, there's no plaintiff. In a criminal trial, the state (or federal gov) brings charges, not the victim.

So you're going to believe a guy who has a vested interest in seeing the defendant go down when he has no evidence?

Again, in terms of assault, it doesn't matter if the reporter suffered a seizure or not. The intent was to injure him.

What is ASSAULT

An unlawful attempt or offer. on the part of one man, with force or violence, to inflict a bodily hurt upon another. An attempt or offer to beat another, without touching him; as if one lifts up his cane or his fist in a threatening manner at another ; or strikes at him, but misses him. 3 Bl. Comm. 120; 3 Steph. Comm. 469. Aggravated assault is one committed with the intention of committing some additional crime; or one attended with circumstances of peculiar outrage or atrocity. Simple assault is one committed with no intention to do any other injury. An assault is an unlawful attempt, coupled with a present ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another. Pen. Code Cal.

Law Dictionary: What is ASSAULT? definition of ASSAULT (Black's Law Dictionary)

What is ASSAULT? definition of ASSAULT (Black's Law Dictionary)​

We've already come to that conclusion.
But if he suffered no injury you dont lock the guy up for years for something that may or may not have happened.
Does he deserve some kind of penalty?
Sure he does.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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!

He's a witness.

Hahahaha...no he's not he's the plaintiff.
Who of course has a reason to lie to achieve his goal.

If he's on the stand testifying to what he saw, he's a witness.

And unless it's civil court, there's no plaintiff. In a criminal trial, the state (or federal gov) brings charges, not the victim.

So you're going to believe a guy who has a vested interest in seeing the defendant go down when he has no evidence?

Not in absence of other corroborating evidence.

1. The defendant sent a tweet with a gif with the intent to cause of seizure.

2. The defendant sent along with it a message that the reporter deserved to die.

3. The reporter has a well-established history of epilepsy, triggered by strobe lights.

If the reporter never suffered a seizure in his life, I'd be suspect of his claim. The article does not say if anyone else was present during his seizure, or if his doctor could tell he recently suffered one. Those things would be evidence, too.

I don't understand how you immediately jumped to the conclusion that this witness is probably lying. Because he was mad at the defendant? What victim isn't mad at someone who tried to hurt or kill them?

It's hardly jumping to a conclusion when you know the journalist hates the guys guts and wants nothing more than to see him locked up.

 

[ricechickie]

He's a witness.

Hahahaha...no he's not he's the plaintiff.
Who of course has a reason to lie to achieve his goal.

If he's on the stand testifying to what he saw, he's a witness.

And unless it's civil court, there's no plaintiff. In a criminal trial, the state (or federal gov) brings charges, not the victim.

So you're going to believe a guy who has a vested interest in seeing the defendant go down when he has no evidence?

Not in absence of other corroborating evidence.

1. The defendant sent a tweet with a gif with the intent to cause of seizure.

2. The defendant sent along with it a message that the reporter deserved to die.

3. The reporter has a well-established history of epilepsy, triggered by strobe lights.

If the reporter never suffered a seizure in his life, I'd be suspect of his claim. The article does not say if anyone else was present during his seizure, or if his doctor could tell he recently suffered one. Those things would be evidence, too.

I don't understand how you immediately jumped to the conclusion that this witness is probably lying. Because he was mad at the defendant? What victim isn't mad at someone who tried to hurt or kill them?

It's hardly jumping to a conclusion when you know the journalist hates the guys guts and wants nothing more than to see him locked up.

Actually, it is.

Again, the state or federal government had to come to the conclusion to charge this guy. It wasn't just the victim's word.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Hahahaha...no he's not he's the plaintiff.
Who of course has a reason to lie to achieve his goal.

If he's on the stand testifying to what he saw, he's a witness.

And unless it's civil court, there's no plaintiff. In a criminal trial, the state (or federal gov) brings charges, not the victim.

So you're going to believe a guy who has a vested interest in seeing the defendant go down when he has no evidence?

Not in absence of other corroborating evidence.

1. The defendant sent a tweet with a gif with the intent to cause of seizure.

2. The defendant sent along with it a message that the reporter deserved to die.

3. The reporter has a well-established history of epilepsy, triggered by strobe lights.

If the reporter never suffered a seizure in his life, I'd be suspect of his claim. The article does not say if anyone else was present during his seizure, or if his doctor could tell he recently suffered one. Those things would be evidence, too.

I don't understand how you immediately jumped to the conclusion that this witness is probably lying. Because he was mad at the defendant? What victim isn't mad at someone who tried to hurt or kill them?

It's hardly jumping to a conclusion when you know the journalist hates the guys guts and wants nothing more than to see him locked up.

Actually, it is.

Again, the state or federal government had to come to the conclusion to charge this guy. It wasn't just the victim's word.

So there is other evidence?

 

[Faun]

He's a witness.

Hahahaha...no he's not he's the plaintiff.
Who of course has a reason to lie to achieve his goal.

If he's on the stand testifying to what he saw, he's a witness.

And unless it's civil court, there's no plaintiff. In a criminal trial, the state (or federal gov) brings charges, not the victim.

So you're going to believe a guy who has a vested interest in seeing the defendant go down when he has no evidence?

Not in absence of other corroborating evidence.

1. The defendant sent a tweet with a gif with the intent to cause of seizure.

2. The defendant sent along with it a message that the reporter deserved to die.

3. The reporter has a well-established history of epilepsy, triggered by strobe lights.

If the reporter never suffered a seizure in his life, I'd be suspect of his claim. The article does not say if anyone else was present during his seizure, or if his doctor could tell he recently suffered one. Those things would be evidence, too.

I don't understand how you immediately jumped to the conclusion that this witness is probably lying. Because he was mad at the defendant? What victim isn't mad at someone who tried to hurt or kill them?

It's hardly jumping to a conclusion when you know the journalist hates the guys guts and wants nothing more than to see him locked up.

You're speaking from ignorance now. You don't know "he hates the man's guts," you are assuming that. The journalist did claim he suffered a seizeure long before he even knew who it was who sent him the tweet.

 

[ricechickie]

If he's on the stand testifying to what he saw, he's a witness.

And unless it's civil court, there's no plaintiff. In a criminal trial, the state (or federal gov) brings charges, not the victim.

So you're going to believe a guy who has a vested interest in seeing the defendant go down when he has no evidence?

Not in absence of other corroborating evidence.

1. The defendant sent a tweet with a gif with the intent to cause of seizure.

2. The defendant sent along with it a message that the reporter deserved to die.

3. The reporter has a well-established history of epilepsy, triggered by strobe lights.

If the reporter never suffered a seizure in his life, I'd be suspect of his claim. The article does not say if anyone else was present during his seizure, or if his doctor could tell he recently suffered one. Those things would be evidence, too.

I don't understand how you immediately jumped to the conclusion that this witness is probably lying. Because he was mad at the defendant? What victim isn't mad at someone who tried to hurt or kill them?

It's hardly jumping to a conclusion when you know the journalist hates the guys guts and wants nothing more than to see him locked up.

Actually, it is.

Again, the state or federal government had to come to the conclusion to charge this guy. It wasn't just the victim's word.

So there is other evidence?

Ummm. Read the article.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

So you're going to believe a guy who has a vested interest in seeing the defendant go down when he has no evidence?

Not in absence of other corroborating evidence.

1. The defendant sent a tweet with a gif with the intent to cause of seizure.

2. The defendant sent along with it a message that the reporter deserved to die.

3. The reporter has a well-established history of epilepsy, triggered by strobe lights.

If the reporter never suffered a seizure in his life, I'd be suspect of his claim. The article does not say if anyone else was present during his seizure, or if his doctor could tell he recently suffered one. Those things would be evidence, too.

I don't understand how you immediately jumped to the conclusion that this witness is probably lying. Because he was mad at the defendant? What victim isn't mad at someone who tried to hurt or kill them?

It's hardly jumping to a conclusion when you know the journalist hates the guys guts and wants nothing more than to see him locked up.

Actually, it is.

Again, the state or federal government had to come to the conclusion to charge this guy. It wasn't just the victim's word.

So there is other evidence?

Ummm. Read the article.

Are you referring to the original article?

 

[sartre play]

Maybe tweets is all we will have. haven't seen a single post on keeping the net neutral.

 

[miketx]

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.

Prove intent, nazi.

 

[Faun]

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.

Prove intent, nazi.

Sounds like you're talking to the OP. Ask him, he's the Nazi.

 

[EverCurious]

Interesting legal question... On the one hand I would argue that one with "special needs and conditions" is somewhat responsible for their own well being (aka the peanut alergy sufferer must be diligent not to, as an example, order food with peanuts in it,) but on the other hand it could technically fall under the written definition of assault... Opens up quite the can of worms though. Does such "intent to cause harm" apply to /all/ things? If an exe sends a spiteful text intending to hurt is that then also "assault"? How far does such a thing go?