Jenksismyhero

When people have to be fearful of offending anyone and everyone for whatever reason, this is the result you get. We're a nation of gigantic p*****s with no backbone. If my kid missed the honor roll and felt bad about it i'd say make the f***ing honor roll and you won't feel bad about it anymore.

I'm in and I have no shot at winning given I have Illinois in the elite eight.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 20, 2013 -> 04:52 PM) the ohio law you posted doesn't contain that phrase. It seems to me, based on the name of the charge and the wording, that the intention was to cover threats that weren't necessarily imminent. Neither does the Illinois statute but that's in the common law. Probably don't need it for the stalking law since that's aimed at the harassment, not the "fear" the assault causes.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 20, 2013 -> 04:51 PM) So based on my interpretation of the stalking law, if the person threatens more than 1 time on the internet it would be actionable. A single threat, seems to be okay. So even under the stalking law what these girls did was fine.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 20, 2013 -> 04:52 PM) You arent even looking at the stalking laws, which basically cover these scenarios. I have no idea why you are living in this fictitious land where assault is the only basis for this crime. Read my posts. I said I only looked at assault law and very readily admitted that there might be something else out there that would cover this situation. So, yeah. Get off your high horse.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 20, 2013 -> 04:48 PM) It's OHIO. But it seems like a blatantly clear violation. They told her they were going to harm her. They have a reason to be mad at her, they know her, they live in the same town. Seems like they very clearly knowingly caused the victim to believe that the offenders were going to cause serious physical harm. Do you think that law is unconstitutional? Ha. Sorry, don't know why I keep saying Penn. Eh. It's passed so it's probably too difficult to declare it unconstitutional at this point. At the end of the day I don't think someone should be arrested for being a blowhard and making threats in person or over the internet or through whatever means unless there's some other context that would show there's an intent to follow up on it - prior acts, prior record, prior personal beef with the person, etc. At the end of the day, in this situation, I don't think they should have been arrested. I think they posted stupid crap on the internet and that's it. One later apologized, so clearly she didn't have the intent on following through with it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 20, 2013 -> 04:46 PM) That's pretty ridiculous, it's pretty clear that someone sending you threatening messages or making threatening phone calls can give you a reasonable apprehension of fear. Saying something along the lines of "I'm going to beat the s*** out of you next time we meet" seems like a pretty clear threat when it's coming from someone who knows the girl and has motive. You're telling me it'd be unreasonable for her to fear for her safety? I'm sure we can create a factual scenario that would stretch the bounds of the Illinois law that I saw. But if they're just posting that on facebook or twitter (and apologized for it) then no I don't think that would be reasonable to fear that. Like I said, if they showed up at her door in addition to sending it out? Cornered her at school? Sure, that I could see being a reasonable apprehension of fear of imminent peril.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 20, 2013 -> 04:43 PM) FYI they weren't charged under an assault law, they were charged with "aggravated menacing." http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2903.21 (A) No person shall knowingly cause another to believe that the offender will cause serious physical harm to the person or property of the other person, the other person’s unborn, or a member of the other person’s immediate family. Sounds a lot like Illinois' assault law, but Penn is a different state with different precedent so maybe it works there.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 20, 2013 -> 04:40 PM) Ive been to lazy to break out my lexis to confirm what the Illinois law is, but I will say that just because its a law today, does not mean I am going to simply say: "Oh well cant do anything" I will continue to ask questions and discuss whether or not this is right, and whether we as a society should do something about it. (edit) Jenks, No idea where you are getting that from me. I said that for me it would be like assault and depend on how actionable it was. In this case as its people who know each other and the threat is derived from something that actually happened, it seems pretty real/actionable to me. Thus the comparison to someone threatening Lebron for not making a free throw. Well we're having the discussion, but this is pretty basic criminal law from what I read in those cases. Words are not enough. Period.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 20, 2013 -> 04:34 PM) yeah the idea that something said over the internet doesn't count is pretty strange. Because there's no way reading something on Twitter or Facebook alone can make someone feel a reasonable apprehension of fear. I mean, I guess if the girls showed up outside of her house after making the tweet? I could see that as a possibility.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Mar 20, 2013 -> 04:27 PM) That isnt a threat. That in no way indicates that you might be the one to do it. These girls explicitly said they are going to f*** this girl up and that there will be a homicide. That is a direct threat to this girl, one day after one of their cousins was found guilty. You keep indicating random in your defense, but this isnt a random person at a bar that you are trying to get to leave your girlfriend alone, this isnt a random letter that you recieved saying that you should die. This is a direct threat because of something that happened. I just dont agree with your defense here and how it applies to the first amendment I'm using random because by the definition being proposed to me any threat is actionable, including random ones. Even this specific threat, which was made as a result of what happened to a family member, it's still not actionable under my reading of Illinois law (as an assault anyway). It was merely words with no reasonable apprehension of immediate peril.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 20, 2013 -> 03:43 PM) No because hate speech has a legitimate place in society. You have the right to have a negative opinion of others. Nazi's have the right to hate jews. They can say Jews are responsible for all the evils of the world, that Jews are the worst thing ever. The reason that needs to be protected because otherwise people can use "restrictions on hate speech" to stop their opponents from saying negative things about them. Allowing for public discourse, is one of the fundamental reasons for having the 1st amendment. Unlike threats of violence, I can defend hate speech easily. People should have the right to say they hate something, just as much as people should have the right to say they love something. But why should anyone be allowed to threaten someone else with a crime? What rationale purpose does it serve to allow people to threaten crimes against each other? The purpose of hate speech is to convince people to follow your cause. Not really a good comparison in my opinion. Just to apply it to the example at hand. If the person posted hate speech: "I hate you, you ruined my cousins life, I hope that you die in a horrible fashion, I hope that you go to hell..." That would be entirely protected. It may be abhorrent, but there is no legitimate reason why someone cant hate another person. But that is completely different than actually threatening to harm someone and saying that the next time you see them they are dead. I really see no way to justify that speech, and I consider myself pretty hardcore first amendment. Not everyone intends to follow through with the threat. I've been to a bar and told a guy that I'd f*** him up if he kept bothering my then-girlfriend. It would have been ludicrous to arrest me for that even though it was a threat. I was trying to get him to leave us alone. I wasn't trying to hurt/kill the guy. You really think that warrants being arrested and held in jail for X number of days? Also, I think people can spin "threats" in the exact same way you can spin hate speech. Your example of hoping someone will die in a horrible fashion, that's a threat. You want that person to die and you might be the one to do it. Better be safe and arrest you just in case you follow through with it. What's it matter if i'm being indirect about it. Add to all of this the fact that it was on the internet and IMO it's even more ludicrous. It's the most unfiltered medium for communication and all of a sudden we're going to take a hard line rule with it? Come on.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Mar 20, 2013 -> 03:07 PM) No, it doesn't I can see your IP address as a mod here - if I PM you and tell you I'm coming to your house and going to kill everyone there does the fact that I did it on Soxtalk mean that I was never serious about it? I mean... it happened. The medium I used is irrelevant. (goes without saying that is purely hypothetical and I'd never do that) Illinois law is pretty clear: "Mere words, no matter how abusive, cannot justify an assault." Daraska v. Dauksha, 64 N.E.2d 204, 327 Ill.App. 333 (1st App. 1945) "Words alone are insufficient to establish offense of assault." People v. Ferguson, 181 Ill.App.3d 950 (1st Dist. 1989) "Merely verbal threat of indefinite action in indefinite future is not assault under Illinois law." Kijonka v. Seitzinger, 363 F.3d 645, (C.A.7 Ill. 2004) "Under Illinois law, “assault” is defined as an intentional, unlawful offer of corporal injury by force, or force unlawfully directed, under such circumstances as to create a well-founded fear of imminent peril, coupled with the apparent present ability to effectuate the attempt if not prevented." Lunini v. Grayeb, , 305 F.Supp.2d 893 (C.D. Ill. 2004)

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 20, 2013 -> 02:54 PM) Im not sure what side you are arguing here. Either you think that 1st amendment protects speech, including harassing speech, or it does not. The hypothetical you referenced has no relevance to the discussion. This is about harassing speech, and I asked if you thought that since speech is generally not actionable, that a law that was created making "harassing speech" illegal, should be unconstitutional. You can say you are looking at the big picture, but the problem for me, is who do we err on the side of caution for? Do we err for the people who are making death threats? Or do we err for the people receiving death threats? For example: Why should this be protected? Why should someone be able to threaten another with physical violence in an attempt to coerce or intimidate them? Does that seem like something that should be protected under 1st amendment? By not allowing people to make death threats, will there be a substantial erosion of rights? I personally think that under assault this could be good enough. Im not a criminal lawyer, but I do believe that threat alone can be assault. Now there may be some questions about "immediacy", but as the threat said "when I see you", I would argue that is as soon as possible, which means immediate. Im sure there is plenty of case law. The same can be said for hate speech - why do we allow it, why protect that speech. Well, because we deal with that in a free society. We're more concerned about the slippery slope than of the offense of the speech. And I agree with that position.

QUOTE (bmags @ Mar 20, 2013 -> 02:13 PM) enough with the usage of b****es and skanks, please. I can say what I want. Free speech FTW!

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 20, 2013 -> 12:15 PM) So saying words is assault if I reasonably believe it'll happen? Is that even the law? And how is that any different from this exact situation where these girls threatened to beat the victim up, she reasonably believed it was a real threat and called the cops to report it? How does your preference remove Billy the Cop's or Donny the DA's judgement or make it different in any way from this case? Sec. 12-1. Assault. (a) A person commits an assault when, without lawful authority, he or she knowingly engages in conduct which places another in reasonable apprehension of receiving a battery. I think in case law though verbal threats aren't enough. You need some kind of physical motion as well (short of physical contact though, that would be a battery). Waiving my fists in the air, running towards you, etc. There's zero immediacy in this example. They posted it on facebook and on twitter. She didn't know if it was coming 5 minutes from now or 3 years from now. Penn law might be different, I dunno. I don't think this would fly in Illinois unless there's another more specific statute for online bullying/threats that I don't know about. Btw, here's what they wrote apparently: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-th...-by-mean-girls/ Bunch of skanks mouthing off. I'm not going to lose sleep over the fact that they got arrested. But I don't think it's really appropriate either. Edit: I should add too that they got arrested and they'll be in juvenile detention for over a week since their court date isn't until March 27th. So. Yeah. A total overreaction, IMO, even if they are pieces of s***.

Lol, geez: According to the grand jury report:

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Mar 20, 2013 -> 12:43 PM) Medical assistant Adrienne Moton admitted Tuesday that she had cut the necks of at least 10 babies after they were delivered, as Gosnell had instructed her. Gosnell and another employee regularly “snipped” the spines “to ensure fetal demise,” she said. Moton sobbed as she recalled taking a cellphone photograph of one baby because he was bigger than any she had seen aborted before. She measured the fetus at nearly 30 weeks, and thought he could have survived, given his size and pinkish color. Gosnell later joked that the baby was so big he could have walked to the bus stop, she said. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_...-03-19-02-54-43 If only we could find the dullest, rustiest pair of scissors to do the same to this pile of s***....And just let him f***ing squirm until he stops. These people and the people who defend them should all rot in hell. DAS RAYCESS! "Remember to say racist. Oh! And remember to use the word lynch!" If the glove don't fit...

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 20, 2013 -> 11:52 AM) Here is the problem I have. If we are saying speech is protected (including threats), then why is harassment (verbal) allowed? It would seem that the harassment law was in violation of the 1st amendment, if you believe that the 1st amendment protects violent speech. This is probably one of the most difficult arguments for 1st amendment supporters, because even I have to admit that there is a line where the speech is of so little value, that I just do not believe it is worth protecting. Harassment for the sake of intimidation would fall under that. The problem is, that once you create a law that disallows "harassment" then I can try and use that law to prevent you from free speech. Catch 22 and in my opinion, no real good answer. For the same reason I can call a black person the N-word if I wanted to and it's protected, but I can't fire him/her for being black. You're free to say the word, you're not free to act a certain way. I think you should be free to tell someone you'll beat the crap out of them, and if you reasonably believe it'll happen call the cops and they'll get arrested/charged with assault. If they do it in a harassing manner (which I think is weak unless they did it more than once, but perhaps there's a victim exception I could agree too), same thing. I mean, I get where you guys are coming from. No one should be supporting these girls as they are awful human beings. But at the same time i'm looking bigger picture and I don't want Billy the Cop deciding if what I say is threatening enough to warrant me being physically arrested, hauled to a jail and brought before a judge. That's pretty severe for saying something that in 99.9% of cases will never result in actual violence.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 20, 2013 -> 10:15 AM) ...which makes the likelihood of them doing something dumb and retributive higher and fear of their threats more reasonable. No, it just means they're full of crap because they're high schoolers. Kids are stupid and say stupid things all the time to look impressive/sound intimidating to gain some reputation. I don't think we should assume that what high schoolers say or what they post on the internet is the gospel truth.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 20, 2013 -> 10:07 AM) These girls know the victim, there's no doubt about that. And the motivation is clear, it isn't some random threat. They're high school girls man. They're f***ing evil b****es to begin with.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 20, 2013 -> 09:57 AM) is there some reason you're avoiding this hypothetical? I've said I think that should be protected unless the circumstances support that I could reasonably believe that you'd follow through on it. Do I know you? Have you made threats before? Have you committed acts like this before? Etc. If I just randomly received a letter from you because we disagreed over Soxtalk? No. I don't think you should be arrested for that. Harassment maybe, if Illinois has a law like that (and it doesn't take more than one act to violate the law). But something along the lines of threatening violence/assault? No. Harassment is different because it's less about the words being used and more about the fact that you're, well, harassing someone.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 20, 2013 -> 09:56 AM) Well if the cops are lying about what was said and falsely charging them with threatening the victim's life and threatening bodily harm, that's a different story. I don't see any reason why we should assume that they are lying, though, and you never brought up this objection previously. In your first post you seemed to be saying that this speech was covered by the 1A regardless. Even if they were direct I'd still argue there's a lack of reasonable apprehension of fear and they shouldn't be prosecuted. I pointed that out to you only to say it might have been something less direct. One was charged with threatening death, the other bodily harm. And yes, prosecutors/cops always overreach so it easily could have been something like "i hope someone hits you with a car" which isn't a threat that involves their personal involvement.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 20, 2013 -> 09:48 AM) I can't agree here. The rape victim of a national story that resulted in the conviction of two hometown heroes is going to be reviled by some in that community for "wrecking" those boys' lives. There's no reason to assume that these threats aren't legitimate--kids fight over dumber s*** every day, much of it originating on the internet. Agreed here. The problem is we have no idea what they actually said. I can't find it anywhere. We're presuming what the cops read was that direct.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 20, 2013 -> 09:40 AM) They're not exactly "random" in this case, though. They're relatives or friends of one of the convicted, live in the same town and know the girl. Why wouldn't this fall under some form of harassment? Well that could be. I don't know what Ohio law is. Maybe they have an anti-harassment statute. Threats and free speech haven't really been defined well in the law. Threats can be unprotected, but it comes down to a reasonable person standard from both the listener and the speaker. And to me, girls saying stupid s*** over the internet doesn't create a reasonable fear on the part of the victim. This is obviously closer to that then being hyperbolic and saying something like "I hope that b**** gets hit by a car."