Internet troll says crimes not serious

minikin

weldoninhio wrote: »

1. Telling someone you are going to murder them and describing it in detail is not bullying, it is threatening and intimidating.

2. Check out the title of the thread you are replying in.

3. If someone breaks the rules report them.

Going around in circles here...

1. Yes, and he was convicted in a court of law regarding this, so what's with the further vitriol on here? Look, if he wasn't a vulnerable individual I probably wouldn't have even posted on here... want to call a certain gangster 'overweight frederick' go for it... he deserves it, but this guy strikes me as his own worst enemy and someone in need of assistance rather than ridicule.

2. You integrated the reference to trolling in a direct response to me, that's why I pointed out that I can not be accused of diminishing the weight of his activities - so don't try attach that to me. I did not title the thread, taking part in the thread does not imply that I concur with the sentiments of the original post or it's title.

3. The mods have enough on their plate, I credit people with having the intellect to be able to discuss matters back and forth without it descending into an argument.

Wanderer78

Deleted User wrote: »

Well, I'll be more in favour of very hefty fines and prison sentences. Having been the target of internet trolls, I've zero sympathy for them.

we ve effectively been doing this for decades if not centuries, in my eyes, its not working. ive met many criminals and people that have broken laws and ended up in prison etc. ive found things such as mental health issues are amongst the most common issues these people have and have had, some from a very young age. you ll also find that our educational system is one of the main system where these individuals have had issues, i.e. our educational system is dreadful at dealing with these complex issues and in some cases, exasperates them, ive also had personal experience of this.

weldoninhio

minikin wrote: »

Going around in circles here...

1. Yes, and he was convicted in a court of law regarding this, so what's with the further vitriol on here? Look, if he wasn't a vulnerable individual I probably wouldn't have even posted on here... want to call a certain gangster 'overweight frederick' go for it... he deserves it, but this guy strikes me as his own worst enemy and someone in need of assistance rather than ridicule.

2. You integrated the reference to trolling in a direct response to me, that's why I pointed out that I can not be accused of diminishing the weight of his activities - so don't try attach that to me. I did not title the thread, taking part in the thread does not imply that I concur with the sentiments of the original post or it's title.

3. The mods have enough on their plate, I credit people with having the intellect to be able to discuss matters back and forth without it descending into an argument.

1. Have you seen his psychiatric records??Or are you basing this on his online persona? Or are you a psychic psychiatrist?

2. is just waffle.

3. You know no one has broken any rule or "attacked" you.

Wanderer78

Wanderer78 wrote: »

we ve effectively been doing this for decades if not centuries, in my eyes, its not working. ive met many criminals and people that have broken laws and ended up in prison etc. ive found things such as mental health issues are amongst the most common issues these people have and have had, some from a very young age. you ll also find that our educational system is one of the main system where these individuals have had issues, i.e. our educational system is dreadful at dealing with these complex issues and in some cases, exasperates them, ive also had personal experience of this.

OK, stints in mental health facilities where they can get the help they need. And forced withdrawal from any online activities for a period of time

minikin

weldoninhio wrote: »

1. Have you seen his psychiatric records??Or are you basing this on his online persona? Or are you a psychic psychiatrist?

2. is just waffle.

3. You know no one has broken any rule or "attacked" you.

You're completely entitled to your opinions.
/end

Wanderer78

Deleted User wrote: »

OK, stints in mental health facilities where they can get the help they need. And forced withdrawal from any online activities for a period of time

possibly but i suspect it may not work for some, maybe many. i know people that have spent some time in mental health institutions, it doesnt sound good. we have this tendency to create institutions and systems, then under fund them or even defund them, say we ve dealt with the issue, but really we havent. its effectively what i call, an 'out of sight, out of mind approach'. i do believe this is exactly what we ve been doing with our whole judicial and prison system. we actually need a multi-dimensional, multi-institutional, multi-systemic approach to deal with these issues. you will actually find multi-systemic failure leads to things such as criminality.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

begbysback

minikin wrote: »

Going around in circles here...

1. Yes, and he was convicted in a court of law regarding this, so what's with the further vitriol on here? Look, if he wasn't a vulnerable individual I probably wouldn't have even posted on here... want to call a certain gangster 'overweight frederick' go for it... he deserves it, but this guy strikes me as his own worst enemy and someone in need of assistance rather than ridicule.

2. You integrated the reference to trolling in a direct response to me, that's why I pointed out that I can not be accused of diminishing the weight of his activities - so don't try attach that to me. I did not title the thread, taking part in the thread does not imply that I concur with the sentiments of the original post or it's title.

3. The mods have enough on their plate, I credit people with having the intellect to be able to discuss matters back and forth without it descending into an argument.

This post should be an example to everybody - numbered paragraphs should be mandatory on here

rgodard80a

Not sure if this was suggested in the thread already, but there should've been conditions to his very lenient probation.

Eg. avoid social media, restraining order from the victim(s), etc.

I believe the computer hacker Kevin Mitnick was not allowed to use a computer as part of his bail/probation/release ?

At least some form of "parental lock" on his internet account to keep him in line if he's of diminished mental capacity.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

mariaalice

They have had their day, content providers are beginning to take this sort of stuff seriously.

While boards or any other social media should not be giving a platform to those with mental health issues ( unless they are looking for help or advice), its the ones with no mental health issues who have normal job live normal lives that are far more worrying.

Wanderer78

mariaalice wrote: »

They have had their day, content providers are beginning to take this sort of stuff seriously.

While boards or any other social media should not be giving a platform to those with mental health issues ( unless they are looking for help or advice), its the ones with no mental health issues who have normal job live normal lives that are far more worrying.

i will stop posting!:eek:

mariaalice

Wanderer78 wrote: »

i will stop posting!:eek:

To be more precise broads and other social media should not give anyone a platform to spew aggressive nastiness or threats or other bottom feeder type opinions.

mariaalice

Interesting question those who have been caught and it became apparent it was mental health issues, were they always aggressive and nasty( personality trait ) or did there mental health issues make them aggressive and nasty.

Oranage2

So many questions - So much speculation

Does he suffer with a bit of depression or is he a full on nut job?

Is his mother at her wits end with him, does she even know or is she an enabler?

Can a man that sends threats online to an innocent victim also be subjected to online abuse?

Is this considered trolling or something more serious?

Skedaddle

Two wrongs don't make a right and he has been sentenced, albeit using the suspended approach.

My view of it is that Irish anti-harassment laws and anti-stalking laws are very weak. I know a few people who've received horrific abuse from harassers both off-line and online and I think the tools available to the Gardai and judiciary are pretty weak and it results in people's lives being made a misery.

I don't think it's just 'the internet' but rather it's a general lackadaisical approach to dealing with harassment in Ireland and I think we need to be able to distinguish between online banter and argument and actual campaigns of bullying, intimidation and harassment

Also, while a suspended sentence may seem 'weak' it can have a profound impact if it modifies someone's behaviour. Typically a sentence is suspended with the proviso that someone refrains from doing whatever it was they were doing to cause the sentence in the first place. If you step out of line the sentence can become active. It saves the state a lot of resources to keep someone out of prison, yet under supervision and I think it can be used quite appropriately at times.

Rory28

[QUOTE=Skedaddle;105806620Also, while a suspended sentence may seem 'weak' it can have a profound impact if it modifies someone's behaviour. Typically a sentence is suspended with the proviso that someone refrains from doing whatever it was they were doing to cause the sentence in the first place. If you step out of line the sentence can become active. It saves the state a lot of resources to keep someone out of prison, yet under supervision and I think it can be used quite appropriately at times.[/QUOTE]

Seeing as he said he doesn't think the crime was serious I doubt this applies to this case.

Skedaddle

Rory28 wrote: »

Seeing as he said he doesn't think the crime was serious I doubt this applies to this case.

True, but if he continues down that path, the court could simply unsuspend the sentence.

T&Cs apply to suspended sentences.

begbysback

mariaalice wrote: »

Interesting question those who have been caught and it became apparent it was mental health issues, were they always aggressive and nasty( personality trait ) or did there mental health issues make them aggressive and nasty.

Not necessarily so, I've mental health issues and it makes me placid and kind

Still +1 to numbered paragraphs

minikin

begbysback wrote: »

Still +1 to numbered paragraphs

I commend your taste in paragraph formatting / brilliant sarcasm
(either is fine)

AllForIt

I could not be more against this.

I don't agree that anyone has a right to open an account on whatever social media service that exists, where the user reveals exactly who they are for whatever reason they do so, and expect the law to counteract any comments they receive when they themselves have left themselves open to the possibility of it happening.

I always think that stuff that happens on the internet is a reflection of real life. If one left their front door open when at work, or left their keys in their car with the window down one could hardly expect the law which we all pay for to spend time and effort going around finding and prosecuting the opportunist low-life when ppl have been so irresponsible. I think that leaving oneself open for abuse on the internet is equally irresponsible, a reflection of real life.

On top of that it gives the government in any state seemingly valid reasons to further laws which give them the right to infiltrate citizens private data. No doubt while ppl get outraged about the nutjob in this case we will give up our privacy further and further until such a point that we've given it all up for such relatively trivial reasons and 1984 is a reality.

ohnonotgmail

AllForIt wrote: »

I could not be more against this.

I don't agree that anyone has a right to open an account on whatever social media service that exists, where the user reveals exactly who they are for whatever reason they do so, and expect the law to counteract any comments they receive when they themselves have left themselves open to the possibility of it happening.

I always think that stuff that happens on the internet is a reflection of real life. If one left their front door open when at work, or left their keys in their car with the window down one could hardly expect the law which we all pay for to spend time and effort going around finding and prosecuting the opportunist low-life when ppl have been so irresponsible. I think that leaving oneself open for abuse on the internet is equally irresponsible, a reflection of real life.

On top of that it gives the government in any state seemingly valid reasons to further laws which give them the right to infiltrate citizens private data. No doubt while ppl get outraged about the nutjob in this case we will give up our privacy further and further until such a point that we've given it all up for such relatively trivial reasons and 1984 is a reality.

so you are ok with public death threats?

muppetshow1451

Looks like a neo nazi out of shape

AllForIt

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so you are ok with public death threats?

Yes, when they are done on social media or similar. Not just death threats but any and all comments whatsoever.

I don't know who this so called victim is but I don't think she's being completely genuine. She can not be unaware of the internet phenomenon, a troll. But lets say she's genuine, in any case her reaction to it is completely subjective. Another person could just ignore it and realise that the troll was just that, which in this case he was, wasn't he.

What she wants is that she can have for her own advantage a place on the internet where she can receive comments that aid her concerns and nothing negative could come out of it. To me that's as ridiculous as putting up a sign on your front door stating that your looking for a partner, just come on it, and expecting only ppl one likes to enter.

The cynical side of me says she completely overblew the case in terms of the effects the comments had on her, because she wants the right to receive comments that are in some way advantageous to her and I don't think she has that right. Who the hell gives legitimate death threats on social media anyway if they were serious when they would be identifying themselves in the process?

ohnonotgmail

AllForIt wrote: »

Yes, when they are done on social media or similar. Not just death threats but any and all comments whatsoever.

I don't know who this so called victim is but I don't think she's being completely genuine. She can not be unaware of the internet phenomenon, a troll. But lets say she's genuine, in any case her reaction to it is completely subjective. Another person could just ignore it and realise that the troll was just that, which in this case he was, wasn't he.

What she wants is that she can have for her own advantage a place on the internet where she can receive comments that aid her concerns and nothing negative could come out of it. To me that's as ridiculous as putting up a sign on your front door stating that your looking for a partner, just come on it, and expecting only ppl one likes to enter.

The cynical side of me says she completely overblew the case in terms of the effects the comments had on her, because she wants the right to receive comments that are in some way advantageous to her and I don't think she has that right. Who the hell gives legitimate death threats on social media anyway if they were serious when they would be identifying themselves in the process?

you did actually read what he posted? where he said he was walking beside her in the street? that takes it beyond just comments on the internet and thankfully the gardai take it a lot more seriously than you do.

AllForIt

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you did actually read what he posted? where he said he was walking beside her in the street? that takes it beyond just comments on the internet and thankfully the gardai take it a lot more seriously than you do.

No but I do understand that we're talking about sinister menacing comments of any kind - I get that. I'm not excluding those kinds of comments in my opinions.
In fact I think the more wacky the comments are the more likely there is no intent behind them.

Do you realise that what we're talking about here is the having the law monitor social media interactions in the same way the Guards patrol the roads? Do you realise how much time and effort all of this is going to take and who is going to pay for it? I am and you are just to give anyone the right to set up their social media profile? You must be kidding, there is no way I could agree with that.

ohnonotgmail

AllForIt wrote: »

No but I do understand that we're talking about sinister menacing comments of any kind - I get that. I'm not excluding those kinds of comments in my opinions.
In fact I think the more wacky the comments are the more likely there is no intent behind them.

Do you realise that what we're talking about here is the having the law monitor social media interactions in the same way the Guards patrol the roads? Do you realise how much time and effort all of this is going to take and who is going to pay for it? I am and you are just to give anyone the right to set up their social media profile? You must be kidding, there is no way I could agree with that.

nobody is asking the gardai to monitor social media. where are you getting that ****e from?

AllForIt

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

nobody is asking the gardai to monitor social media. where are you getting that ****e from?

I made the exaggerated point to show where all of this is leading.

In the UK it is now being discussed that anyone subscribing to adult dating sites must first provide evidence of who they are by means of identification. Ostensibly to prove one is over 18 but actually it reveals ones identity.

You see where I'm coming from with this? I see that cases like this one will be used as a excuse to eliminate anonymity on the internet which amounts to legitimate surveillance and I'm totally against it.

Say my name

AllForIt wrote: »

Yes, when they are done on social media or similar. Not just death threats but any and all comments whatsoever.

I don't know who this so called victim is but I don't think she's being completely genuine. She can not be unaware of the internet phenomenon, a troll. But lets say she's genuine, in any case her reaction to it is completely subjective. Another person could just ignore it and realise that the troll was just that, which in this case he was, wasn't he.

What she wants is that she can have for her own advantage a place on the internet where she can receive comments that aid her concerns and nothing negative could come out of it. To me that's as ridiculous as putting up a sign on your front door stating that your looking for a partner, just come on it, and expecting only ppl one likes to enter.

The cynical side of me says she completely overblew the case in terms of the effects the comments had on her, because she wants the right to receive comments that are in some way advantageous to her and I don't think she has that right. Who the hell gives legitimate death threats on social media anyway if they were serious when they would be identifying themselves in the process?

I suggest you read this Wikipedia article on the murder of Jo Cox MP and more specifically about the perpetrator Thomas Mair.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Jo_Cox

AllForIt

Say my name wrote: »

I suggest you read this Wikipedia article on the murder of Jo Cox MP and more specifically about the perpetrator Thomas Mair.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Jo_Cox

Would he have murdered her if she didn't have an open social media account? I'm not just putting that in there as a rebuttal to your terse reply to my comments but I have though it myself at the time of the murder.