Board index › General Discussion › News and Current Events

U.S man arrested for seizure inducing tweet..

Page 1 of 3 [ 40 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

MushroomPrincess
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2017
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 335
Location: Turtle Island

21 Mar 2017, 12:26 pm

Jacoby wrote:
How can they determine that it was this person's image that caused the seizure specifically if there were other people doing the same?

That's a pretty flimsy defense, Jacoby. That would be like if a dozen people all conspired to poison one guy's drink, and then said "how do you know it was my poison that made him sick and almost killed him?"



beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

21 Mar 2017, 1:57 pm

I would say that sending an email to someone meant to induce a seizure, with the stated hope that the victin dies is a crime, at least a form of battery or assault.

Seizures can cause injury, and if they last longer than 5 minutes they become status epilepticus, which is a medical emergency and potentially fatal.

The "snowflake" comments here completely miss the point.


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

21 Mar 2017, 4:22 pm

beneficii wrote:
I would say that sending an email to someone meant to induce a seizure, with the stated hope that the victin dies is a crime, at least a form of battery or assault.

Not about this particular case but about where it stops in terms of what we're going to call a prosecutable crime from here on. Someone on WP once accused me of triggering a grand mal seizure in them by something I posted that disagreed with them. It was an exaggeration, of course, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see a parallel...
The word "injury" gets misused.

Quote:
The "snowflake" comments here completely miss the point.

That was my comment.
Aint it a dandy? :D


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,098
Location: temperate zone

21 Mar 2017, 5:15 pm

Amaltheia wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Yeah whatev...
Call me a obstructor of justice and a bully enabler and let's move on.

I don't want to call you anything.
I thought we were discussing the legal merits of the case.
I think it's valid. You obviously think otherwise — though I'm not sure why.


Amaltheia

I am offended by how insensitive to Raptor you are being!

Raptor obviously knows that he has lost the debate, and obviously realizes that he is 100 percent wrong!

But you refuse to "move on" ,and expect him to keep on engaging in normal conversation about the subject!



Can't you SEE that if we dont respect his wishes to "move on" that would force poor little Raptor to publicly admit the truth: that he is wrong! And admitting to that would damage Raptor's psyche so much that.. who knows?....he might even get a seizure! Thats because Raptor is WP's delicate special little snowflake, and needs to be constantly sheltered from normal conversation!

Jeeze!



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,098
Location: temperate zone

21 Mar 2017, 5:24 pm

Raptor wrote:
beneficii wrote:
I would say that sending an email to someone meant to induce a seizure, with the stated hope that the victin dies is a crime, at least a form of battery or assault.

Not about this particular case but about where it stops in terms of what we're going to call a prosecutable crime from here on. Someone on WP once accused me of triggering a grand mal seizure in them by something I posted that disagreed with them. It was an exaggeration, of course, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see a parallel...



Where exactly do you see a "parallel"?

One case is the equivalent to me sending you a letter. And you reading it and then joking that what I wrote caused you have a heart attack (when it really didnt even do that because you were exaggerating).

The other case is the equivalent of me sending you a letter bomb that blows up in your face it puts out your eye, or even kills you.

A written letter maybe an example of free speech. But a letter bomb is not an example of Constitutionally protected free speech. The two things are not even on the same continuum.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

21 Mar 2017, 5:28 pm

MushroomPrincess wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
How can they determine that it was this person's image that caused the seizure specifically if there were other people doing the same?

That's a pretty flimsy defense, Jacoby. That would be like if a dozen people all conspired to poison one guy's drink, and then said "how do you know it was my poison that made him sick and almost killed him?"


If 40 different people poisoned somebody individually then 40 people would be guilty of poisoning someone not just one person. How can you even prove any of these images are what caused the seizure? Is it possible something else caused it? I imagine someone who has seizures so easily triggered can have them triggered a lot of different ways, it's not so cut and dry. Legally I think this opens up a can of worms we don't want to open.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,098
Location: temperate zone

21 Mar 2017, 6:07 pm

Well...it is indeed a brand new "can of worms" for this brave new world of the information age.

But we have no choice BUT to open it.

But yes-it may not be that cut and dry.

Inspires one to write a Science Fiction meets courtroom drama.

Hypothetically lets say that its technically possible for a standard computer screen to shoot a blinding pulse of light out of one its pixels (probably not possible -but lets say that it is possible).

Lets say I send an email with an attachment to you. You click it. First thing you see...a tiny pic of a naked girl. So for a moment your eyes are riveted to one little spot on the screen. Then suddenly one of the pixels in that image goes BANG! And hits your eye with blinding pulse of light. Maybe it temporarily blinds you (and you fall down the stairs), or maybe it even permanently blinds you.

And lets say there also numerous emails and facebook messages from me in the previous week to other folks in which I boast that I am going to do this light beam attack on you.

Of course you're gonna call the cops on me. Of course Im gonna get thrown in the slammer for criminal assault.

In this real case: I dunno if its really techncially, or medically, possible to cause an epileptic to get a seizure from video of a blinking light sent in an email, or not. Dont know if anyone really knows. Its a brave new world.


If you use a plastic squirt gun to hold up and rob a liquor store you get charged with "armed robbery" just as if you used a real gun. So using that as a precedent my guess is that even if the victim did NOT get a seizure, but learned of your previous communications about your criminal intent -that alone might be enough to get you charged with criminal assault. Lets say that the intended victim gets the attachment -sees the flashing light- thinks "WTF is this?" and just ignores it, has no ill effects, and goes on to do his online banking and forgets about it, but then learns later that the perpetrator knew the intended victim was epileptic and was communicating his criminal intent to try to induce the vic to have seizures to others before sending it- that alone might get the perp charged (even if the attack failed and the vic didnt even get seizures)!



Lukeda420
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,640
Location: Chicago suburbs.

21 Mar 2017, 6:15 pm

http://www.epilepsy.com/learn/triggers- ... d-seizures

Photosensitivity and Seizures:

Quote:
Examples of Triggers

Seizures in photosensitive people may be triggered by exposure to some of the following situations:
-Television screens or computer monitors due to the flicker or rolling images.
-Certain video games or TV broadcasts containing rapid flashes or alternating patterns of different colors.
-Intense strobe lights like visual fire alarms.
-Natural light, such as sunlight, especially when shimmering off water, flickering through trees or through the slats of -Venetian blinds.
-Certain visual patterns, especially stripes of contrasting colors.

Some people wonder whether flashing lights on the top of buses or emergency vehicles may trigger seizures in people with photosensitive epilepsy too.
Not all televisions, video games, computer monitors, and strobe lights trigger seizures, however. Even in predisposed individuals, many factors must combine to trigger the photosensitive reaction. Examples include:
-Frequency of the flash (that is, how quickly the light is flashing)
-Brightness
-Contrast with background lighting
-Distance between the viewer and the light source
-Wavelength of the light
-Whether a person’s eyes are open or closed
-The frequency or speed of flashing light that is most likely to cause seizures varies from person to person. Generally, flashing lights most likely to trigger seizures are between the frequency of 5 to 30 flashes per second (Hertz).


http://www.newsweek.com/kurt-eichenwald ... llo-569813

JOHN RIVELLO ARRESTED AS SUSPECT ACCUSED OF CAUSING NEWSWEEK WRITER KURT EICHENWALD’S SEIZURE VIA TWITTER:

Quote:
The Justice Department released additional details Friday afternoon after Rivello appeared in court. A search warrant found that in direct messages to other Twitter users, Rivello wrote, “I hope this sends him into a seizure,” “Spammed this at [victim] let’s see if he dies,” and “I know he has epilepsy.” The search warrant also found screenshots on Rivello’s iCloud account “from epilepsy.com with a list of commonly reported epilepsy seizure triggers,” the Justice Department said, and other screenshots related to Eichenwald.

Since the December incident, more than 40 other people have sent similar strobing images to Eichenwald, the writer tweeted on Friday. He said that “details of their cases are with the FBI.” A spokesperson for the FBI office in Dallas said she could not comment on ongoing investigations.


And just for snark...
Quote:
Rivello is 29 and registered as a Republican, according to public records.



beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

21 Mar 2017, 6:28 pm

Raptor wrote:
beneficii wrote:
I would say that sending an email to someone meant to induce a seizure, with the stated hope that the victin dies is a crime, at least a form of battery or assault.

Not about this particular case but about where it stops in terms of what we're going to call a prosecutable crime from here on. Someone on WP once accused me of triggering a grand mal seizure in them by something I posted that disagreed with them. It was an exaggeration, of course, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see a parallel...
The word "injury" gets misused.

Quote:
The "snowflake" comments here completely miss the point.

That was my comment.
Aint it a dandy? :D


He and his accomplices knew this was likely to happen if they sent him messages with flashing lights. He mentioned that triggering a seizure was the goal and he hoped the victim died. This shows malice.

In addition, sending flashing lights like this serves no legitimate speech purpose.


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

21 Mar 2017, 6:48 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
Amaltheia wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Yeah whatev...
Call me a obstructor of justice and a bully enabler and let's move on.

I don't want to call you anything.
I thought we were discussing the legal merits of the case.
I think it's valid. You obviously think otherwise — though I'm not sure why.


Amaltheia

I am offended by how insensitive to Raptor you are being!

Raptor obviously knows that he has lost the debate, and obviously realizes that he is 100 percent wrong!

But you refuse to "move on" ,and expect him to keep on engaging in normal conversation about the subject!



Can't you SEE that if we dont respect his wishes to "move on" that would force poor little Raptor to publicly admit the truth: that he is wrong! And admitting to that would damage Raptor's psyche so much that.. who knows?....he might even get a seizure! Thats because Raptor is WP's delicate special little snowflake, and needs to be constantly sheltered from normal conversation!

Jeeze!

The Rap is NEVER wrong. :shameonyou:

Tip of the day: Trolling is supposed to have a stinging effect and induce outrage from the intended victim, not amusement like this attempt has had on the intended target. :P


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,461
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

21 Mar 2017, 7:17 pm

Raptor wrote:
Dickish as the act was, arresting someone and possibly sending them up the river for 10 years for posting something on the internet sets a dangerous precedence.


I figured that response would show up...however this isn't just posting 'something' on the internet. I don't think freedom of speech includes sending carefully crafted visual images meant to induce a seizure in a person you know has epilepsy, with the intent of causing a seizure...especially if you 'hope the victim dies' that is more like attempted murder than just sending an offensive message or something like that.


_________________
We won't go back.


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,461
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

21 Mar 2017, 7:19 pm

Raptor wrote:
Amaltheia wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Dickish as the act was, arresting someone and possibly sending them up the river for 10 years for posting something on the internet sets a dangerous precedence.

Really? People get arrested for sending things through the mail — letter bombs, ransom demands, and the like. How is this different?

Good luck sending a letter bomb via e-mail.
Ransom demands sent by any method implies kidnapping which is the crime that'll send you up the river.

Quote:
It's not like the guy accidentally sent the flashing image. It was done with malicious aforethought — as demonstrated by the text he sent accompanying the image.

So then what, we start sending people up the river for hurting people's feelings online and causing them emotional "injuries"?
:roll:


Brain damage and possible fatality causing epileptic seizures and hurt feelings over some post on the Internet you don't like are pretty different matters I think.


_________________
We won't go back.


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,461
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

21 Mar 2017, 7:24 pm

BaalChatzaf wrote:
Not everyone who sees a flashing light has a seizure.


Duh, but this psychopath who sent it to the guy knew he had epilepsy and was intending to cause a harmful, potentially fatal seizure...its like people didn't even read the article. It wasn't just some random youtube video of a flashing light the guy actually researched what sort of image and light frequences could induce a seizure and made a very specific video to send to someone they 'don't like' to cause them to have a seizure.

If people want to talk about being offended by content on the Internet, and how the world isn't a safe place for special snowflakes this isn't the thread for it...this is about cyber crime with intent to cause real harm to someone...Not someone getting offended about a post on the Internet.


_________________
We won't go back.


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,461
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

21 Mar 2017, 7:26 pm

beneficii wrote:
I would say that sending an email to someone meant to induce a seizure, with the stated hope that the victin dies is a crime, at least a form of battery or assault.

Seizures can cause injury, and if they last longer than 5 minutes they become status epilepticus, which is a medical emergency and potentially fatal.

The "snowflake" comments here completely miss the point.


Exactly.


_________________
We won't go back.


Nekomonster
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2016
Age: 22
Gender: Male
Posts: 272

22 Mar 2017, 12:29 am

@jew_goldstein wasn't a very wise troll. He used his phone number, phone with traceable details and real email address on that Twitter account.


_________________
god...it's brutal out here


MushroomPrincess
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2017
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 335
Location: Turtle Island

22 Mar 2017, 12:36 am

Jacoby wrote:
How can you even prove any of these images are what caused the seizure? Is it possible something else caused it?

It doesn't matter what caused the seizure. The important thing here is intent. Assault with a weapon is still a crime even if you miss.