Internet troll sentenced to 18 weeks in jail.

[Al Vallario]

..

 

[Al Vallario]

..

 

[wildman]

If you hurled abuse at a funeral or outside the grieving parents house you could be expected to be carted off by the police for public disorder offences, this is no different.

I am sure there will be some freedom of speech / impinging on my human rights moon maiden, whale kissing tree huggers who will say otherwise

 

[Edrof]

Even if you cooperate you are liable to be physically harmed. You know on all the reality television shows when arrestees complain about handcuffs being too tight? That hurts, and often causes lasting injury. Many compliant suspects are still tackled to the ground, have a knee shoved in their back, their face pressed into the ground, etc. as a precautionary measure.

So, obviously you have evidence to demonstrate all of the above. Please share. I love your choice of words: "Often, lasting, liable, many." Wheel out the hard facts, please. Also, I couldn't care less about North America, its police don't exactly have an enviable reputation and you get people that go too far in every sphere of life.

Secondly, in relation to non-compliant suspects, the intention is irrelevant. It does not matter whether violence is conducted in order to protect police officers or members of the public. It is still violence.

Once again, semantics and pedantry over the word 'violence'. Violence is...*drum roll*...violence. I'm arguing that appropriate force is necessary and besides, intention is EXTREMELY relevant.

In that respect both of your examples are irrelevant. Constable Vallario would not propose any fantastical courses of action that differ significantly from established methods.

So, if you agree that police authorisation to use appropriate force is acceptable and sensible what exactly is the point you're trying to make? 'Use of force is bad, but necessary'?

I'm breaking for lunch.

 

[nicks3607]

But on that point, let's not dress violence up as 'restraining force'. When you are arrested, you are being threatened with violence. You will be hit, you will be tackled to the ground, have a knee in your back, be mauled by a police dog, electrocuted with a Taser gun, or even shot with a police firearm.

No, you're not. You're being taken into police custody. You are TOLD you're being taken into Police custody.

What happens then is directly proportionate to how strenuously you try to debate that fact.

Out of curiosity, have you ever been arrested?

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

We're just blowing through nap time, aren't we?

That Boxxy vid is damn catchy :/

 

[Al Vallario]

..

 

[Al Vallario]

..

 

[Vonhelmet]

An astute observation. That would be because the burden of proof lies with those — such as yourself, it seems — that think it ought to be an offence.

There are offences under the malicious communications act of 1988, so if there were an issue with the soundness of the law, I think they would have been found in the past 23 years. The law forbids malicious communications of any sort. Originally it dealt with letters and "other articles" but it has been updated to cover electronic communications, which seems reasonable. Clearly the law is intended to stop people sending hate mail. Is sending hate mail OK? Should that cease to be an offence?

We are working from the premise that freedom of speech and expression is a universal human right. Human rights are supposed to be inviolable — negating cases in which they conflict — but alas, many states feel they are above such things and decide to place restrictions on them.

Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. Your right to freedom of speech is restricted for the good of society, to prevent your causing undue harm to others.

This particular statute is one such restriction. It means, ultimately, that I cannot freely express myself in communications. I cannot so much as state a falsehood with the intention of causing a recipient of my message distress or anxiety.

Why would you want to do such a thing? Why would such a thing be defensible? Bearing in mind that the act (have you read it?) includes provisions for permissible defences.

Consider, for example, the hilarious ruse of a girl telling her partner she is pregnant when she is not. This statute brands her a criminal, and makes her liable to a custodial sentence.

Why is she doing that? Why should her actions be defensible?

Consider also a person who sends an email to their coworker intentionally misstating a project deadline so as to cause them anxiety and make them work harder. A criminal offence?

Is that defensible? Why?

The onus is on you, not myself, to justify this statute as a necessary restriction on a supposedly inviolable human right. I cannot possibly deconstruct the justification for its existence and return to the premise that the right to free speech and expression is indeed inviolable without first knowing what justification has been provided.

People should not be caused undue distress by someone who is causing that distress for the sheer hell of it.

Legislation is not the answer to every minor grievance. Should we also be legislating against overgrown hedges? Oh wait, too late.

Is this a minor grievance to the family in question?

As for the hedges... Well, the ASBO act is controversial enough as it is. I'm not defending that.

My views on the matter are not fully established; essentially because there is no perfect answer to the matter.

Maybe there's no perfect answer to laws on hate mail? But maybe judges are well enough versed in the law to determine when a person is guilty of an offence?

Generally I see the appeal of the avoidance principle in relation to things like these. That is to say, suffering distress or anxiety as a result of the actions of a person like Duffy is not nice, but if you can avoid his communications — his free speech and expression — simply by clicking a button to delete his messages, block further messages from him, etc. then I don't see the need to pursue further action.

A person should not necessarily have to ignore someone who is acting like a dick and going out of their way to cause them distress. Yes, he can be avoided, but he shouldn't have to be. He should be re-educated on why he shouldn't be doing these things in the first place.

To answer your previous question, I don't have any particularly strong objections to existing defamation legislation, nor do I think that is particularly relevant to this case. Defamation often results in far more serious harm to a victim — irreparable damage to their character or reputation, the loss of their livelihood, indirect destruction to property, etc. — than simply feeling anxious or distressed.

So a person shouldn't be defamed while they're alive, but it's OK to defame them once they're dead? Is that about the size of it?

 

[Vonhelmet]

How are you taken into police custody? Under duress, with the threat of violence. It may be explicit — e.g. "You will be tasered!", "We will let the dog on you!", "You will be shot if you do not put the gun down!" — or implicit, but the threat is always there.

You sound like... whatshisname... scorza now. Him and his oh so rational views on arrests.

 

[hurfdurf]

How are you taken into police custody? Under duress, with the threat of violence. It may be explicit — e.g. "You will be tasered!", "We will let the dog on you!", "You will be shot if you do not put the gun down!" — or implicit, but the threat is always there.

Without the threat of violence the police wouldn't be able to arrest many people.

A necessary evil, one of which the Police are punished for if they get it wrong, or should be when they are not corrupt.

I am fortunate to have not had any dealings with the police in my life.

This is from someone who has dealt with the police on both sides, and has a real distaste for a lot of them.

 

[Vonhelmet]

Do we have any evidence that Duffy - a non-violent criminal - was even handcuffed when he was arrested?

 

[Edrof]

So your point is that you think the police regularly arrest people in an excessively violent manner and yet you:

• Refuse to provide any evidence whatsoever.
• Admit to having absolutely no dealings with the police whatsoever.

Your argument has unravelled and suggests that you're either stubbornly confused about life or a total jack-a-napes.

 

[Robbo]

It seems to me that Al Vallario is probably a bit of a dodgy character, which is why he hates the police. Shocker.

They certainly aren't violent to you unless you're resisting arrest or giving them a good reason to be more heavy handed.

 

[hurfdurf]

It seems to me that Al Vallario is probably a bit of a dodgy character, which is why he hates the police. Shocker.

They certainly aren't violent to you unless you're resisting arrest or giving them a good reason to be more heavy handed.

Ah, but a lot of people, including myself, think that many a Police officer will far too quickly resort to being either at best condescending and at worst physically violent, far too quickly, and there is nothing someone on the receiving end can do about it because they have complete immunity.

I have been talked down to when stopped as a group where I as an individual had nothing to do with events and been told that if I objected to one officers actions I would be arrested for the crime, despite them claiming they had it all on CCTV in which case, it was clear I was not part of it. I took down the officers badge number, reported it, then got the run around by two different departments claiming it was the others responsibility.

2 years later the same officer came to my house to interview me when I came forward as a witness to a crime, and to be honest, my whole willingness to help out the case went out the window.

 

[Al Vallario]

..

 

[Wej]

Al Valarrio - just out of curiosity, do you have children?

 

[Al Vallario]

..

 

[Al Vallario]

..

 

[Al Vallario]

..