Internet troll sentenced to 18 weeks in jail.

Edrof · 14 Sep 2011 at 19:11

There's no reasoning with you at all, Al. Your points are beyond ridicule and getting more and more bizarre.

Police not being allowed to use restraining force upon non-co-operative criminals? The 'distress' caused to someone WHO HAS GONE OUT OF THEIR WAY TO CAUSE DISTRESS themselves? Oh please. Jog on, troll.

Joshy · 14 Sep 2011 at 19:15

Vonhelmet said:
Such comments would have been equally irrelevant and inappropriate, but less offensive. However, if they were sustained, then no doubt they might have equally been subject to similar charges.

So how can you think that subjecting people to jail for having different views (even if they are less 'offensive') is something perfectly acceptable for the justice system to do?

Yosiah · 14 Sep 2011 at 19:18

I don't think this should have involved the police. Facebook/Youtube should have just banned his accounts. It's just an example case, which will probably never happen again - even though people "troll" and say nasty things every day on the internet, and in real life.

How come the people who protest outside a gay wedding or funeral, when it's legal, don't get arrested for making the people upset?

Pointless.

Mr Jack · 14 Sep 2011 at 19:27

Al Vallario said:
Weasel words. If he had attempted to defend himself from the officers, he would have been physically harmed. If he had run away, he would have been tackled to the ground, or mauled by a police dog. If he had resisted arrest, he would have had force used against him intended to hurt him, possibly including the use of a Taser stun gun. If he got away, the police would be knocking down his door and dragging him from his home.

It's not weasel words; it's a different concept. You'll note that in every one of your scenarios there's an "if". The state uses force, not violence, to enforce its actions. You are not beaten up for retribution; you're dealt with using an appropriate level of force.

Don't dress the threat of violence up as 'force'

Don't ludicrously equate state force with violence.

No it is not. Harassment is by its very nature a repetitive action. The legal definition in the UK requires there to have been a "course of conduct".

Whether you dismiss it as a "silly comparison" or not, you do acknowledge that Duffy would have indubitably suffered a great deal of distress and anxiety throughout this whole affair, correct?

I have no idea, nor do I care. He brought this entirely on himself, his victims did not.

Edrof · 14 Sep 2011 at 19:33

Mr Jack said:
It's not weasel words; it's a different concept. You'll note that in every one of your scenarios there's an "if". The state uses force, not violence, to enforce its actions. You are not beaten up for retribution; you're dealt with using an appropriate level of force.

He brought this entirely on himself, his victims did not.

/Agree. Only a loon believes that our police beat the pants of everyone they arrest, otherwise this compensation culture would bankrupt every constabulary in weeks. In fact, most of the time they are amazingly patient.

Joshy · 14 Sep 2011 at 19:49

Forde said:
/Agree. Only a loon believes that our police beat the pants of everyone they arrest, otherwise this compensation culture would bankrupt every constabulary in weeks. In fact, most of the time they are amazingly patient.

Yeah, the police force are lovely people. Especially when it comes to deal with suspects.

Those recent riots that saw thousands of people take to the streets didn't have a single thing to do with the Police using 'excessive' force at all.

Sheep :rolleyes:

.

Edrof · 14 Sep 2011 at 19:54

Joshy said:
Those recent riots that saw thousands of people take to the streets didn't have a single thing to do with the Police using 'excessive' force at all.

Glad we agree. The riots were about how many stolen iPods a bunch of bored chavs could get into their rude-boy Citroen Saxos. Have your :rolleyes:

back and go back to motors!

KatanaDV20 · 14 Sep 2011 at 20:18

Im sad he didnt get more TBH. The way he tore into that poor person who passed away is terrible.

Joshy · 14 Sep 2011 at 20:22

Forde said:
Glad we agree. The riots were about how many stolen iPods a bunch of bored chavs could get into their rude-boy Citroen Saxos. Have your back and go back to motors!

You really do have to be a bit of sheep not think for a single second that the riots might not have been an outlet of disenfranchised young people striking back at 'society' as a whole. I suppose the riots back in the 80s were precisely the same thing? Getting as many lifted vinyl records into the back of a MK1 Ford Fiesta as possible, right?

Actually, let's not jump too off topic. Have you yourself ever been the 'suspect' of a crime and detained (not particularly arrested)? If so, how did you find your experience. Did you believe that you could refuse their instructions infinitely and never have to deal with the possibility of physical violence/restraint?

Even that argument itself is a bit off topic, but I'd like to say if you're commenting from actual experience or basing your comments on what you THINK the police would be like to deal with from the other side of the fence.

Joshy · 14 Sep 2011 at 20:25

KatanaDV20 said:
Im sad he didnt get more TBH. The way he tore into that poor person who passed away is terrible.

People 'Tear into' people who have died all of the time. As I pointed out after a natural disaster it is completely socially acceptable. The same people who this morning who were shaking their heads whilst reading the front page of the sun were the same people comparing Tsunami jokes just a couple of months ago.

Should we suddenly feel more sympathy because she chose to end her own life and put her family through infinite misery?

hurfdurf · 14 Sep 2011 at 20:30

Joshy said:
So if you don't agree with a custodial sentence for what is essentially name calling/being insensitive you've got a mental defect?

Either a mental defect in terms of a mental disability or a mental defect as in, a stupid person.

It wasn't just name calling and being insensitive was it, it was a deliberate attempt to cause emotional distress.

Edrof · 14 Sep 2011 at 20:33

Joshy said:
You really do have to be a bit of sheep not think for a single second that the riots might not have been an outlet of disenfranchised young people striking back at 'society' as a whole. I suppose the riots back in the 80s were precisely the same thing? Getting as many lifted vinyl records into the back of a MK1 Ford Fiesta as possible, right?

Actually, let's not jump too off topic. Have you yourself ever been the 'suspect' of a crime and detained (not particularly arrested)? If so, how did you find your experience. Did you believe that you could refuse their instructions infinitely and never have to deal with the possibility of physical violence/restraint?

Even that argument itself is a bit off topic, but I'd like to say if you're commenting from actual experience or basing your comments on what you THINK the police would be like to deal with from the other side of the fence.

Whereas you yourself are speaking from near limitless experience and have indeed been arrested by every constabulary in the country. If I have committed a crime and I resist arrest when the police come to deal with me, then yes, I would damn well expect them to restrain me with reasonable force. After all, that's what arresting someone is all about.

I don't think you have a clue about the kind of people the police have to deal with on a daily basis. I've seen them up close and I've been in police stations. I even know a lot of police officers (although I'm sure you'll hold that against me). The criminals aren't noble savages or Robin Hood-type figures, they are swearing, drugged, abusive and violent people who have sometimes brought misery and death into innocent people's lives.

But, I digress. I'd love to hear what alternative panacea you propose? Should the police say to rapists and murderers: "What's that sir, you'd rather not be arrested today? Oh okay, no problem sir, we wouldn't want to distress you at all. Here, have a bourbon and some conpensation."

Joshy · 14 Sep 2011 at 20:34

hurfdurf said:
Either a mental defect in terms of a mental disability or a mental defect as in, a stupid person.

It wasn't just name calling and being insensitive was it, it was a deliberate attempt to cause emotional distress.

It was trolling. Most forms of it will cause 'emotional distress' to the target. It hasn't stopped people from doing it in the past.

Joshy · 14 Sep 2011 at 20:38

Forde said:
Whereas you yourself are speaking from near limitless experience and have indeed been arrested by every constabulary in the country. If I have committed a crime and I resist arrest when the police come to deal with me, then yes, I would damn well expect them to restrain me with reasonable force. After all, that's what arresting someone is all about.

I don't think you have a clue about the kind of people the police have to deal with on a daily basis. The aren't noble savages or Robin Hood-type figures, they are swearing, drugged, abusive and violent people who have sometimes brought misery and death into innocent people's lives.

But, I digress. I'd love to hear what alternative panacea you propose? Should the police say to rapists and murderers: "What's that sir, you'd rather not be arrested today? Oh okay, no problem sir, we wouldn't want to distress you at all. Here, have a bourbon and some conpensation."

Your missing the point.

The police will cause 'Distress and anxiety' if you are suspected of a crime, and even go a step further and purpose the very real threat of physical restraint and harm. This is okay, but posting messages on facebook? Now that is too far.

Edrof · 14 Sep 2011 at 20:39

Joshy said:
It was trolling. Most forms of it will cause 'emotional distress' to the target. It hasn't stopped people from doing it in the past.

This was beyond trolling. Trolling is going onto an anime website and saying Naruto is for losers. Trolling is popping into OcUK/Mobile Phones and starting a thread called "Samsung Galaxy S2 is rubbish, iPhone all the way". This was targeted, premeditated, malicious harassment of innocent people.

I don't think any of us here would support a prison sentence for actual trolling, annoying as it is.

Edrof · 14 Sep 2011 at 20:44

Joshy said:
Your missing the point.

The police will cause 'Distress and anxiety' if you are suspected of a crime, and even go a step further and purpose the very real threat of physical restraint and harm. This is okay, but posting messages on facebook? Now that is too far.

It's not just "posting messages on Facebook", though is it? It's clearly, obviously, blatantly not. How many times do you need to be informed of this? If you are a suspect in a crime and co-operate totally with the police you will unharmed. The police don't go around beating up every single person they meet and if you think that then you probably believe in all kinds of rubbish.

Jeez, it's like someone shaved a monkey and told it that "Policemans are bad, mmkay?"

Have you actually read ANY of the articles about Sean Duffy out there?

Vonhelmet · 14 Sep 2011 at 20:49

Joshy said:
So how can you think that subjecting people to jail for having different views (even if they are less 'offensive') is something perfectly acceptable for the justice system to do?

It's not about having different views. It's about wilfully bothering people with those views.

Al Vallario · 15 Sep 2011 at 11:09

Al Vallario · 15 Sep 2011 at 11:18

Edrof · 15 Sep 2011 at 11:49

This is all semantics and pedantry. When you are arrested, the police will react in two different ways depending upon YOUR choice of action.

You choose to co-operate (as you should). You are taken calmly and respectfully to the police station.
You choose to resist arrest. Police officers will use appropriate measures in order to facilitate your arrest. Those measures depend entirely upon your actions and are authorised, not to make the detainee 'feel bad', but to ensure the safety of police officers, members of the public and the detainee.

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

If you think this happens during every arrest you are, frankly, bonkers.

Al Vallario said:
This is not an argument against the statute in question per se, but it does highlight the absurdity of society responding to a perceived ill — causing distress and anxiety to a person — by inflicting exactly that ill on the person responsible, in addition to the far more serious ills of the threat of violence, and deprivation of liberty.

I understand what you're saying here, but philosophy doesn't work on shank-wielding scumbags. But let's delve into your reasoning a little more in search for an alternative. I would be delighted if you could tell us exactly how you think the police should go about their arrests without any use of force and without any 'threat of force'. Let's say...

A man has shot 25 men, women and children dead in a shopping mall and is currently levelling his loaded firearm at the police and survivors. What does Constable Vallario do?

Or perhaps a simpler one:

Constable Vallario visits a house to arrest the resident for a non-violent crime such as fraud. The resident simply refuses to leave the house. How do you get that suspect into your police station without taking hold of them physically?