Steubenville Rape Case

[StrangeSox]

yeah the idea that something said over the internet doesn't count is pretty strange.

[Jenksismyhero]

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.

[Soxbadger]

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.

Edited March 20, 2013 by Soxbadger

[StrangeSox]

FYI they weren't charged under an assault law, they were charged with "aggravated menacing."

[Jenksismyhero]

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.

[Jenksismyhero]

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.

[Soxbadger]

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.

 

Really Jenks?

 

Lets say you knew me. And we just had a big confrontation. I go home that night and do the following:

 

If I post a picture of myself with a knife, gun, machete and a picture of your family with the caption: "My next victims later tonight, its going to be worse than Manson"

 

 

Youd have no fear? Non reasonable apprehension of fear?

 

Im sure you wouldnt even call the police.

[StrangeSox]

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?

[Jenksismyhero]

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.

[StrangeSox]

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.

You're citing Illinois law for assault. These girls were charged in Ohio under a different sort of law.

[StrangeSox]

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.

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?

[Soxbadger]

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.

 

The most recent case you cited was 2004, some of those cases were in the 80s, which was prior to most people having the internet.

 

You didnt even cross reference the stalking law, so Im not sure how complete your research is.

 

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fullt...72000050K12-7.3

 

ec. 12-7.3. Stalking.

(a) A person commits stalking when he or she knowingly engages in a course of conduct directed at a specific person, and he or she knows or should know that this course of conduct would cause a reasonable person to:

(1) fear for his or her safety or the safety of a third person;

or

(2) suffer other emotional distress.

 

© Definitions. For purposes of this Section:

(1) "Course of conduct" means 2 or more acts,

 

including but not limited to acts in which a defendant directly, indirectly, or through third parties, by any action, method, device, or means follows, monitors, observes, surveils, threatens, or communicates to or about, a person, engages in other non-consensual contact, or interferes with or damages a person's property or pet. A course of conduct may include contact via electronic communications.

(2) "Electronic communication" means any transfer of

 

signs, signals, writings, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectric, or photo-optical system. "Electronic communication" includes transmissions by a computer through the Internet to another computer.

(3) "Emotional distress" means significant mental

 

suffering, anxiety or alarm.

 

So Im just not sure you are actually right on current IL law.

Edited March 20, 2013 by Soxbadger

[StrangeSox]

I'm sort of at a loss how hypothetical juror jenks couldn't find it reasonable that this rape victim at the center of a national story who's been the target of a lot of animosity (as rape victims usually are!) could feel legitimately threatened when girls from her town related to her attackers send her a threatening message.

[Jenksismyhero]

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.

[Soxbadger]

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.

[Soxbadger]

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.

 

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.

Edited March 20, 2013 by Soxbadger

[StrangeSox]

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.

 

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.

[Jenksismyhero]

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.

[Jenksismyhero]

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.

[Soxbadger]

This has literally become the dumbest argument ever.

 

(edit)

 

Get off my high horse?

 

You kept citing IL law, so in 5 seconds I found the actual law.

 

I just got bored of arguing over something that isnt real.

Edited March 20, 2013 by Soxbadger

[StrangeSox]

This is literally become the dumbest argument ever.

hi, welcome to the internet

[Soxbadger]

And you quoted my typo when I was in between "This is the" and "this has"

 

so there is some irony in the fact my quote makes me sound stupid.

[Jenksismyhero]

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.

[Jenksismyhero]

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.

Edited March 20, 2013 by Jenksismybitch

[Soxbadger]

So even under the stalking law what these girls did was fine.

 

That would appear to be true. Obviously I assume that prosecutors would try and argue that if a group is acting in concert that each threat should not be taken individually (thus 2 threats by 2 girls would be actionable), but I am not going to research that as it really would require me to start using lexis.

 

The law seems to show the tension between first amendment and threats. It seems like they are recognizing that we have the right to say things, even violent things, but that right can be lost if you are trying to target/harass someone.

 

But yeah, in the absence of some other evidence, 1 threat seemingly is okay.