Internet Troll Gets Tracked Down, Confronted in Real Life

[ringzero]

[citation][nom]kdw75[/nom]I would say that your rights never extend to physically hurting another person. Doing so would violate their rights.[/citation]

Oh, totally agree with that, kdw75. Publicly lynching a sex offender is off the charts wrong.

 

[kdw75]

For some reason I keep quoting the message below the intended ones. Sorry for any confusion that caused.

 

[kdw75]

The more I learn about how the brain works it really seems wrong to punish people for being a sex offender, drug addict, serial killer. They should of course be locked up but people whose brains are defective can't really help that. Now people who have an anger problem are another story. If you get mad and kill someone that was a choice that you knew was wrong and could have controlled. But if you are truly a psychopath or have a mental defect then how can you be blamed for the way you were born? It would be the same as blaming a handicapped person for being slow.

 

[dragonsqrrl]

Wonder how the trolls here on Tom's would react if confronted in real life... Always pictured them as a bunch of 14 yr old boys in their mothers basements, playing MW3 for 4 hrs a day, everyday. Now I know they could very well be pissed off 40 yr old douchebags.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]ringzero[/nom]Oh, totally agree with that, kdw75. Publicly lynching a sex offender is off the charts wrong.[/citation]

I would think that lynching a sex offender, publicly or privately is wrong unless they did something much worse than what's implied by being a sex offender.

 

[ringzero]

[citation][nom]kdw75[/nom]The more I learn about how the brain works it really seems wrong to punish people for being a sex offender, drug addict, serial killer. They should of course be locked up but people whose brains are defective can't really help that. Now people who have an anger problem are another story. If you get mad and kill someone that was a choice that you knew was wrong and could have controlled. But if you are truly a psychopath or have a mental defect then how can you be blamed for the way you were born? It would be the same as blaming a handicapped person for being slow.[/citation]

I hear where you're coming from. I'm more and more seeing some of this dysfunction and crime as possibly coming from brain chemistry. I hope our science catches up to being able to diagnose this. Otherwise I think it's too hard to determine who should or should not be held accountable for their actions.

 

[lamorpa]

[citation][nom]kdw75[/nom]Absolutely! I would give my life to defend that persons right from oppression.[/citation]
Why would I (and anyone else) find it hard to believe that, while mourning the murder of your own child or spouse, you would first think to "give my own life" to defend the right of someone to post nasty racist comments on their loved one's memorial site. The idea is simply idiotic. No, you would not do that.

 

[danjimaru]

[citation][nom]ringzero[/nom]Just curious, what do you mean "at the expense of someone else's kid?"[/citation]
Well, lets say someone is paranoid. Is it advisable to pretend to be following or spying on a person that suffers from paranoia? I guess not. What if many neighbourhood organized a system to spy on possibly curred people or people fighting against their compulsive behaviour? Wouldn't it be detrimental to the persons basic right for redemption and forgiveness from society if that same society would allow for 'special' treatment of said individual promoting exclusion?
Now some neighbourhoods may find it ok to hunt down and finger point at former convicts... but by the time the person has found a district where nobody cares that same person may have been scared just enough by former 'neighbours' to feel the need to vent his anger against society again

 

[coldmast]

An internet troll is like the crazy drunk person on public transit: just ignore them and hope they leave.

 

[ringzero]

[citation][nom]danjimaru[/nom]Well, lets say someone is paranoid. Is it advisable to pretend to be following or spying on a person that suffers from paranoia? I guess not. What if many neighbourhood organized a system to spy on possibly curred people or people fighting against their compulsive behaviour? Wouldn't it be detrimental to the persons basic right for redemption and forgiveness from society if that same society would allow for 'special' treatment of said individual promoting exclusion?Now some neighbourhoods may find it ok to hunt down and finger point at former convicts... but by the time the person has found a district where nobody cares that same person may have been scared just enough by former 'neighbours' to feel the need to vent his anger against society again[/citation]

Hey, thanks for replying. I agree that parents who track down and publicly humiliate sex offenders are inviting retribution, just like the BBC was risking a physical confrontation when talking to the troll. But they still have done nothing illegal. I've done nothing illegal if I yell obscenities at someone who cuts me off on the highway, but I have if I follow him and slash his tires.

Parents who know of sex offenders have a responsibility to handle that information appropriately. Just like adults have a responsibility to not violate the many children who are around them. A list of registered sex offenders acts as both a punishment and a deterrent and I still don't see how this is "at the expense of someone else's kid."

 

[danjimaru]

[citation][nom]lamorpa[/nom]Why would I (and anyone else) find it hard to believe that, while mourning the murder of your own child or spouse, you would first think to "give my own life" to defend the right of someone to post nasty racist comments on their loved one's memorial site. The idea is simply idiotic. No, you would not do that.[/citation]
I know sounds odd, right? But I totally would too. I would be pretty pissed possibly even angry and sad too but violence only begets violence when you feel the need for retribution.

Also come to think of it, why do we bond (as in marry) and take an oath upon sticking together in good & in bad times (linguistically calling upon the very realistic idea that marriage is also about going through bad moments). But always deny ourselfs the possibility of parting with good AND bad memories from a person we were close to?
Does it not seem a bit overly dramatic maybe even masochistic to only to cite the good memories at a funeral?

I think people are very sensitive to this subject which explains the rather emotional responses this topic has generated.

 

[furylicious]

Trolling in general is hilarious, in my personal opinion. Now what this guy has done is just hateful, it's not a crime, and personally I don't think it's all that funny. But, trolling people on video games or just being annoying, I have no qualms about that, mostly because I love to troll on video games

To each his own, and if you disagree... I'll troll ya, lol.

 

[gm0n3y]

Being a racist is not a crime. Even spouting racist gibberish isn't a crime. Making racial threats at a specific person or telling people that everyone of a race should be beaten/killed is a crime (at least in Canada).

 

[zolton33]

They should do a similar show here in the us kind of like to catch a predator. Where they hunt these people down and put their name and face on tv. Shining light on cockroaches causes them to scatter. And shining a light on these people would make them less inclined to continue. Lets face the facts the only reason these people find this type of behavior acceptable is that they can do it anonymously. You do this to take their safety net away and they would be more inclined to act as a normal human being. Thats my 2cents though.

 

[lamorpa]

[citation][nom]danjimaru[/nom]I know sounds odd, right? But I totally would too...[/citation]
You could have saved a lot of typing and just stated that you are simply naive and have never lost a loved one to murder. That would save time. (and again, no, you would not "give your life" to uphold the free speech right of a hater making nasty racist comments on your murdered loved one's memorial site. Even the Dalai Lama himself would not do that.)

 

[ringzero]

[citation][nom]lamorpa[/nom]You could have saved a lot of typing and just stated that you are simply naive and have never lost a loved one to murder. That would save time. (and again, no, you would not "give your life" to uphold the free speech right of a hater making nasty racist comments on your murdered loved one's memorial site. Even the Dalai Lama himself would not do that.)[/citation]

lamorpa, I've never been in that position either. But, he believes in freedom and personal rights. Are you saying that it's perfectly legitimate to throw all these beliefs out the door when you get mad enough? Are you condoning hypocrisy in the name of rage?

 

[nebun]

first of all how did they get his address and his picture? i think the guy looking for him is a bigger troll....i agree with what he had to say, it's an open form, you can say whatever you want.....freedom of speech anyone? people say hurtful things all the time, you have to learn to be selective, some people are racist and some are not, but it's not our place to change them....it's human nature.....as long as they don't act on it i am ok with saying what every he or she wants

 

[lamorpa]

[citation][nom]ringzero[/nom]lamorpa, I've never been in that position either. But, he believes in freedom and personal rights. Are you saying that it's perfectly legitimate to throw all these beliefs out the door when you get mad enough? Are you condoning hypocrisy in the name of rage?[/citation]
He said he would "give my life"(his) to defend the free speech rights of a person who posted nasty racist comments on his murdered loved one's memorial site (I guess, following them to the grave). People like to take theoretical pious positions and then try to say they would uphold them under the worst of conditions. This is about the most extreme one I've seen. It's absurd. No one would do that. No one.

 

[zolton33]

[citation][nom]nebun[/nom]first of all how did they get his address and his picture? i think the guy looking for him is a bigger troll....i agree with what he had to say, it's an open form, you can say whatever you want.....freedom of speech anyone? people say hurtful things all the time, you have to learn to be selective, some people are racist and some are not, but it's not our place to change them....it's human nature.....as long as they don't act on it i am ok with saying what every he or she wants[/citation]


Freedom of speech is fine. But no where does that freedom of speech allow some one to vocally attack another person be it in a recording in person or in type. And it in no way gives any one the right to go to some ones door (or in this case their memorial page) and spout such nonsense at a grieving family. Next time there is a funeral in your town try to go to the funeral home and scream such things at the funeral home. If you are lucky the police will be called you will be arrested and you will spend some jail time. If your not so lucky a family member may in a grieving rage attack you.

 

[ringzero]

[citation][nom]lamorpa[/nom]He said he would "give my life"(his) to defend the free speech rights of a person who posted nasty racist comments on his murdered loved one's memorial site (I guess, following them to the grave). People like to take theoretical pious positions and then try to say they would uphold them under the worst of conditions. This is about the most extreme one I've seen. It's absurd. No one would do that. No one.[/citation]

It's an extreme statement, no doubt. I have no idea how the circumstance would even arise for someone to "give their life" for the person. But it's just hyperbole. The point is that he expressed his belief and it's frankly a pretty admirable one, whether or not he'd live up to it if it came down to it.

 

[danjimaru]

[citation][nom]ringzero[/nom]I still don't see how this is "at the expense of someone else's kid."[/citation]
It's like this if I tell my daughter she shouldn't take sweets from a random man on the street distributing candies I may have to explain to her in brief the possibility of criminal intent that underlies this action. Kids at very young age can comprehend the relation between bait and kidnapping. It's not abstract to them. If I, instead of talking to my daughter had talked to the suspect predator (willingly or inconscious through my actions, after all that's a difficult to conceal information) the predator will most likely aknowledge my 'request' and leave my daughter be. But it's a likely assumption that if the urges persisst my confrontation will lead the offender right to someone else's path. Also he will be reminded as to why my request materialized... now add that to the powers of a multitude of neighbours and this guy, who had thought he had paid with jailtime is constantly reminded of his disfunction while trying to avoid victimizing someone else. This formula is bound to fail.
Just imagine the disfunction being an adiction. Would you like it to be reminded every single day about your bad smoking habits of the past? How can a former sex offender put his urges past him/her if society threats him/her like an outcast?

People that do these neighbourhood watches often avoid such conversations with their kids in favour of raising the child in a safe bubble of lies. If the children know enough about the subject it's hard to imagine a setup in which a former convict would publicly attack. Infact most pedofiles operate out of close relationship environments such as family members. Even rapists will most likely prefer assaulting a subject that is not on alert. Thus making everyone aware may lijely push an offender right into the arms of someone who's not

 

[ringzero]

[citation][nom]zolton33[/nom]Freedom of speech is fine. But no where does that freedom of speech allow some one to vocally attack another person be it in a recording in person or in type. And it in no way gives any one the right to go to some ones door (or in this case their memorial page) and spout such nonsense at a grieving family. Next time there is a funeral in your town try to go to the funeral home and scream such things at the funeral home. If you are lucky the police will be called you will be arrested and you will spend some jail time. If your not so lucky a family member may in a grieving rage attack you.[/citation]

That's exactly what freedom of speech does. The reason they'd be thrown in jail is if the person wouldn't leave the private ceremony at the request of the owner of the funeral home. This is why that crazy-stupid pastor Fred Phelps guy and his family were able to repeatedly picket the funerals of US soldiers. The guy's a b@st@rd, but the law couldn't stop them. I personally think it's morally reprehensible to abuse the 1st amendment that way, but it's not against the law.

 

[nebun]

[citation][nom]zolton33[/nom]Freedom of speech is fine. But no where does that freedom of speech allow some one to vocally attack another person be it in a recording in person or in type. And it in no way gives any one the right to go to some ones door (or in this case their memorial page) and spout such nonsense at a grieving family. Next time there is a funeral in your town try to go to the funeral home and scream such things at the funeral home. If you are lucky the police will be called you will be arrested and you will spend some jail time. If your not so lucky a family member may in a grieving rage attack you.[/citation]
you missed the whole point....

 

[zolton33]

[citation][nom]ringzero[/nom]That's exactly what freedom of speech does. The reason they'd be thrown in jail is if the person wouldn't leave the private ceremony at the request of the owner of the funeral home. This is why that crazy-stupid pastor Fred Phelps guy and his family were able to repeatedly picket the funerals of US soldiers. The guy's a b@st@rd, but the law couldn't stop them. I personally think it's morally reprehensible to abuse the 1st amendment that way, but it's not against the law.[/citation]


One right really does not allow the right of another to be taken away. The internet has exploded and most laws are not up to whats going on the internet. No one has the right to go on some one elses property up to their door and spout such nonsense. The case of the funerals i agree was terrible. And how many juries do you think would find some one guilty for attacking and possibly killing one of these people in a blind grief filled rage? But we are not talking about the right to reasonably assemble and protest some thing you believe is justly wrong. This is a personal attack at another human being. really i do not see how you could trump the 2 together.

 

[ringzero]

[citation][nom]danjimaru[/nom]It's like this if I tell my daughter she shouldn't take sweets from a random man on the street distributing candies I may have to explain to her in brief the possibility of criminal intent that underlies this action. Kids at very young age can comprehend the relation between bait and kidnapping. It's not abstract to them. If I, instead of talking to my daughter had talked to the suspect predator (willingly or inconscious through my actions, after all that's a difficult to conceal information) the predator will most likely aknowledge my 'request' and leave my daughter be. But it's a likely assumption that if the urges persisst my confrontation will lead the offender right to someone else's path. Also he will be reminded as to why my request materialized... now add that to the powers of a multitude of neighbours and this guy, who had thought he had paid with jailtime is constantly reminded of his disfunction while trying to avoid victimizing someone else. This formula is bound to fail. Just imagine the disfunction being an adiction. Would you like it to be reminded every single day about your bad smoking habits of the past? How can a former sex offender put his urges past him/her if society threats him/her like an outcast?People that do these neighbourhood watches often avoid such conversations with their kids in favour of raising the child in a safe bubble of lies. If the children know enough about the subject it's hard to imagine a setup in which a former convict would publicly attack. Infact most pedofiles operate out of close relationship environments such as family members. Even rapists will most likely prefer assaulting a subject that is not on alert. Thus making everyone aware may lijely push an offender right into the arms of someone who's not[/citation]

So you're saying that if I find myself around a pedophile I better watch my Ps and Qs buster or else I might provoke him to attack again? That's just living in fear. I'd rather have a list so that HE lives in fear. That's part of his consequences. Don't tell me I have to live in fear because he's a scary guy and watch out don't bother him or remind him of his crimes because he might get mad and turn into the great green horny hulk again.