Internet Troll gets three years

The victims were not aware of that. They were likely terrified at times.

I consider the sentence lenient if anything.

And the thousands upon thousands the state will spend on this chap while he's in jail and for the rest of his life to be a total waste of money.

ohnonotgmail

riclad wrote: »

I think the sentence is harsh considering this person was a recluse,
he rarely left his house.
no one was in any physical danger from him.
he sent email,s and tweets to female journalists .
he was not a stalker , he never followed anyone .
Judges are supposed to take into account the circumstances of each case,
he was never going to show up at someones home or a place of work.

and how were the women to know this? especially the woman who was home alone?

charlietheminxx

riclad wrote: »

I think the sentence is harsh considering this person was a recluse,
he rarely left his house.
no one was in any physical danger from him.
he sent email,s and tweets to female journalists .
he was not a stalker , he never followed anyone .
Judges are supposed to take into account the circumstances of each case,
he was never going to show up at someones home or a place of work.

The women didn't know that though. He was deliberately intimidating 6 women for years, it is not ok.

Also how do you know someone like him wasn't going to snap one day? The Gardai obviously felt there was some level of credible threat there to put the charges through.

It's actually turning my stomach to see people acting like he should have got off and been let keep going at it.

nkl12xtw5goz70

SusieBlue wrote: »

Also very easy for you to downplay it to a 2/10 when you weren't the one being harrassed. I'm sure you'd feel quite differently about it if you were in their shoes.

If someone were to call me a narcissistic, self-obsessed, pseudo-intellectual attention-seeker 450 times over six years, it wouldn't bother me in the slightest. I've been called far worse. If this is criminal behavior, you may as well lock up half of Twitter.

I certainly wouldn't be in court trying to get a mentally ill recluse thrown in prison for three years.

charlietheminxx

Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »

If someone were to call me a narcissistic, self-obsessed, pseudo-intellectual attention-seeker 450 times over six years, it wouldn't bother me in the slightest. I've been called far worse. If this is criminal behavior, you may as well lock up half of Twitter.

I certainly wouldn't be in court trying to get a mentally ill recluse thrown in prison for three years.

And if they found out where you lived? Messaged your mother or father or your sister or your partner? Found old private photos of you not available online and sent them to you? Said they'd show up to one of your workplace events?

You should cop on and stop acting like that one line is all he said in hundreds of messages, it's disingenuous.

nkl12xtw5goz70

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

and how were the women to know this? especially the woman who was home alone?

What woman who genuinely believes she has a highly dangerous stalker, and is terrified for her life, posts openly on Twitter that she is home by herself for the evening?

nkl12xtw5goz70

charlietheminxx wrote: »

And if they found out where you lived? Messaged your mother or father or your sister or your partner? Found old private photos of you not available online and sent them to you? Said they'd show up to one of your workplace events?

You should cop on and stop acting like that one line is all he said in hundreds of messages, it's disingenuous.

He didn't know where they lived.

He didn't find photos that were not available online. The photos he found were on the Internet. Didn't you read the article? Where do you think a recluse who never goes outside will find photos?

It's telling that you have to make stuff up to make this man seem more menacing than he actually was.

If he said he'd show up to one of my workplace events, I'd tell him that I and my large male colleagues would happily meet him outside for a chat.

ohnonotgmail

Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »

What woman who genuinely believes she has a highly dangerous stalker, and is terrified for her life, posts openly on Twitter that she is home by herself for the evening?

At risk of repeating myself you seem determined to downplay what these women went through. Why is that? vested interest perhaps?

SusieBlue

Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »

What woman who genuinely believes she has a highly dangerous stalker, and is terrified for her life, posts openly on Twitter that she is home by herself for the evening?

Blatent victim blaming. Your going to serious lengths here to absolve that man of all responsibility for his actions.

No one forced him to do the things he did.
He chose to harass, intimidate and stalk these women. Now he has to suffer the consequences.
He had many opportunities to stop, but even the threat of ending up in legal trouble wasn't enough to stop him. His desire to harass those women was stronger than his fear or respect of the law.
He has no on to blame but himself.

nkl12xtw5goz70

SusieBlue wrote: »

Your going to serious lengths here to absolve that man of all responsibility for his actions.

No, my argument is that the harassment was mild, garden-variety stuff on social media, and the idea that these women were terrified out of their minds for six years is beyond ludicrous. The judge himself said that he "probably attempted to frighten" them, which is hardly consistent with the sentence.

He should have stopped when asked — but sending a mentally ill recluse to prison for three years is a huge overreaction by a judge who doesn't seem to know what he is doing most of the time.

ohnonotgmail

Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »

No, my argument is that the harassment was mild, garden-variety stuff on social media, and the idea that these women were terrified out of their minds for six years is beyond ludicrous. The judge himself said that he "probably attempted to frighten" them, which is hardly consistent with the sentence.

It is not up to you to decide how these women should have reacted.

Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »

He should have stopped when asked — but sending a mentally ill recluse to prison for three years is a huge overreaction by a judge who doesn't seem to know what he is doing most of the time.

you mentioned other cases of his and thought they should be used as precedent. make your mind up.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

If a left winger were harassing right wing media figures in this way, I doubt Permabear would defend him so strongly.

nkl12xtw5goz70

charlietheminxx wrote: »

But things are more digital now. The messages I received weren't exactly threatening, but they were endless, came at all times of the day and night, and it was awful. You don't seem to have any empathy for these women.

One got 450 messages over six years.

That's an average of 75 messages per year, or 6.25 per month.

Hardly an endless day-and-night bombardment, was it?

Six messages a month from a troll is being grossly exaggerated on this thread as never-ending, terrifying harassment. What nonsense.

paleoperson

charlietheminxx wrote: »

Do you honestly think he should have been free to continue this behaviour into the future? A caution and being released on bail didn't stop him. What do you think should have happened here?

The caution and being released on bail stopped him from contacting the women again. He broke the terms of his bail by emailing someone connected with the plaintiffs, probably trying to get them to listen to him . If it was something malicious or threatening, they could have put it in the article.

charlietheminxx wrote: »

And if they found out where you lived? Messaged your mother or father or your sister or your partner? Found old private photos of you not available online and sent them to you? Said they'd show up to one of your workplace events?

You should cop on and stop acting like that one line is all he said in hundreds of messages, it's disingenuous.

He didn't find out where they lived at all. The only thing like that was that he said that he'd "be over later" on twitter, he didn't know where they lived at all. Permabear claims he found those pictures of her online in within seconds.

We can assume that the article shows the most important evidence in the article - ie. the worst things he sent.

Overheal

Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »

One got 450 messages over six years.

That's an average of 75 messages per year, or 6.25 per month.

Hardly an endless day-and-night bombardment, was it?

Six messages a month from a troll is being grossly exaggerated on this thread as never-ending, terrifying harassment. What nonsense.

And you’ve seen this evidence? You know for a fact it was averaged out to 6.25 threats per month and didn’t come in more sporadic flourishes?

SaintLeibowitz

Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »

One got 450 messages over six years.

That's an average of 75 messages per year, or 6.25 per month.

Hardly an endless day-and-night bombardment, was it?

Six messages a month from a troll is being grossly exaggerated on this thread as never-ending, terrifying harassment. What nonsense.

Sure he could have done something more productive with his time. Like set up a boards account and spend years twaddling about a fantasy life and giving out about woman in that guise.

ohnonotgmail

paleoperson wrote: »

The caution and being released on bail stopped him from contacting the women again. He broke the terms of his bail by emailing someone connected with the plaintiffs, probably trying to get them to listen to him . If it was something malicious or threatening, they could have put it in the article.

Why should have to listen to him? why would they want to listen to him?

ohnonotgmail

SaintLeibowitz wrote: »

Sure he could have done something more productive with his time. Like set up a boards account and spend years twaddling about a fantasy life and giving out about woman in that guise.

Ouch.

nkl12xtw5goz70

Overheal wrote: »

You know for a fact it was averaged out to 6.25 threats per month and didn’t come in more sporadic flourishes?

You know what "averaged out" means, I assume.

The women did say that if they appeared on TV or wrote an article, they would get more messages. I assume that means the messages did come in sporadic flourishes.

But that only means they might hear from him 10 times one month and 3 times the next month.

Regardless, it wasn't a sustained bombardment day and night, per one poster's representations.

charlietheminxx

Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »

One got 450 messages over six years.

That's an average of 75 messages per year, or 6.25 per month.

Hardly an endless day-and-night bombardment, was it?

Six messages a month from a troll is being grossly exaggerated on this thread as never-ending, terrifying harassment. What nonsense.

Yes, but I'm telling you that's not usually how it works in real life. It's unlikely he was sending a message every 5 days. It was probably no messages for 3 months, then 20 in 3 days.

I don't really want to keep engaging with you on this. It's clear you don't see anything really wrong with this kind of harassment. You've obviously made up your mind that you know all the ins and outs of the situation and you're just going to soapbox, repeating the same points over and over - it's a waste of time to try and discuss it with you.

nkl12xtw5goz70

charlietheminxx wrote: »

Yes, but I'm telling you that's not usually how it works in real life. It's unlikely he was sending a message every 5 days. It was probably no messages for 3 months, then 20 in 3 days.

If he was disappearing for three months at a time, that only proves my point. The harassment was nowhere near as persistent or continuous as some on this thread are trying to make out.

I don't really want to keep engaging with you on this.

That's fine with me. Nobody is forcing you to reply!

how gardaí let this go on for six years is a joke

three years is fine, i wont be weeping over this guy. tho id say clearly the CMH is the more logical place for him

"downplaying" is the new "cesspit"

joseywhales

These replies are ridiculous, I don't care if this permabear guy ate your newborn baby, it's irrelevant, he raises a good point, that 3 years for a non violent crime is an anomaly. Sentencing isn't supposed to be based on what the victim wants or how much the perpetrator is disliked, it's justice given out equitably, we are supposed to find consistency across cases to the point where the sentence is highly predictable almost totally codified. Partly to remove the bias of a given judge and to remove the undue pressure of the baying masses by pointing them at precedent and taking some responsibility away from the judge.

Stating that 3 years incarceration is harsh for a non violent crime in no way means that the crime is being downplayed unless you believe that it was a violent crime.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

joseywhales wrote: »

These replies are ridiculous, I don't care if this permabear guy ate your newborn baby, it's irrelevant, he raises a good point, that 3 years for a non violent crime is an anomaly. Sentencing isn't supposed to be based on what the victim wants or how much the perpetrator is disliked, it's justice given out equitably, we are supposed to find consistency across cases to the point where the sentence is highly predictable almost totally codified. Partly to remove the bias of a given judge and to remove the undue pressure of the baying masses by pointing them at precedent and taking some responsibility away from the judge.

Stating that 3 years incarceration is harsh for a non violent crime in no way means that the crime is being downplayed unless you believe that it was a violent crime.

It's more the fact he clearly thinks the victims had it coming to them.

paleoperson

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

It's more the fact he clearly thinks the victims had it coming to them.

No he doesn't. In no way did anyone suggest that.

It's just this crazy imaginary scenarios you're coming up with.

Junkyard Tom

joseywhales wrote: »

3 years for a non violent crime is an anomaly.

Could you Doolin-defenders stop trying to downplay the effect of his behaviour by describing it as 'non-violent'. Harassment, threats to kill/rape, stalking etc causes psychological injury and can be classed as violent in courts.

Overheal

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Could you Doolin-defenders stop trying to downplay the effect of his behaviour by describing it as 'non-violent'. Harassment, threats to kill/rape, stalking etc causes psychological injury and can be classed as violent in courts.

Indeed, in the US Assault is a violent crime - but assault is the threat; Battery is the physical violence and normally the deliverance of the assault.

Andreas77

This reminds me of the poor soul in France, only a teen, who got a conviction for naming his Wi-Fi signal after ISIS. Meanwhile, rapists walk the streets, laughing as they do, watching fantasy videos on their phones.

nkl12xtw5goz70

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Could you Doolin-defenders stop trying to downplay the effect of his behaviour by describing it as 'non-violent'.

Why? It's pretty much the definition of a nonviolent crime.

Harassment, threats to kill/rape, stalking etc causes psychological injury and can be classed as violent in courts.

The judge said that Doolin "probably attempted to frighten" his targets. Doesn't sound especially violent to me. He didn't threaten to kill or rape anyone.

pjohnson

Doolin needs Perma for his appeal anyway.