Internet Troll gets three years

Overheal

Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »

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

You’re thinking of tax evasion

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.

You’re getting that from the published court docs or from an excerpt in a news blurb?

Faugheen

Same people calling it a non-violent crime probably want the bankers to be jailed as well.

joseywhales

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.

I don't see any reference to threats to kill or rape.

I have learned however of a precedent set in Irish law regarding domestic abuse where the victim has an intimate relationship and implicit trust with the perpetrator. That does not apply here.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/policy/international/europe/423487-ireland-expands-legal-definition-of-domestic-violence-to-include%3famp

However maybe there are other cases where non violent harrassment from a stranger has been deemed violent?

Overheal

joseywhales wrote: »

I don't see any reference to threats to kill or rape.

I have learned however of a precedent set in Irish law regarding domestic abuse where the victim has an intimate relationship and implicit trust with the perpetrator. That does not apply here.

Do you have the messages? That would settle this

paleoperson

Overheal wrote: »

Do you have the messages? That would settle this

As I have said repeatedly we saw the worst of the messages. If we didn't then the newspaper journalists were not doing their job.

Imagine someone being convicted for crimes and you get a shopkeeper telling people how awful he felt about it and how he always lives in fear and looking over his shoulder now. What did he actually do is the main thing.

And there were indeed a quarter dozen or so messages he sent that I would consider criminal. He also sent an average of about six messages a month of a non-threatening nature that would not be criminal by themselves - by that metric I've underwent a few years worth of criminal harassment worthy of substantial jail time today alone. :pac:

Let me as you this: if his crimes were all committed over the internet, then why shouldn't his crimes be punished over the internet? Why shouldn't some punishment be devised that would reprimand him via email over the internet? That should surely have a chilling effect on him and put the fear of god into him shouldn't it?

meeeeh

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.

Watching photos of child porn is non violent act. They are not hitting anyone. Should they be left roam around?

Just because someone doesn't hit you it doesn't mean they are doing no damage. Personally I have absolutely no sympathy for him and he deserves every day in prison he gets. He has no psychological issues, he has the same issue as most internet stalkers, they are too chicken to approach someone on the street so they do it online. I didn't know that being a coward excuses you of all crimes.

Junkyard Tom

Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »

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

joseywhales wrote: »

However maybe there are other cases where non violent harrassment from a stranger has been deemed violent?

Consider this. You approach someone withdrawing money at an ATM and tell him 'I have a gun in my pocket' and threaten to shoot him unless he hands over 500 euro. That's a violent crime lads - you can't simple-mindedly wish it away because you didn't shoot the person.

nkl12xtw5goz70

Overheal wrote: »

Do you have the messages? That would settle this

You believe Doolin made threats to kill and rape these women that the media have somehow overlooked and not reported on?

Those arguing that the judge gave too harsh a sentence have been accused of "downplaying" Doolin's actions.

It could just as easily be said that those supporting Judge Nolan's sentence are exaggerating Doolin's actions — now to the point of suggesting that there may have existed threats to kill and rape.

Some serious straw-grasping going on here now.

Overheal

Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »

You believe Doolin made threats to kill and rape these women that the media have somehow overlooked and not reported on?

Those arguing that the judge gave too harsh a sentence have been accused of "downplaying" Doolin's actions.

It could just as easily be said that those supporting Judge Nolan's sentence are exaggerating Doolin's actions — now to the point of suggesting that there may have existed threats to kill and rape.

Some serious straw-grasping going on here now.

I simply asked for fact-based evidence.

nkl12xtw5goz70

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Consider this. You approach someone withdrawing money at an ATM and tell him 'I have a gun in my pocket' and threaten to shoot him unless he hands over 500 euro. That's a violent crime lads - you can't simple-mindedly wish it away because you didn't shoot the person.

Consider this. You email a journalist calling her a self-absorbed narcissist, a wannabe, and telling her that she's "as interesting as a bucket of water and as deep as the goldfish in it."

Did you just commit a violent crime?

meeeeh

Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »

Consider this. You email a journalist calling her a self-absorbed narcissist, a wannabe, and telling her that she's "as interesting as a bucket of water and as deep as the goldfish in it."

Did you just commit a violent crime?

Why do you hate women so much? Would you abuse someone like that into their face. You find nothing wrong with berating someone constantly and repeatedly?

pinkyeye

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.

You have already posted these words at least ten times in this thread alone, your behaviour is worrying to be honest and the fact that you think this mans behaviour is okay even more worrying.

I think you're projecting.

I see below this post you're now blaming the women for posting on Twitter at all. :rolleyes:

paleoperson

Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »

Consider this. You email a journalist calling her a self-absorbed narcissist, a wannabe, and telling her that she's "as interesting as a bucket of water and as deep as the goldfish in it."

Did you just commit a violent crime?

The idea of considering verbal assaults "violence" is one of the most crackpot lefty nonsenses that have ever come out of the left.

The whole point of the word "violence" in the first place means it's physical, as in it's in the real world. That's the whole point of the word lol. Some non-violent crimes can be very sinister and egregious, they can even end up with the deaths of people. But unless they are direct orders for harm they are not violent themselves.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

paleoperson wrote: »

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

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

Well.....

Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »

Six women fearing for their lives after years of relentless harassment. That's what people supporting this sentence would have us believe.

Another way of looking at this is that many of Doolin's criticisms were on point. Many so-called journalists in Ireland are indeed part of a self-absorbed left-liberal thought bubble -- they regurgitate all the "correct" opinions and wait for the likes and retweets to roll in on social media.

The judge stated of Doolin that "when he perceived weaknesses he attacked that weakness." And yes, he hit them where it hurt, reminding them that despite all their validation-seeking behavior on social media, they were wanabees, nobodies, and couldn't think for themselves.

It's now possible that he will serve three years in prison, despite being a nonviolent, mentally ill recluse, not because he committed a heinous crime but because he made these women feel bad about themselves. Ironically he probably would have got a shorter sentence had he gone after them physically with a baseball bat rather than attacking their fragile egos on Twitter.

This ridiculous sentence is far longer than those routinely received by rapists, child pornographers, and violent criminals. He should definitely appeal.

It certainly sounds like he does.

nkl12xtw5goz70

meeeeh wrote: »

Why do you hate women so much?

:rolleyes:

Would you abuse someone like that into their face. You find nothing wrong with berating someone constantly and repeatedly?

You might notice from this thread that while others have no issue with abusing me, however ironic that may be given the context, I don't make a habit of abusing others.

That said, any journalist with a "strong social media presence, particularly on Twitter" (as these women have been described) exists in an environment where people do berate each other constantly and repeatedly. Doolin is serving a three-year sentence for behavior that in certain sectors of Twitter would be regarded as mild, almost inconsequential.

As I have said before, we can't lock up all of Twitter. Labeling mild online abuse as deserving of an extended custodial sentence is ludicrous.

tdf7187

I recalled that radio presenter Jeremy Dixon had complained of having a social media stalker a few years' back and I was curious to see what happened in the case. It seems that in 2017, the state withdrew a single charge against a woman accused of stalking him.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/state-withdraws-charge-against-disabled-woman-accused-of-harassing-98fm-presenter-775113.html

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Faugheen wrote: »

Same people calling it a non-violent crime probably want the bankers to be jailed as well.

Not Permabear though. That's not his routine.

meeeeh

Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »

:rolleyes:



You might notice from this thread that while others have no issue with abusing me, I don't make a habit of abusing others.

That said, any journalist with a "strong social media presence, particularly on Twitter" (as these women have been described) exists in an environment where people do berate each other constantly and repeatedly. Doolin is serving a three-year sentence for behavior that in certain sectors of Twitter would be regarded as mild, almost inconsequential.

As I have said before, we can't lock up all of Twitter. Labeling mild online abuse as deserving of an extended custodial sentence is ludicrous.

Well I guess we disagree how persistent abuse should be dealt with. You think it's ok I don't. That's all there is to it. You think persistent abuse for 6 years is fine and nothing to see there. Even better if it's aimed at women you don't like.

paleoperson

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

Well.....

It certainly sounds like he does.

He said some of the criticisms were correct and literally called him mentally ill for taking it too far, with the main emphasis of the post being that the sentence was too harsh.

nkl12xtw5goz70

meeeeh wrote: »

Well I guess we disagree how persistent abuse should be dealt with. You think it's ok I don't. That's all there is to it.

My stance is that the abuse was relatively mild in the grand scheme of things, and that while the women did have the right to ask Doolin to stop, Nolan's 3-year custodial sentence for a nonviolent mentally ill recluse is ludicrously excessive and probably motivated by the criticisms he has received over his lenient sentencing rather than because Doolin actually deserved it.

You think persistent abuse for 6 years is fine and nothing to see there. Even better if it's aimed at women you don't like.

There are posters on this thread who have been slinging abuse at Katie Hopkins for years. Have you intervened on any of those threads to tell them that you object to their treatment of her?

paleoperson

tdf7187 wrote: »

I recalled that radio presenter Jeremy Dixon had complained of having a social media stalker a few years' back and I was curious to see what happened in the case. It seems that in 2017, the state withdrew a single charge against a woman accused of stalking him.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/state-withdraws-charge-against-disabled-woman-accused-of-harassing-98fm-presenter-775113.html

"Celebrity stalker" types are dime a dozen and it's never considered to be a crime until they start doing something in real life, or if they make active threats. Only with Nolan and some other clowns do we get this sort of thing. Arguably, it's not even that mentally ill until some threat or real world action is taken.

Have any of you guys ever heard of lolcow culture? Where gangs of people gang up on some celebrity online and take them apart in every way possible. I have always been so against that sort of thing. I really think that the people looking for the lion-feeding here would also take part in that. It's all a show to you.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Maddux Modern Rule wrote: »

I couldn't agree more with this. He evidently got under their skin with his pointed criticisms of their being talentless wannabes living in a Twitter thought bubble, and so they sought vengeance by representing themselves as victims of harassment.

Blatant wind up merchant. Blatant. And if you’re not a WUM... yikes. As Arghus said, strange hills some are choosing to die on in this thread.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

languagenerd wrote: »

The people passing this off as merely "disagreeing with journos on Twitter" either haven't read beyond a headline or are deliberately downplaying what he did for some reason. Are they recognising some of their own behaviour and unwilling to confront that? Or do they truly not understand that his actions were designed to carry over into the women's personal offline lives?

Ding ding ding. My thoughts exactly. They’re betraying something about themselves in their responses, IMO.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

paleoperson wrote: »

Nobody "downplayed" anything.

A few of us here said that we believe this sentence was excessive just like yourself, and a gang of trolls started hurling abuse like saying we were scum, "sad cases" and so on.

You would be considered to be "defending him" by the fact of how you think it's excessive. Even after I explained my position that it's just the extent of the punishment, the next post I was supposedly "defending him". It's crazy.

A number of posters absolutely downplayed. And a “gang of trolls”? :pac: By gang, you mean one forum member?

Overheal

Since our newer batch of users are arguing for it: what's the line? How many harassing emails can you send in a day to someone before it becomes "a problem?"

Beasty

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Blatant wind up merchant. Blatant. And if you’re not a WUM... yikes. As Arghus said, strange hills some are choosing to die on in this thread.

If you have a problem with a post or poster report it and leave the modding to the mods

Any questions, PM me

riclad

1000,s of celebritys get threatened and insulted every day on twitter or other social media websites.
What makes this case different is the man never left his house.
no one was ever in danger from him.
He sent them emails and insulted them on twitter .
I don,t think the journalists ever thought they were in danger from him.
I think he is being used as an example to warn off other people who might
wish to harrass or insult people on twitter .

ohnonotgmail

riclad wrote: »

1000,s of celebritys get threatened and insulted every day on twitter or other social media websites.
What makes this case different is the man never left his house.
no one was ever in danger from him.
He sent them emails and insulted them on twitter .
I don,t think the journalists ever thought they were in danger from him.
I think he is being used as an example to warn off other people who might
wish to harrass or insult people on twitter .

what makes this case different is that he harrassed multiple women over multiple years. the fact he never left the house is irrelevant. the women he harassed could not know that.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

riclad wrote: »

1000,s of celebritys get threatened and insulted every day on twitter or other social media websites.
What makes this case different is the man never left his house.
no one was ever in danger from him.
He sent them emails and insulted them on twitter .
I don,t think the journalists ever thought they were in danger from him.
I think he is being used as an example to warn off other people who might
wish to harrass or insult people on twitter .

And if it’s bad enough i.e. sustained and personal, then it’s stalking.

Tony EH

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what makes this case different is that he harrassed multiple women over multiple years. the fact he never left the house is irrelevant. the women he harassed could not know that.

^
Why is this thread a merry-go-round of repeated information.

How many times does the above have to be pointed out?