When I was still only a fresh-faced schoolboy (about the same time as Tom Brown, I think), I saw someone have their first fit.
He sort of slowed, stood straight up, then fell backwards like a plank (or a cartoon). Then he jerked and shook and urinated uncontrollably for the next five minutes while the blood pooled around him from a wound on the back of his head. I and an older girl from my school did the best we could to hold him still so he didn’t hurt himself more, while the friend I was with - who was the faster runner - went back for a teacher. Fortunately, someone in a nearby house saw what was going on and, having had a sister with epilepsy, knew what to do. She said we’d done the right thing, but then, that’s probably what you would say to two shocked and pale schoolchildren.
When the seizure passed, the woman called an ambulance and the boy’s parents, and we waited with him till it came. He was more embarrassed than anything, not least for having wet himself, and made his mum promise to bring a change of clothes with her. Me and the other girl, who was obviously quite shaken herself, just hugged and she said how brave I’d been. The next year, I asked her out.
She called me a “moose” and a “prick” and walked off giggling.
You know who you are, Ingrid.
You probably should have played the hero card as soon as you were dealt it. They tend to expire. I myself regret not making more of a drunken train journey where in defence of a nice girl from my class we met I slew a ferocious and terrible bumble-bee that was terrorising the carriage. Many men tried to vanquish it, but none had the courage or speed to win the day. Sadly, I didn’t capitalise on my valiant action. Mainly because I was a bit too pissed to realise how cool it was (to be fair she was pretty pissed and made a big scene of how cool it was. To be really fair the whole carriage was pissed and I got a round of applause for how cool it was). Ah, the naivety of youth. But she was always really friendly to me after that, before we’d never really talked much. Walked past her in town a few months ago but she didn’t recognise me, lost her in the crowd.
Actually, I don’t see this as a simple ‘prank’ at any rate, but a willful, malicious attack. This forum was for folks with epilepsy or have family members and other loved ones suffering this debilitating condition.
Many times those with this condition are not even aware that a flickering light, or sound is even ‘attacking’ them until damage is done. Sometimes they simply go direction into a seizure or blank-out. As David said, the window is most often not much more than a millisecond. As Boo has said, recovery from this kind of malicious activity can take months and even years and it can also kill.
As far as I am concerned, and in my opinion, these people should be charged with attempted murder at most and certainly if not these, then assault (threat to injure) and assault and battery (threat to injure and injuring).
As far as I am concerned, and in my opinion, these people should be charged with attempted murder at most and certainly if not these, then assault (threat to injure) and assault and battery (threat to injure and injuring).
You couldn’t charge someone with attempted murder for this. Murder is classified (in just about all legal systems although not in the same words) as being to kill someone with wicked or malicious intent. You have to have an malicious plan to take the life of someone.
And there is simply no way to prove that. It’s wreckless endangerment (whereby the culprit puts people’s lives in danger by his wreckless actions). You can’t have assualt unless there’s a specific injury caused, and reported to the police, and directly attributed to the action of the culprit. That’s very hard to prove in this case, if such an injury is reported.
And it’s not a treat to do anything. A threat is where you...threaten (can’t think of another word) violence or some other injurious action upon somebody. It comes before any violence or injury, if any such action is forthcoming. There’s no threat here. It’s exactly the opposite- the injurious action is disguised, hidden. It is masqueraded as something innocent; a threat must suggest(implicitly or explicitly) injury yet to come. Doesn’t happen here.
You couldn’t charge someone with attempted murder for this. Murder is classified (in just about all legal systems although not in the same words) as being to kill someone with wicked or malicious intent. You have to have an malicious plan to take the life of someone. And there is simply no way to prove that.
It’s true, while intent is dubious for ‘murder’ in the first, it’s possible that charges (if in fact anyone does die as a direct result of the ‘prank’, that manslaughter could be evoked). However, this action is too close to terrorist intent to strangers too. The action would have to be viewed as political, religious, vengeance etc.
However, your following, reckless endangerment is much more likely.
Renquist - 08 May 2008 04:33 PM
It’s wreckless endangerment (whereby the culprit puts people’s lives in danger by his wreckless actions).
Renquist - 08 May 2008 04:33 PM
You can’t have assualt unless there’s a specific injury caused, and reported to the police, and directly attributed to the action of the culprit. That’s very hard to prove in this case, if such an injury is reported.
I disagree with your assessment here though. Assault=threat and this is evident in this kind of malicious prank. Assaulting often is just the raising of a hand or arm with the threat to inflict.
Battery=injury (or actual contact with the body to inflict injury.) It is considered battery if there is contact either by hand or instrument. In this case the instrument would be the internet.
Renquist - 08 May 2008 04:33 PM
And it’s not a treat to do anything. A threat is where you...threaten (can’t think of another word) violence or some other injurious action upon somebody. It comes before any violence or injury, if any such action is forthcoming. There’s no threat here. It’s exactly the opposite- the injurious action is disguised, hidden. It is masqueraded as something innocent; a threat must suggest(implicitly or explicitly) injury yet to come. Doesn’t happen here.
A threat can stand alone unaccompanied by injurious contact. It is still an offence of lower, chargeable degree.
The battery in this instance would be any physical harm manifested by the action delivered by the pranksters. Any who may have been physically harmed, however, would need all records relating and showing direct cause and effect coming from the site before any kind of action against the pranksters could come before the authorities.
I do not consider what the hacker/pranksters did to be an innocent act, but even if it is and harm is caused, then, as you said earlier, reckless endangerment would at the very least apply.
You couldn’t charge someone with attempted murder for this. Murder is classified (in just about all legal systems although not in the same words) as being to kill someone with wicked or malicious intent. You have to have an malicious plan to take the life of someone. And there is simply no way to prove that.
It’s true, while intent is dubious for ‘murder’ in the first, it’s possible that charges (if in fact anyone does die as a direct result of the ‘prank’, that manslaughter could be evoked). However, this action is too close to terrorist intent to strangers too. The action would have to be viewed as political, religious, vengeance etc.
However, your following, reckless endangerment is much more likely.
‘Terrorist intent’? That must be an American thing. For anything to be catagorised as ‘terrorist’ it would have to endanger society at large, not maybe causing epileptics to have seizures. If it was against a religious group or ethnic minority it’d be a hate crime. I suppose it could actually be a hate crime against epileptics, but not a terrorist attack.
Renquist - 08 May 2008 04:33 PM
It’s wreckless endangerment (whereby the culprit puts people’s lives in danger by his wreckless actions).
Renquist - 08 May 2008 04:33 PM
You can’t have assualt unless there’s a specific injury caused, and reported to the police, and directly attributed to the action of the culprit. That’s very hard to prove in this case, if such an injury is reported.
I disagree with your assessment here though. Assault=threat and this is evident in this kind of malicious prank. Assaulting often is just the raising of a hand or arm with the threat to inflict.
Battery=injury (or actual contact with the body to inflict injury.) It is considered battery if there is contact either by hand or instrument. In this case the instrument would be the internet.
No, that’d be an untested legal theory. Unless you can find case law from the appropriate jurisdiction to back it up it’s not a legal principle. It’s something a lawyer might try in court, but internet as an instrument of assault is, until tested in court, a legal theory only.
I’ve never heard of an assault consisting of raising your hand to hit somebody. Maybe you get that in the States but you don’t get that here. You actually need to assault somebody. The police are picky that way.
Renquist - 08 May 2008 04:33 PM
And it’s not a treat to do anything. A threat is where you...threaten (can’t think of another word) violence or some other injurious action upon somebody. It comes before any violence or injury, if any such action is forthcoming. There’s no threat here. It’s exactly the opposite- the injurious action is disguised, hidden. It is masqueraded as something innocent; a threat must suggest(implicitly or explicitly) injury yet to come. Doesn’t happen here.
A threat can stand alone unaccompanied by injurious contact. It is still an offence of lower, chargeable degree.
The battery in this instance would be any physical harm manifested by the action delivered by the pranksters. Any who may have been physically harmed, however, would need all records relating and showing direct cause and effect coming from the site before any kind of action against the pranksters could come before the authorities.
I do not consider what the hacker/pranksters did to be an innocent act, but even if it is and harm is caused, then, as you said earlier, reckless endangerment would at the very least apply.
Re-read my post. I never said a threat couldn’t stand alone as a crime.
What I said was that a threat needs to threaten injury. This crime, where it hides the intent to injure (if there is one) is the exact opposite of threatening anything. If I say “I’m going to hit you” that’s a threat. If I say “Hey, look at this picture of a bunny” and then smack you with a rock, that’s not a threat. Because in no way did I make a threat to injure you, I just did it. It’s not a threat.
Wow, how do you migraine suffers live, day to day, knowing that at any second a brief glimpse of something might send you into spasms, black out, and need to spend years learning to read and write again?
The stress of knowing that could happen would, gosh, I dunno, give me a migraine or something.
Wow, how do you migraine suffers live, day to day, knowing that at any second a brief glimpse of something might send you into spasms, black out, and need to spend years learning to read and write again?
The stress of knowing that could happen would, gosh, I dunno, give me a migraine or something.
That’s not “standard” for migraine sufferers. That is medically specific to Boo because she has a history of strokes.
While many hackers/pranksters/terrorists/scammers may believe the internet/cybernet is a relatively safe avenue to work and play globally, governmental trends in Europe and the United States have been steadily extending venue barriers and definition of more common criminal offenses.
In an effort to lay groundwork for the situation of this thread, I’ve pulled some information from, yes, the internet:
39-13-101. Assault.
(a) A person commits assault who:
(1) Intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causes bodily injury to another;
(2) Intentionally or knowingly causes another to reasonably fear imminent bodily injury; or
(3) Intentionally or knowingly causes physical contact with another and a reasonable person
would regard the contact as extremely offensive or provocative.
(b) Assault is a Class A misdemeanor unless the offense is committed under subdivision (a)(3),
in which event assault is a Class B misdemeanor.
39-13-102. Aggravated assault.
(a) A person commits aggravated assault who:
(1) Intentionally or knowingly commits an assault as defined in § 39-13-101 and:
(A) Causes serious bodily injury to another; or
(B) Uses or displays a deadly weapon; or
(2) Recklessly commits an assault as defined in § 39-13-101(a)(1), and:
(A) Causes serious bodily injury to another; or
(B) Uses or displays a deadly weapon.
39-13-103. Reckless endangerment.
(a) A person commits an offense who recklessly engages in conduct that places or may place
another person in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury.
(b) Reckless endangerment is a Class A misdemeanor; however, reckless endangerment
committed with a deadly weapon is a Class E felony.
http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/assault_battery.html
Assault/Battery
In most states, an assault/battery is committed when one person 1) tries to or does physically strike another, or 2) acts in a threatening manner to put another in fear of immediate harm. Many states declare that a more serious or “aggravated” assault/battery occurs when one 1) tries to or does cause severe injury to another, or 2) causes injury through use of a deadly weapon. Historically, laws treated the threat of physical injury as “assault”, and the completed act of physical contact or offensive touching as “battery,” but many states no longer differentiate between the two.
http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/II/ICrimPrev.html
The notion `Internet crime’ might be interpreted in a number of ways. One is to limit it to new forms of crime that can be performed on the Internet. Another is to apply it not only to new forms of crime, but also to variants of existing crimes that are adapted into the Internet context. Finally, it might be used to encompass any criminal activity that involves use of the Internet.
In a recent interview, an Interpol specialist on networked computer crimes was quoted as saying that Interpol divides digital crime into three areas ( Ghosh 1997):
• computer crime, which includes piracy, data-theft and time-theft (computer break-ins);
• computer-related crime, which is mainly bank fraud—“what was a crime earlier with paper, but is now done with a computer,” as Takizawa says; and
• “network crime”: the use of the Internet for transactions that are already illegal—child pornography—or aid illegal activity—often involving the drug trade, customs evasion and money laundering.
This paper generally uses `Internet crime’ in the most open and inclusive sense of the term.
A remarkably wide range of criminal acts are capable of being performed using the Internet. Examples include:
• conspiracy;
• harassment;
• incitement;
• extortion;
• fraud, forgery and falsification;
• tax evasion;
• `computer crimes’ (e.g. harm to data); and
• particular forms of assault.
Some crimes are of limited relevance to the current context. For example, it is difficult to see how robbery, which involves access to a physical person, and break-and-enter offences, which involve access to physical premises, could be performed over the Internet. The notion of `property’ may, however, be undergoing change; for example, hacking is tending to be treated as a form of `data theft’.
Battery, manslaughter and murder would also seem not to be capable of being performed over the Internet. However, the connection to the Internet of computers with robotic capabilities, such as those performing control functions over industrial processes, dams, and critically ill patients, may see such crimes become feasible ( Clarke 1993).
As part of this project, a reference list of relevant laws in Australian jurisdictions has been collated.
