One of the reasons I find it so disgusting is entirely selfish.
Like I said, I’m coming from the point of view of someone with migraines/strokes, not seizures.
However, if their little prank triggered a severe migraine in me, it has a high likelihood of leading to a stroke (the more you’ve had, the higher the likelihood, unfortunately). Luckily, it’s been three years or so since my last mini-stroke, and longer since my last proper one, but I could end up losing months of my life again (learning to write again, sleeping over 20 hours a day, learning how to talk properly again, trying to regain memories etc.) or much worse, for something as stupid and pointless as this.
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.
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.
