FBI Arrests Man in Seizure-Inducing Tweet to Dallas journalist Kurt Eichenwald

haste.

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 11, 2011
Messages
1,651
I'm honestly not trying to troll or be a dick - I hadn't read that post but it still doesn't justify the first... I acknowledge that you are commenting that the man in question is a POS, but I still read the first and it seems to me that the narrative is "KE had it coming"... nonetheless we can both agree that the man should be charged with a crime!
 

VooDooPC

n00b
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
21
KE was prominent and vocal about being a person with epilepsy. Rivello, aka JewGoldstein, actually researched epilepsy.org and looked at triggers. He even had DM's on his twitter account saying it hopes it works.
Rivello is going to jail and I fucking hate Kurt Eichenwald. KE is one of those scums you don't want to be friends with.

I seriously doubt that his wife typed on his behalf and it was staged by KE himself. The problem was if Rivello had not said those crap or researched, he'd be getting off just fine.

But thanks to both dipshit KE and Rivello, KE practically criminalized sending gif's to anyone even if you don't know that person having epilepsy.

If he went to jail it would be because of what he did plus the things he said. No one is criminalizing sending GIFs, that's a ridiculous conclusion to come to.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
11,469
KE was prominent and vocal about being a person with epilepsy. Rivello, aka JewGoldstein, actually researched epilepsy.org and looked at triggers. He even had DM's on his twitter account saying it hopes it works.
Being prominent about it is irrelevant. It's an unreasonable expectation that everyone should know about his condition. Plus he could've bumped into a "trigger" any number of ways, including in the feed of any person he follows on twitter, that is not even aimed at him. I'm saying that he was walking a minefield by his own free will. Someone just made sure he stepped on it.

If there is clear demonstrable intent, then sure there is basis for prosecution. But not because his condition was common knowledge.
 

Ducman69

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
10,540
I think everyone agrees that they are both dicks, right? The epileptic dick and the dick that tried to trigger him. Dicks everywhere!
 

Kaitian

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 12, 2008
Messages
4,870
Being prominent about it is irrelevant. It's an unreasonable expectation that everyone should know about his condition. Plus he could've bumped into a "trigger" any number of ways, including in the feed of any person he follows on twitter, that is not even aimed at him. I'm saying that he was walking a minefield by his own free will. Someone just made sure he stepped on it.

If there is clear demonstrable intent, then sure there is basis for prosecution. But not because his condition was common knowledge.
I get that it's unreasonable to know a person you interact with may have epilepsy or not. I could spam that crap to everyone and know I'd be just fine. Rivello however did have foreknowledge that KE had the condition.
 

Exavior

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 13, 2005
Messages
9,699
Notice how all of those are physical attacks? Direct, in person, physical attacks either on a person, or property?

How does he (whatever the guy's name is) get through a day if he's so vulnerable? If he's so vulnerable why didn't he take preemptive action to prevent damage from people just making mistakes, not directly trying to attack him but he follows someone who randomly retweets something that could induce a seizure. Or protecting himself from someone, who saw a retweet of something he said responding with some random thing that could induce a seizure in the vulnerable but they don't even think about it because they don't deal with it and know bupkis about him? I can't even imagine how many animated meme pictures could induce a seizure.

I can call him, and your response, idiotic on a scale that's difficult to comprehend as possible for an adult. That doesn't mean I wish you, or even him, harm. I find violence of all types tools of the incompetent. However we've gotten to a new level of stupidity, not preventing exposure to something dangerous to yourself isn't considered your own dumb fault.

Fine, how about your mail a box of anthrax to somebody and say that you can't be charged since you were not there in person. Or mail somebody a bomb. Being there in person doesn't change anything. Did somebody do something with the intent of causing harm? Yes they did.
 

Inglix_the_Mad

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 5, 2004
Messages
332
Fine, how about your mail a box of anthrax to somebody and say that you can't be charged since you were not there in person. Or mail somebody a bomb. Being there in person doesn't change anything. Did somebody do something with the intent of causing harm? Yes they did.

Again with the direct physical attacks.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
31,215
Again with the direct physical attacks.

One is a remote attack with a chemical/biological substance, the other is a remote attack with a pattern known to cause physical harm in the form of a seizure.

I don't see how you find a difference in the two.

In both cases someone specifically targeted a person far away with the intent to do them harm. They seem one and the same to me.

Please explain to me how they are different?
 

Stiletto

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 13, 2008
Messages
6,433
Fat propagandist is wasting law enforcement resources on his micropenis frustration.
 

Exavior

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 13, 2005
Messages
9,699
Again with the direct physical attacks.

Not sure how a package in the mail is direct. That is remote to fit your bitchiness about my first examples. Both are actions taken in hopes of causing physical harm or death to a person, the only difference is the tool. Just like if I cut your throat with a piece of glass instead of a knife I have still slit your throat, the tool doesn't matter.

One is a remote attack with a chemical/biological substance, the other is a remote attack with a pattern known to cause physical harm in the form of a seizure.

I don't see how you find a difference in the two.

In both cases someone specifically targeted a person far away with the intent to do them harm. They seem one and the same to me.

Please explain to me how they are different?

I am shocked at how much people will try to twist stuff in their heads to make actions that result in death or serious injury out to be nothing and try to wave off any punishment. First the teen that took out 911 by causing massive numbers of calls to go through and now this. I know a baby died recently from something that resulted in a large number of calls to knock out 911 for awhile, not sure if that is related to the teen's app or something else that happen. But still, people on here are never afraid to twist reality so much that is completely backwards in order to try to prove a point. Rape is rape, no matter if the woman never had sex before or has slept with a dozen guys in the last week. Murder is murder, regardless if it was a 2 year old killed or a drug deal gone bad. And assault is assault no matter if the victim is somebody loved by all or a complete prick. Love him or hate him, it isn't legal to go shoot pewdiepie in the head just because you don't like his content. Yet somehow people would try to find some way to justify his murder and be on the side of his killer just because they don't care for his content.
 

MRAB54

Gawd
Joined
Sep 9, 2001
Messages
849
You think he really got a seizure. It's a troll trolling a troll.
Based on listening to this guy for a few minutes, I'd say odds are that he didn't have a seizure. Strikes me as the kind of guy who is 100% willing to lie about anything.
 

DocSavage

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 18, 2002
Messages
2,409
Based on listening to this guy for a few minutes, I'd say odds are that he didn't have a seizure. Strikes me as the kind of guy who is 100% willing to lie about anything.
So? People high up in our government seem to lie about anything. If his lies get a troll arrested for trollish behavior, more power to him. Don't want no shit don't start no shit.
 

MRAB54

Gawd
Joined
Sep 9, 2001
Messages
849
So? People high up in our government seem to lie about anything. If his lies get a troll arrested for trollish behavior, more power to him. Don't want no shit don't start no shit.
So? I find it pretty damn disappointing so many people are completely Ok with being spineless liars.
 

DocSavage

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 18, 2002
Messages
2,409
So? I find it pretty damn disappointing so many people are completely Ok with being spineless liars.
The spineless action would be to let the troll get away with it. He's being a brave and conscientious liar :D

I'm not going to politicize this by pointing out perceived current and/or previous administration lies.
 

Inglix_the_Mad

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 5, 2004
Messages
332
One is a remote attack with a chemical/biological substance, the other is a remote attack with a pattern known to cause physical harm in the form of a seizure.

I don't see how you find a difference in the two.

In both cases someone specifically targeted a person far away with the intent to do them harm. They seem one and the same to me.

Please explain to me how they are different?

Well, let's start with direct physical being exactly what it sounds like: direct and physical. If you can't see the difference between a mail bomb, chemical/biological weapon (Sarin, VX, Anthrax), and a GIF there's not going to be anything I can say that will EVER change your mind.

Lets be dead honest, if this guy is so sensitive that a GIF set off a seizure before he can react to prevent it, I'm not sure how he even can use the Internet without it being solely through Lynx. What happens when he sees the joke gif about Ron (it's happening!) Paul? Does he immediately hit the floor with a seizure? What if he sees The Partyback or any of millions of other YouTube videos which (at random) use graphical effects that could easily (some far more easily than this GIF) set off someone with epilepsy. You cannot even lie hard enough (and I'm not saying YOU are lying, nope, I think he is lying) to say you're that sensitive and are functionally capable of using the Internet.
 

Inglix_the_Mad

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 5, 2004
Messages
332
Not sure how a package in the mail is direct. That is remote to fit your bitchiness about my first examples. Both are actions taken in hopes of causing physical harm or death to a person, the only difference is the tool. Just like if I cut your throat with a piece of glass instead of a knife I have still slit your throat, the tool doesn't matter.
.

Nope, it's direct and physical. Last I knew, if a mail is delivered to your mailbox.

Read the above reply. If you want to compare a GIF to physical weaponry, it is stretching analogy past logical limits.

Also, please, if Eichenwald is so sensitive that he couldn't even react before that GIF set of an epileptic seizure he should be using Lynx or other text only options. There is too much random shiat on the Internet, heck on Twitter alone, that should have set him off long before this crappy pic.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
31,215
Well, let's start with direct physical being exactly what it sounds like: direct and physical. If you can't see the difference between a mail bomb, chemical/biological weapon (Sarin, VX, Anthrax), and a GIF there's not going to be anything I can say that will EVER change your mind.

Lets be dead honest, if this guy is so sensitive that a GIF set off a seizure before he can react to prevent it, I'm not sure how he even can use the Internet without it being solely through Lynx. What happens when he sees the joke gif about Ron (it's happening!) Paul? Does he immediately hit the floor with a seizure? What if he sees The Partyback or any of millions of other YouTube videos which (at random) use graphical effects that could easily (some far more easily than this GIF) set off someone with epilepsy. You cannot even lie hard enough (and I'm not saying YOU are lying, nope, I think he is lying) to say you're that sensitive and are functionally capable of using the Internet.


To me it doesn't really matter what the means of causing harm is. What is important is the intent.

The "let's see if he dies" comment makes it pretty clear what the intent was. With that in mind it doesn't matter if the means was a gun, some sort of poison gas, a gif, or a cute puppy.

If the intent is to kill, the intent is to kill. Everything else is pretty much irrelevant.

Layman legal analysis FTW. :p
 

Inglix_the_Mad

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 5, 2004
Messages
332
To me it doesn't really matter what the means of causing harm is. What is important is the intent.

The "let's see if he dies" comment makes it pretty clear what the intent was. With that in mind it doesn't matter if the means was a gun, some sort of poison gas, a gif, or a cute puppy.

If the intent is to kill, the intent is to kill. Everything else is pretty much irrelevant.

The return on that is the illogic of the victim's claim. It's a ridiculous, on its face, claim. Now if the "attacker" had tied him up and forced him to watch seizure inducing material then it wouldn't be so laughable.

You can try and argue the intent line, however it has to be a reasonable claim. Eichenwald's claim is so ridiculous, on it's face, that it defies logic. He is claiming he suffered a seizure, which provides the requisite reason for the legal authorities to react, yet if he's that sensitive he can't possibly use the Internet. If he's not so sensitive he can use the Internet, then the only way he could've have a seizure from it is if he intentionally exposed himself to it long enough for a seizure to occur. That means he bears just as much culpability, if not more, than the sender.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
31,215
The return on that is the illogic of the victim's claim. It's a ridiculous, on its face, claim. Now if the "attacker" had tied him up and forced him to watch seizure inducing material then it wouldn't be so laughable.

You can try and argue the intent line, however it has to be a reasonable claim. Eichenwald's claim is so ridiculous, on it's face, that it defies logic. He is claiming he suffered a seizure, which provides the requisite reason for the legal authorities to react, yet if he's that sensitive he can't possibly use the Internet. If he's not so sensitive he can use the Internet, then the only way he could've have a seizure from it is if he intentionally exposed himself to it long enough for a seizure to occur. That means he bears just as much culpability, if not more, than the sender.

What Eichenwald does it does not do to protect himself is completely irrelevant.

What matters is:

1.) The attacker intended to do bodily harm and/or kill him; and
2.) The attacker believed his chosen method would accomplish that goal.

Everything else is irrelevant.
 

Inglix_the_Mad

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 5, 2004
Messages
332
What Eichenwald does it does not do to protect himself is completely irrelevant.

What matters is:

1.) The attacker intended to do bodily harm and/or kill him; and
2.) The attacker believed his chosen method would accomplish that goal.

Everything else is irrelevant.

The problem is the choice for Eichenwald is similar to this: if I send you a 100 gallons of castor oil concentrate, saying I hope it kills you, and you intentionally expose yourself until you have a medical event, that doesn't make me guilty of attempted anything. Well, maybe poor taste. You, like Eichenwald, had to make a conscious choice to expose yourself to harm.
 

Powerage

Gawd
Joined
Jun 26, 2007
Messages
922
This "incident" happened right after the Carlson interview which where he got his ass handed to him by Carlson. Especially when he has a binder on Carlson. Eichenwald claimed prior to the interview that Trump was abusing meth and didn't provide any proof for that on Carlson.
View attachment 19556

Also it's the same idiot that sported a catfish picture for some time.
View attachment 19555

https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...7a4a412e93a_story.html?utm_term=.4a37c9ce1cf9
Background on the Eichenwald - Trump / Meth story.

IMO, he is using the twitter user in question to distract from his own fuckup.
Oh wow, he disagreed with you politically. Guess he did deserve it.
 

Powerage

Gawd
Joined
Jun 26, 2007
Messages
922
The problem is the choice for Eichenwald is similar to this: if I send you a 100 gallons of castor oil concentrate, saying I hope it kills you, and you intentionally expose yourself until you have a medical event, that doesn't make me guilty of attempted anything. Well, maybe poor taste. You, like Eichenwald, had to make a conscious choice to expose yourself to harm.
Wait, what? That's not the same at all. You're suggesting he had some knowledge that exposure would cause harm, meaning he knew what he was exposing himself to. You'd make a terrible lawyer.
 

Meeho

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
5,196
To me it doesn't really matter what the means of causing harm is. What is important is the intent.

The "let's see if he dies" comment makes it pretty clear what the intent was. With that in mind it doesn't matter if the means was a gun, some sort of poison gas, a gif, or a cute puppy.

If the intent is to kill, the intent is to kill. Everything else is pretty much irrelevant.

Layman legal analysis FTW. :p
I hope I don't leave a banana peel on the floor with a message "I hope you slip and die" or I'll be getting 30 to life.
 

Inglix_the_Mad

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 5, 2004
Messages
332
Wait, what? That's not the same at all. You're suggesting he had some knowledge that exposure would cause harm, meaning he knew what he was exposing himself to. You'd make a terrible lawyer.

You are being intentionally obtuse. There are two choices:

1) He is so sensitive to this GIF (and millions of others of GIFs, random sections of YouTube videos, or even many pop-up ads) that it will disable him with a seizure before he can react. At that point his usage of the Internet at all is taking his life into his own hands. Not to mention that usage is utterly irresponsible, and reckless to his own health..

2) He intentionally exposed himself to the GIF until it caused a seizure. That means he intended to have the reaction solely to get publicity, sympathy, et al.

Everyone on the planet, that I know of, will suffer harm when exposed to concentrated castor oil - if they are exposed to enough of it. However me just sending someone 100 gallons of concentrated castor oil with the tagline "I hope you die" doesn't mean I'm guilty of attacking that person.

You'd make an even worse lawyer. All it takes is picking apart how long it took for him to have the seizure. If he says it was immediate, or nearly so, all you have to do to discredit him to the jury is ask how he has survived using the internet this long considering the millions (billions?) of random images that could appear at anytime in a browser window.
 

westrock2000

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
9,214
Maybe this will come up at the trial


HINT: This is a music video by Kurt, and I embedded the start time to a relavent part of the video pertaining to flashy light patterns.
 

gwarren007

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
15,947
2) He intentionally exposed himself to the GIF until it caused a seizure. That means he intended to have the reaction solely to get publicity, sympathy, et al.

Sometimes when entering a seizure YOU CAN"T look away. There is no physical way -some time a staring seizure (petite-mal) will preclude you from looking away-then you go into a grand mal shaking seizure
 

Inglix_the_Mad

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 5, 2004
Messages
332
Sometimes when entering a seizure YOU CAN"T look away. There is no physical way -some time a staring seizure (petite-mal) will preclude you from looking away-then you go into a grand mal shaking seizure

Again, if the reaction is so immediate then you are being irresponsible even using the Internet. There are too many random images, and the like, that could set off a seizure without warning.

---Edit

You've passed the Schwarzschild radius here mate. I
 

IcePickFreak

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
1,411
I just watched the interview this guy did with Tucker Carlson that apparently spawned this whole thing. If he told me the sky was blue I'd go outside and check before I'd believe him.
 

Inglix_the_Mad

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 5, 2004
Messages
332
I just watched the interview this guy did with Tucker Carlson that apparently spawned this whole thing. If he told me the sky was blue I'd go outside and check before I'd believe him.

I think, in today's sociological / political climate, we need Asimov's Fair Witnesses from Stranger in a Strange Land.

"Anne, what color is that house on the hill?"

"It's white on this side."
 
Top