Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

There is no threat at all, none whatsoever.

If you're a scumbag liar and a cheat, and I know where you live, you might well be pamphletted. That's entirely legal, and protected speech in America.

If you're a scumbag liar and a cheat, and I know who your family are, they might well be informed of this. Again, entirely legal protected speech in America.

So no, there's not threat and it's NOT the same. At all.

And if one isn't a liar or a cheat, then none of that should happen in the first place.

Bad people deserve bad consequences, simple as that.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
There is no threat at all, none whatsoever.

If you're a scumbag liar and a cheat, and I know where you live, you might well be pamphletted. That's entirely legal, and protected speech in America.

If you're a scumbag liar and a cheat, and I know who your family are, they might well be informed of this. Again, entirely legal protected speech in America.

So no, there's not threat and it's NOT the same. At all.

And if one isn't a liar or a cheat, then none of that should happen in the first place.

Bad people deserve bad consequences, simple as that.

Interesting, very interesting. By the way, do you get your morals from Saudi Arabia? Should this thief have had his hand chopped off?

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
There is no threat at all, none whatsoever.

There's no way you would receive pictures of your home, data on your and your loved ones' comings and goings, and think to yourself "Hm, this is a product of a reasonable person." Threats don't have to be spelled out or explicit to be threats. They can be implied. That data and images with nothing else is evidence of stalking. Stalking is a crime and an implied threat.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:


Bad people deserve bad consequences, simple as that.

Yeah, and their families probably deserve to be threatened in this way, too.

Did I willingly provide that address to the other party? Did I publicly post those pictures? Then it's not stalking.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Did I willingly provide that address to the other party? Did I publicly post those pictures? Then it's not stalking.

It was threatening. Inherently. By literal virtue of the act itself.

Granted, the guy was not smart to have so much information publicly accessible. But you're defending a guy who is pretty much implying he actually was threatening. He even has another anecdote about chasing down a thief, beating the thief up, then taking the thief's money. What do you honestly think the intended message was when he sent a man a picture of the guys home, data on when he's at work, and info on his wife and relatives?

It was a threat.

BossJakadakk wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Did I willingly provide that address to the other party? Did I publicly post those pictures? Then it's not stalking.

It was threatening. Inherently. By literal virtue of the act itself.

Granted, the guy was not smart to have so much information publicly accessible. But you're defending a guy who is pretty much implying he actually was threatening. He even has another anecdote about chasing down a thief, beating the thief up, then taking the thief's money. What do you honestly think the intended message was when he sent a man a picture of the guys home, data on when he's at work, and info on his wife and relatives?

It was a threat.

Thank you. The guy already admitted to one act of violence, tie that in with "hey, he's a picture of your wife and when you work", throw in a wink wink for good measure, and you have a grade A threat.

I really wouldn't bother folks, John has demonstrated in other threads he's smarter than he appears to be in this one, so it's probably fair to say he's doing it to get a rise.

 jreilly89 wrote:

BossJakadakk wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Did I willingly provide that address to the other party? Did I publicly post those pictures? Then it's not stalking.

It was threatening. Inherently. By literal virtue of the act itself.

Granted, the guy was not smart to have so much information publicly accessible. But you're defending a guy who is pretty much implying he actually was threatening. He even has another anecdote about chasing down a thief, beating the thief up, then taking the thief's money. What do you honestly think the intended message was when he sent a man a picture of the guys home, data on when he's at work, and info on his wife and relatives?

It was a threat.

Thank you. The guy already admitted to one act of violence, tie that in with "hey, he's a picture of your wife and when you work", throw in a wink wink for good measure, and you have a grade A threat.

While disturbing to the person receiving the images and information, its not a threat. Even with a "wink" or admittance of past violence its not a threat. If you say "but if he did this" its then a threat... well lots of things can occur in a fill in the blank sentence. It was a clear statement of intent in the sellers willingness to try hard to get his property returned.

The elements of a threat:
A. It must be communicated.
B. The communication must convey causality; do this or something violent will happen.
C. True specific intent to do harm, beyond the communication.
D. The person threatened must feel fear.

In the absence of all those elements, it is simply inducement. In the absence of A. its just personal frustration and anger. In the absence of B. it an individual drawing their own conclusions as inconsistently as anything else that calls for interpretation. In the absence of C. its Machiavellian stubbornness. And in the absence of D. its simply escalating chest thumping.

 aka_mythos wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

BossJakadakk wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Did I willingly provide that address to the other party? Did I publicly post those pictures? Then it's not stalking.

It was threatening. Inherently. By literal virtue of the act itself.

Granted, the guy was not smart to have so much information publicly accessible. But you're defending a guy who is pretty much implying he actually was threatening. He even has another anecdote about chasing down a thief, beating the thief up, then taking the thief's money. What do you honestly think the intended message was when he sent a man a picture of the guys home, data on when he's at work, and info on his wife and relatives?

It was a threat.

Thank you. The guy already admitted to one act of violence, tie that in with "hey, he's a picture of your wife and when you work", throw in a wink wink for good measure, and you have a grade A threat.

While disturbing to the person receiving the images and information, its not a threat. Even with a "wink" or admittance of past violence its not a threat. If you say "but if he did this" its then a threat... well lots of things can occur in a fill in the blank sentence. It was a clear statement of intent in the sellers willingness to try hard to get his property returned.

The elements of a threat:
A. It must be communicated.
B. The communication must convey causality; do this or something violent will happen.
C. True specific intent to do harm, beyond the communication.
D. The person threatened must feel fear.

In the absence of all those elements, it is simply inducement. In the absence of A. its just personal frustration and anger. In the absence of B. it an individual drawing their own conclusions as inconsistently as anything else that calls for interpretation. In the absence of C. its Machiavellian stubbornness. And in the absence of D. its simply escalating chest thumping.

Are those the legal requirements?

And I would think that in the absence of D, it's still a threat. I don't need to feel fear for a threat to actually be a real threat.

 aka_mythos wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

BossJakadakk wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Did I willingly provide that address to the other party? Did I publicly post those pictures? Then it's not stalking.

It was threatening. Inherently. By literal virtue of the act itself.

Granted, the guy was not smart to have so much information publicly accessible. But you're defending a guy who is pretty much implying he actually was threatening. He even has another anecdote about chasing down a thief, beating the thief up, then taking the thief's money. What do you honestly think the intended message was when he sent a man a picture of the guys home, data on when he's at work, and info on his wife and relatives?

It was a threat.

Thank you. The guy already admitted to one act of violence, tie that in with "hey, he's a picture of your wife and when you work", throw in a wink wink for good measure, and you have a grade A threat.

While disturbing to the person receiving the images and information, its not a threat. Even with a "wink" or admittance of past violence its not a threat. If you say "but if he did this" its then a threat... well lots of things can occur in a fill in the blank sentence. It was a clear statement of intent in the sellers willingness to try hard to get his property returned.

The elements of a threat:
A. It must be communicated.
B. The communication must convey causality; do this or something violent will happen.
C. True specific intent to do harm, beyond the communication.
D. The person threatened must feel fear.

In the absence of all those elements, it is simply inducement. In the absence of A. its just personal frustration and anger. In the absence of B. it an individual drawing their own conclusions as inconsistently as anything else that calls for interpretation. In the absence of C. its Machiavellian stubbornness. And in the absence of D. its simply escalating chest thumping.

Without the emails, it's hard to see what the exact context was, but any cop worth his salt would probably be see this as harassment or menacing at least.

Also, you're telling me if I sent you pictures of your wife and children, directions from my house to yours, and a timeline of your work schedule, you wouldn't be the least bit suspicious or afraid?

I'm saying I'd be disturbed but that anything else I'd feel would be irrational and baseless in the absence of other communication.

BossJakadakk wrote:

 aka_mythos wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

BossJakadakk wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Did I willingly provide that address to the other party? Did I publicly post those pictures? Then it's not stalking.

It was threatening. Inherently. By literal virtue of the act itself.

Granted, the guy was not smart to have so much information publicly accessible. But you're defending a guy who is pretty much implying he actually was threatening. He even has another anecdote about chasing down a thief, beating the thief up, then taking the thief's money. What do you honestly think the intended message was when he sent a man a picture of the guys home, data on when he's at work, and info on his wife and relatives?

It was a threat.

Thank you. The guy already admitted to one act of violence, tie that in with "hey, he's a picture of your wife and when you work", throw in a wink wink for good measure, and you have a grade A threat.

While disturbing to the person receiving the images and information, its not a threat. Even with a "wink" or admittance of past violence its not a threat. If you say "but if he did this" its then a threat... well lots of things can occur in a fill in the blank sentence. It was a clear statement of intent in the sellers willingness to try hard to get his property returned.

The elements of a threat:
A. It must be communicated.
B. The communication must convey causality; do this or something violent will happen.
C. True specific intent to do harm, beyond the communication.
D. The person threatened must feel fear.

In the absence of all those elements, it is simply inducement. In the absence of A. its just personal frustration and anger. In the absence of B. it an individual drawing their own conclusions as inconsistently as anything else that calls for interpretation. In the absence of C. its Machiavellian stubbornness. And in the absence of D. its simply escalating chest thumping.

Are those the legal requirements?

And I would think that in the absence of D, it's still a threat. I don't need to feel fear for a threat to actually be a real threat.

In general. Legal requirements are far far more specific, for instance legally the threat has to be made to a person, so threatening harm to a dog or to slash a tire isn't a threat. What I broke down is more of the logic based, grammatical and dictionary review of the notion. You have to think about a "threat" as a psychological transgression that utilizes a realistic belief in the imminence of a violent act to harm a person psychologically. Without an altered peace of mind there isn't a psychological transgression.

It's not back peddling, but a person can feel threatened without being threaten.

In that case, it could still be argued that the person in question sent those pictures/that information in an attempt to make someone *feel* threatened while not explicitly threatening them. Harassment, then?

I still believe it is actually implying a threat, because the whole idea is to make the point of "I can and have found you, and know you and your loved ones' faces."

Even if action can't be taken against it explicitly as a "threat," I would hope it can be considered something that is actionable. Because the first thing I would do is contact ebay/my local PD.

I understand the situation in question was doing this to someone who stiffed a guy and got away with it through ebay, but implying a threat against an entire family is flat out fethed up.

BossJakadakk wrote:
In that case, it could still be argued that the person in question sent those pictures/that information in an attempt to make someone *feel* threatened while not explicitly threatening them. Harassment, then?

I still believe it is actually implying a threat, because the whole idea is to make the point of "I can and have found you, and know you and your loved ones' faces."

Even if action can't be taken against it explicitly as a "threat," I would hope it can be considered something that is actionable. Because the first thing I would do is contact ebay/my local PD.

I understand the situation in question was doing this to someone who stiffed a guy and got away with it through ebay, but implying a threat against an entire family is flat out fethed up.

They Police would tell you there is nothing they can do. They would run you through a series of questions more detailed then my four bullet points, where answering the "wrong" way on any of it would mean they can't do anything. The most you're likely to get is a direct phone number to report future occurrences. If you believe someone is coming around often, they might have a patrol go through the neighborhood every once and a while.The Police and legal system require clear and distinct actions to occur before they can act.

Harassment is something the police can act on but just like a "threat" it requires something definitive and self apparent. Harassment would require a series of communications that through their relationship build a pattern of intimidation. Where communication can take the form of just being present outside your home repeatedly but without some semblance of repetition its really just your personal sentiment and not actionable.

I used to be an eBay seller, and stopped for the same reason. I was selling a few things to help make ends meet (username weneediapers). That ebay buyer sounds familiar too, I sold a Bretonnian Character (rare one at that, if I recall) totally sealed in blister. They went through the whole eBay thing, and even though I had pictures of it sealed before I sent it...I lost. They sent me back an opened blister, though there was nothing missing. This was the last straw.

As for OP thanks for the heads up on the buyer.

For the rest of the nonsense, I am SURE it all happened. No one lies or exaggerates on the internet ever!

OgreChubbs wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:
You can set it so item is used and shown in pic, also have no returns excepted. But I sold 100+ things and never really had a problem. But I stay in Canada....well I had one problem when I sent to the states.

The guy said the item was 3 days late and wanted a refund. After showing ebay the tracking and such was delivered but not signed they gave him a refund and he kept the item. But paypal had his email adress. So i sent him a pic of his house, hours when he is at work some pics and info on his wife and known relatives and he sent the money back and said sorry :-).

It is amazing what info you can find on people with facebook house adress ect lol.

.....so you basically stalked and blackmailed the guy? Sure, he did a douchey thing, but that doesn't make what you do okay AT ALL.

ya i am probly not the most sane person in the world I will admit. Couple years ago I went to a wildlife park and had a cooler with some milk It was just a 710 mil for my kids bottle. Somebody ran by grabbed the milk and bolted I chased him for like 8 minutes beat him up and recieved funds from him to purchase more milk... Sounds better. Seemed fair to me.


Thats why I always tell everyone careful what you do you never know what type of person they are.

Sure, buddy. Sure...

What is this thread even about?

About how a canadian guy made a bunch of implied threats and some people don't think they are threats.

OgreChubbs wrote:You can set it so item is used and shown in pic, also have no returns excepted. But I sold 100+ things and never really had a problem. But I stay in Canada....well I had one problem when I sent to the states.

The guy said the item was 3 days late and wanted a refund. After showing ebay the tracking and such was delivered but not signed they gave him a refund and he kept the item. But paypal had his email adress. So i sent him a pic of his house, hours when he is at work some pics and info on his wife and known relatives and he sent the money back and said sorry :-).

It is amazing what info you can find on people with facebook house adress ect lol.

OgreChubbs wrote:
ya i am probly not the most sane person in the world I will admit. Couple years ago I went to a wildlife park and had a cooler with some milk It was just a 710 mil for my kids bottle. Somebody ran by grabbed the milk and bolted I chased him for like 8 minutes beat him up and recieved funds from him to purchase more milk... Sounds better. Seemed fair to me.


Thats why I always tell everyone careful what you do you never know what type of person they are.

WOW. An actual real Internet Hardman in the wild. I thought you guys were a myth!

I am in awe. Abject awe of how powerful and manly you are.

At least you didn't say you were 6' 6" and a 200lbs MMA expert, so thanks for that. Small mercies, I suppose.

Looks like we're all done here now...