Wow - some kitty kayut fans should be worried - I hope that people get punished over this

[Pervis_Griffith]

http://collegebasketball.ap.org/ap/article/investigator-eyeing-100s-threats-against-ncaa-official

From the article:

An investigator for a Nebraska law enforcement agency said Wednesday he is reviewing hundreds of confirmed or possible threats against an Omaha basketball official who worked Kentucky's NCAA Tournament loss to North Carolina.

Matt Barrall of the Sarpy County Sheriff's Department said he was in his fifth day working full-time on the case, and no end was in sight.

"We are taking this very, very — extremely — seriously," Barrall said. "Some people might say, 'Oh, it's just a basketball game.' But what if some mentally unstable person decides this is the way to make a name for himself?"

Referee John Higgins' roofing company was inundated with harassing emails, phone calls and voice mails -- including deth threats against Higgins and his family — starting shortly after Kentucky's 75-73 loss to North Carolina on March 26. Kentucky coach John Calipari criticized the officiating during his postgame news conference.

Barrall said he has identified 450 phone calls or messages and another 200-300 messages on social media or in emails that were "of a threatening nature."

Some of those met the criteria to be considered terroristic threats under Nebraska law. Barrall said he wouldn't disclose how many until after he reviews all the messages. Under Nebraska law, making terroristic threats is a felony punishable by up to three years in prison.

 

[Cue Card]

A line has to be drawn, and I'm glad this time it has been. It's not the first time something like this has happened, and it's not limited to just zealous UofK fans but it needs to stop. It's just a game.

 

[Louisvillian]

That large group of trashy UK fans that went after the guy's business are not only lowlifes, they are about as un-American as it gets.

So that fanbase, errrr.. cult also has that going for them. Which is nice.

 

[ThroughBlue]

I'd be surprised if anyone is ultimately arrested

 

[Cue Card]

I'd be surprised if anyone is ultimately arrested

I'll be surprised if there aren't arrests. We are moving in a direction now where cyber bullying and cyber terrorism will not be tolerated any longer. People need to learn QUICKLY there are consequences to their actions. This is only the latest form of terrorism and it needs to be squashed. Too bad for UofK it'll be a product of their fanbase which will feel the burn. President Obama told everyone that words matter. That might be the single smartest thing he ever said.

 

[OmegaCard]

Terrorism? Jeez. Didn't you once protect the first amendment Cue? Some of yours hatred of UK would have the rest of us living in a chitty world.

 

[Cue Card]

Terrorism? Jeez. Didn't you once protect the first amendment Cue? Some of yours hatred of UK would have the rest of us living in a chitty world.

This isn't a first ammendment issue. If anything, it violates the first ammendment as it written. You have the right to free speech, but threatening someone's life is not free speech. It's a terrorist threat which is breaking the law as we know it. You think it's OK for anyone to get so angry over the outcome of any game, that they have the right to threaten the refs life? This issue is way bigger than just UofK fans OmegaCard. It's nice to know which side you stand on though. Now we all know.

 

[Pervis_Griffith]

Terrorism? Jeez. Didn't you once protect the first amendment Cue? Some of yours hatred of UK would have the rest of us living in a chitty world.

First amendment?? You clearly don't know what you're talking about.

 

[shadow force]

I'd be surprised if anyone is ultimately arrested

Weren't you saying in an earlier thread that you doubted the threats even occurred at all and that the majority of the harassment was made up?

 

[OmegaCard]

This isn't a first ammendment issue. If anything, it violates the first ammendment as it written. You have the right to free speech, but threatening someone's life is not free speech. It's a terrorist threat which is breaking the law as we know it. You think it's OK for anyone to get so angry over the outcome of any game, that they have the right to threaten the refs life? This issue is way bigger than just UofK fans OmegaCard. It's nice to know which side you stand on though. Now we all know.

It's all about interpretation. I would have to see what was written or said to make that determination. That's why we have a court system. I guess my side can put things into context as well. I don't think this is the first time a ref has heard death threats. I've never heard of a ref being killed. Beat up. Or harmed in any way. So what makes you think this time it will happen?

And then there's the whole proof thing. I suspect it would be pretty hard to convince a jury that a drunk fan intended to actually do harm.

 

[OmegaCard]

First amendment?? You clearly don't know what you're talking about.

Go ahead and tell me what was said partner. So I can determine for myself. Else you're just a knee-jerk reaction kind of guy.

 

[Pervis_Griffith]

Go ahead and tell me what was said partner. So I can determine for myself. Else you're just a knee-jerk reaction kind of guy.

You realize that you can't yell "Fire" in a crowded room.

But somehow, threatening someone is protected speech.

Did you even READ the linked article that started this thread? Yet you call me knee-jerk reaction guy. Hello kettle ...

 

[Pervis_Griffith]

It's all about interpretation. I would have to see what was written or said to make that determination. That's why we have a court system. I guess my side can put things into context as well. I don't think this is the first time a ref has heard death threats. I've never heard of a ref being killed. Beat up. Or harmed in any way. So what makes you think this time it will happen?

And then there's the whole proof thing. I suspect it would be pretty hard to convince a jury that a drunk fan intended to actually do harm.

Here's the relevant Nebraska statute:

Nebraska Statute:
28-311.01.
Terroristic threats; penalty.
(1) A person commits terroristic threats if he or she threatens to commit any crime of violence:

(a) With the intent to terrorize another;

(b) With the intent of causing the evacuation of a building, place of assembly, or facility of public transportation; or

(c) In reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or evacuation.

(2) Terroristic threats is a Class IIIA felony.

• 1. Terroristic threats
• A terroristic threat made under subsection (1)(a) of this section requires an intent to terrorize another and is not concerned with the result produced by an individual's threat. State v. Smith, 267 Neb. 917, 678 N.W.2d 733 (2004).
• Third degree assault under subsection (1)(b) of section 28-310 is not a lesser-included offense of terroristic threats under subsection (1)(a) of this section. State v. Smith, 267 Neb. 917, 678 N.W.2d 733 (2004).
• To violate the statute prohibiting the commission of terroristic threats does not require an intent to execute the threats made or that the recipient of the threat be terrorized. State v. Saltzman, 235 Neb. 964, 458 N.W.2d 239 (1990).
• A defendant does not have to actually commit a crime of violence, because it is the threat of violence which is at the heart of the crime of terroristic threats. State v. Tucker, 17 Neb. App. 487, 764 N.W.2d 137 (2009).
• For purposes of the offense of terroristic threats, a threat may be written, oral, physical, or any combination thereof. State v. Tucker, 17 Neb. App. 487, 764 N.W.2d 137 (2009).
• A threat may be written, oral, physical, or any combination thereof, and whether a particular conduct constitutes a threat depends on the context of the interaction between the involved people. State v. Curlile, 11 Neb. App. 52, 642 N.W.2d 517 (2002).

And a quote from the investigator from the original linked article, about the liklihood that convictions could be reached in these cases:

"It was not that long ago where courts were reluctant to convict when offense was not initiated in our jurisdiction, but we do not face that anymore," Polikov wrote. "Also, depending on the facts, we would collaborate with the local authorities where the offenses were initiated."

 

[Cue Card]

It's all about interpretation. I would have to see what was written or said to make that determination. That's why we have a court system. I guess my side can put things into context as well. I don't think this is the first time a ref has heard death threats. I've never heard of a ref being killed. Beat up. Or harmed in any way. So what makes you think this time it will happen?

And then there's the whole proof thing. I suspect it would be pretty hard to convince a jury that a drunk fan intended to actually do harm.

Actually.

http://www.foxsports.com/soccer/sto...eld-during-trabzonspor-fenerbahce-game-042416

This is just the first query. There are many others. The fact people are using social media as a platform to organize against a ref (Higgins and his situation regarding his business) is just flat out wrong IMO, and those who harmed his business with cyber bully tactics, along with those who used the internet to threaten his life need to be prosecuted. I'm glad he's moving forward with this. It needs to stop.

 

[OmegaCard]

Here's the relevant Nebraska statute:

Nebraska Statute:
28-311.01.
Terroristic threats; penalty.
(1) A person commits terroristic threats if he or she threatens to commit any crime of violence:

(a) With the intent to terrorize another;

(b) With the intent of causing the evacuation of a building, place of assembly, or facility of public transportation; or

(c) In reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or evacuation.

(2) Terroristic threats is a Class IIIA felony.

• 1. Terroristic threats
• A terroristic threat made under subsection (1)(a) of this section requires an intent to terrorize another and is not concerned with the result produced by an individual's threat. State v. Smith, 267 Neb. 917, 678 N.W.2d 733 (2004).
• Third degree assault under subsection (1)(b) of section 28-310 is not a lesser-included offense of terroristic threats under subsection (1)(a) of this section. State v. Smith, 267 Neb. 917, 678 N.W.2d 733 (2004).
• To violate the statute prohibiting the commission of terroristic threats does not require an intent to execute the threats made or that the recipient of the threat be terrorized. State v. Saltzman, 235 Neb. 964, 458 N.W.2d 239 (1990).
• A defendant does not have to actually commit a crime of violence, because it is the threat of violence which is at the heart of the crime of terroristic threats. State v. Tucker, 17 Neb. App. 487, 764 N.W.2d 137 (2009).
• For purposes of the offense of terroristic threats, a threat may be written, oral, physical, or any combination thereof. State v. Tucker, 17 Neb. App. 487, 764 N.W.2d 137 (2009).
• A threat may be written, oral, physical, or any combination thereof, and whether a particular conduct constitutes a threat depends on the context of the interaction between the involved people. State v. Curlile, 11 Neb. App. 52, 642 N.W.2d 517 (2002).

Then tell me what was said. Look, I could care less what cat fans do. I just happen to think that Cue's "like" driven dribble is just as over the top as some of those fools. It happens.

 

[Pervis_Griffith]

Then tell me what was said. Look, I could care less what cat fans do. I just happen to think that Cue's "like" driven dribble is just as over the top as some of those fools. It happens.

Why do I need to know what is said, to know that terroristic threatening is NOT protected under the 1st amendment??

That's your position ...

Now regarding this case ...

Clearly, the investigators in Nebraska feel like there have been hundreds of potential violations of their terroristic threatening laws. And they sound pretty confident that they could MAKE the case and convict.

 

[Rollem Cards]

I suspect it would be pretty hard to convince a jury that a drunk fan intended to actually do harm.

Drunks are convicted everyday that had no intentions of harming anyone.

It's called drunk driving.

You get drunk, intentional or not, you are still responsible for your actions.

"Oh, I was drunk" is no defense.

 

[Cue Card]

Then tell me what was said. Look, I could care less what cat fans do. I just happen to think that Cue's "like" driven dribble is just as over the top as some of those fools. It happens.

My what? I don't follow. It's not over the top wanting people to be held accountable for their actions. I really don't understand why that's even an issue. If more people were held accountable, there would be less chaos in this country because people would realize there are actually consequences to actions. What a freaking concept!

JMO.

 

[OmegaCard]

Why do I need to know what is said, to know that terroristic threatening is NOT protected under the 1st amendment??

That's your position ...

Now regarding this case ...

Clearly, the investigators in Nebraska feel like there have been hundreds of potential violations of their terroristic threatening laws. And they sound pretty confident that they could MAKE the case and convict.

Because it's all about interpretation. It's why we have judges.

 

[KerryRhodes]

Then tell me what was said. Look, I could care less what cat fans do. I just happen to think that Cue's "like" driven dribble is just as over the top as some of those fools. It happens.

Be a clown on your own time. Dont waste ours.

If youre oblivious to threats, and the poor sportmanship , the idiots have shown , OVER THE YEARS, then there's no hope for you.

Bad mouthing refs is one thing, but to bombard his work facebook page, harrasing prank calls and fax ALONG with terroristic threats is highly pathetic and shows a feeble mind.

You can cry when there is some indictments of these blew idiots........

 

[OmegaCard]

Just because you're just as pathetic as the worst of them KR and I won't go along with your 50 cent logic...

 

[cardfaninmemphis]

Great 1st amendment discussion.

If you tell someone you are going to kick their a$$, and they beat you down because of it, you can't charge them with assault and battery and use the first amendment as your rationale.

Slander and libel are not protected under the first amendment.

Yelling fire in a crowded room is not protected by the first amendment.

Claiming you were drunk does not excuse your bad behavior. People can get into fights, pull out guns, and commit assault and battery when they are drunk.

The only thing a judge and jury would decide is did your actions violate the law as it is written. The statement "reckless disregard" seems to be an accurate description of the actions of someone who is drunk.

 

[Mike'sMarbles]

I wonder if 1-starring a guy's business is grounds for some kind of lawsuit - if you didn't use his services. Some of these people probably used fake accounts or whatever but all of that can be traced. I'd be interesting to see the ref start a lawsuit against those people.

 

[glassmanJ]

And then there's the whole proof thing. I suspect it would be pretty hard to convince a jury that a drunk fan intended to actually do harm.

so what are saying here is if anyone gets drunk a they can do whatever they please becasue they didn't have an intent to do that? man you are clueless aren't you? damn dude, you are embarrassing yourself here

 

[cardfaninmemphis]

I wonder if 1-starring a guy's business is grounds for some kind of lawsuit - if you didn't use his services. Some of these people probably used fake accounts or whatever but all of that can be traced. I'd be interesting to see the ref start a lawsuit against those people.

I'll bet that you could, if you could prove the intent was malicious and that harm resulted from it, such as a loss of income. Or, if the people who posted those reviews had to agree to the Terms of Service (which no one ever reads) that had a clause stating that they will not post malicious reviews and only post based on their experience with the business. I imagine that this aspect of the law is still growing.

 

[Pervis_Griffith]

Because it's all about interpretation. It's why we have judges.

Here's your original statement in case you forgot:

Terrorism? Jeez. Didn't you once protect the first amendment Cue? Some of yours hatred of UK would have the rest of us living in a chitty world.

So ... the alleged threats were DEATH THREATS. I don't care how you interpret that. Death threats are NOT protected free speech. BUT ... To you ... you need to see the specific wording of the death threat, in order to see if it should be protected free speech. So ... TO YOU ... SOME death threats are ok, and some aren't. Otherwise, why go through all the linguistic gymnastics about this??

 

[zipp]

Listened to the first hour of Maddie Bangs show yesterday. Evidently, he's catching more heat on this Higgins issue than he wants. He's not talking specifics other than he's increasingly frustrated. Wonder if the Iheart brass has talked to him?

He can't understand why a program that broadcasts two hours a day to slapd!cks and which gave out Higgins' personal info would be targeted for scrutiny. He says "well everyone else was doing it." (Giving out his info...)

His problem is not everyone else tries to corner the market on nutcase slappies. It's slightly different firing a gun into a crowded room vs. an empty one. I'm surprised poor Maddie has avoided issues prior to this one.

"Elite program," my a$$...

 

[PushupMan]

Gotta love deadspin...

http://deadspin.com/report-investigators-looking-into-death-threats-made-a-1794078083

Article uses the phrases "pissbaby Kentucky fans" and "Kentucky fans being petulant asswipes". The link deserves a few clicks from UofL fans just for those phrases alone!

Also from the article:
"Some of the communications fall under terroristic threats, which would potentially lead to offending fans being charged with a felony, but Barrell told the AP he wouldn’t discuss how many cases fell under that category until he finished reviewing all the messages."

 

[OmegaCard]

Here's your original statement in case you forgot:

Terrorism? Jeez. Didn't you once protect the first amendment Cue? Some of yours hatred of UK would have the rest of us living in a chitty world.

So ... the alleged threats were DEATH THREATS. I don't care how you interpret that. Death threats are NOT protected free speech. BUT ... To you ... you need to see the specific wording of the death threat, in order to see if it should be protected free speech. So ... TO YOU ... SOME death threats are ok, and some aren't. Otherwise, why go through all the linguistic gymnastics about this??

What exactly is it that you don't understand about our legal system? They can write whatever they want. But a Grand Jury/DA/Jury/Judge will need to look at the evidence to determine if they were legitimate threats. Or a family man who's emotions go the best of him in the heat of the moment.

 

[OmegaCard]

so what are saying here is if anyone gets drunk a they can do whatever they please becasue they didn't have an intent to do that? man you are clueless aren't you? damn dude, you are embarrassing yourself here

Well yeah. If there's no intent it's just words. Take KR's dead wildcat picture that's included after every idiotic hate-filled post of his towards Cal/UK fans. Is that not a threat of sorts? It COULD be interpreted by some UK fans that way. So where does the stupidity end and intent begin?

 

[zipp]

Provocation
Conduct by which one induces another to do a particular deed; the act of inducing rage, anger, or resentment in another person that may cause that person to engage in an illegal act.

My guess is Maddie recalls enough from law school to know whether something applies to him or not. BTW he mentioned the Deadspin article yesterday multiple times.

I also think he understands that OTHERS committing a crime doesn't get you off the hook. At least I HOPE he learned that much at Duke.

"Elite program," my a$$...

 

[PushupMan]

What exactly is it that you don't understand about our legal system? They can write whatever they want. But a Grand Jury/DA/Jury/Judge will need to look at the evidence to determine if they were legitimate threats. Or a family man who's emotions go the best of him in the heat of the moment.

Even you have to admit that there's a difference between "them writing whatever they want" and this situation. The articles are quoting a Sarpy County Sheriff’s detective (Matt Barrall), who specifically says that so his review so far has revealed that several hundred of the communications he has reviewed meet the Nebraska standard for terroristic threats.

Of course no one has been convicted or even indicted for a crime yet. And of course a Grand Jury/DA/Jury/Judge gets the final say as to what constitutes terroristic threats. That wasn't the point Pervis was making. This isn't the writer of the article deciding to arbitrarily use the word "terroristic threats" just to get a few clicks. It's a Sherriff's detective specifically assigned to the case who is making these statements. His opinion actually counts for something here.

 

[Pervis_Griffith]

Even you have to admit that there's a difference between "them writing whatever they want" and this situation. The articles are quoting a Sarpy County Sheriff’s detective (Matt Barrall), who specifically says that so his review so far has revealed that several hundred of the communications he has reviewed meet the Nebraska standard for terroristic threats.

Of course no one has been convicted or even indicted for a crime yet. And of course a Grand Jury/DA/Jury/Judge gets the final say as to what constitutes terroristic threats. That wasn't the point Pervis was making. This isn't the writer of the article deciding to arbitrarily use the word "terroristic threats" just to get a few clicks. It's a Sherriff's detective specifically assigned to the case who is making these statements. His opinion actually counts for something here.

This.

Omega must be one of those guys who just likes to argue. OR ... he really believes that death threats are protected speech.

 

[OmegaCard]

This.

Omega must be one of those guys who just likes to argue. OR ... he really believes that death threats are protected speech.

No. I understand it's a story. And we have a system in place to handle the real threats. If crimes were committed then I think the system will handle it. No need to change things and use powerful suggestions that could potentially limit our freedoms and children's freedoms over some crappy ref.

 

[Pervis_Griffith]

No. I understand it's a story. And we have a system in place to handle the real threats. If crimes were committed then I think the system will handle it. No need to change things and use powerful suggestions that could potentially limit our freedoms and children's freedoms over some crappy ref.

You don't have the freedom to tell people you are going to kill them.

You never have.

 

[KerryRhodes]

Well yeah. If there's no intent it's just words. Take KR's dead wildcat picture that's included after every idiotic hate-filled post of his towards Cal/UK fans. Is that not a threat of sorts? It COULD be interpreted by some UK fans that way. So where does the stupidity end and intent begin?

Cry blue card. Cryyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

 

[Rockfly78]

I'm a Kentucky fan and I hope people get punished over this as well.

 

[glassmanJ]

here's a version a lot of bbn people are probably familiar with,---- it's not my fault the girl got pregnant, i was drunk, i didn't intend to give her my baby, so i shouldn't have to take care of it. same argument, right, i shouldn't be held responsible for my actions?

 

[TDredbird]

I'd be surprised if anyone is ultimately arrested

Judging from your posts over on cats piss. I have a sneaking suspicion you are very possibly one of the morons who should be concerned.

 

[Rollem Cards]

Omega = The End

See ya.

These free boards are infested.