• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

wanna see how pissed someone will get if you dont buy something from them?

Status
Not open for further replies.
"You will not enjoy the outcome" is plenty threatening for my tastes, thank you.

I'm not defending the guy, but do you really think that his email is something the police would even consider taking action over? That's what I'm curious about. Sure, he's a dick and wrote a nasty email, but is what he said really a crime?
 
I'm not defending the guy, but do you really think that his email is something the police would even consider taking action over? That's what I'm curious about. Sure, he's a dick and wrote a nasty email, but is what he said really a crime?

In a way if somebody felt threatened by that then yes it's a crime. Or there's a case to be made for it being a crime.

When my work got held up at gun point it turned out to be a pellet gun. Didn't make it any less of a felony.
 
I view it as a terroristic threat, and that makes it a crime. He crossed the line, by a lot.
 
Do I think the police will take action? No, not really. But I think they may want to know who the guy is and keep an eye on him for a while.
 
Not a crime: "I think you're an a-hole, the biggest loser ever. I hate people like you. You're what makes eBay horrible. I wish people like you didn't exist."

A crime: "in 30 minutes I can know everything about your ass. In 3 hours I can be on your doorstep. Don't respond with some glib, self extricating account of how your commitment to travel to my home was somehow tainted by your ****ing paranoia. Do yourself a favor and forget you ever talked to me, cause if I start my research and do what I do for a living, you will not enjoy the outcome."

See the difference?
 
I'm not defending the guy, but do you really think that his email is something the police would even consider taking action over? That's what I'm curious about. Sure, he's a dick and wrote a nasty email, but is what he said really a crime?

... do you not understand the art of subtlety? Jesus H. Christ man, get a grip.
The suspicious, indirect statement is almost always more telling than the direct, often laughable alternative.
 
Not a crime: "I think you're an a-hole, the biggest loser ever. I hate people like you. You're what makes eBay horrible. I wish people like you didn't exist."

A crime: "in 30 minutes I can know everything about your ass. In 3 hours I can be on your doorstep. Don't respond with some glib, self extricating account of how your commitment to travel to my home was somehow tainted by your ****ing paranoia. Do yourself a favor and forget you ever talked to me, cause if I start my research and do what I do for a living, you will not enjoy the outcome."

See the difference?

I see the difference, but neither looks like a crime to me. What if he delivers organic fertilizer for a living? I wouldn't enjoy an angry dude showing up at my door smelling like a cow's ass. Doesn't make it a crime.

I think we're just going to have to live in disagreement on this one...
 
I seems like all of this could have been avoided with a simple "I'm sorry... But I think I'm going to have to pass" by the buyer. I totally understand his reluctance to by the item, but he should've let the guy know before hand. I totally agree the guy flew off the handle, but it all could've been avoided quite easily with some common courtesy.
 
... do you not understand the art of subtlety? Jesus H. Christ man, get a grip.
The suspicious, indirect statement is almost always more telling than the direct, often laughable alternative.

So you're saying that you think his message is a crime?
 
So you're saying that you think his message is a crime?

Well, in pretty much every state, intimidationis a misdemeanor. However, by sending it via email, the seller has potentially upped the ante:

18 U.S.C. § 875(c) states: "Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both." From the wording of § 875(c) it is clear that the legislator did not require the element of 'intent.' Thus, it is irrelevant if the accused claims he/she did not have the intent to produce any injury on the victim; the mere act of sending the e-mail with threatening messages typifies the criminal conduct.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_federal_law_on_threats_in_email#ixzz21zV2tjkC

It all depends on whether or not someone determines that the email is deemed a threat.

-D
 
Well, in pretty much every state, intimidationis a misdemeanor. However, by sending it via email, the seller has potentially upped the ante:

18 U.S.C. § 875(c) states: "Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both." From the wording of § 875(c) it is clear that the legislator did not require the element of 'intent.' Thus, it is irrelevant if the accused claims he/she did not have the intent to produce any injury on the victim; the mere act of sending the e-mail with threatening messages typifies the criminal conduct.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_federal_law_on_threats_in_email#ixzz21zV2tjkC

It all depends on whether or not someone determines that the email is deemed a threat.

-D

**** just got REAL.
 
All that makes perfect sense, but we're back to the same point. The "threats" in this case are ones of collecting knowledge and visiting an address. There is not even a fleeting reference to kidnapping or injury. I certainly see how a paranoid recipient could be scared by the implications of a visit by such an angry individual, but I don't see how anyone could call what was actually written a real threat of harm.

I realize this is straying from the original point of the thread, but I think the issue of both parties being jerks in this situation has been well asserted by now.

I wish I had studied law - I would have been able to add knowledge to this thread instead of doubt...
 
Sure he was trying to be menacing. I'm just saying that what he wrote is quite different than saying:
"I am going to come to your house and kill you!"
THAT is a specific threat of harm.

Fair enough, but if you are the recipient of that email, would that difference matter? Specific or not, that he felt threatened or uneasy about this seller is the important point. If the seller had not made that last statement about what he could do if so inclined, we would not be having this debate.
 
do you really think that his email is something the police would even consider taking action over? That's what I'm curious about.

There's an easy way to find out. Just send a similar notice to your local law enforcement officer. However, I wouldn't recommend it.
 
Well, in pretty much every state, intimidationis a misdemeanor. However, by sending it via email, the seller has potentially upped the ante:

18 U.S.C. § 875(c) states: "Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both." From the wording of § 875(c) it is clear that the legislator did not require the element of 'intent.' Thus, it is irrelevant if the accused claims he/she did not have the intent to produce any injury on the victim; the mere act of sending the e-mail with threatening messages typifies the criminal conduct.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_federal_law_on_threats_in_email#ixzz21zV2tjkC

It all depends on whether or not someone determines that the email is deemed a threat.

-D

Excellent point. The fact that this seller is being so aggressive about a lost sale shows his instability. I would thank God for my good instincts. I would also talk to the authorities about the email and find out if I should be worried.
 
Fair enough, but if you are the recipient of that email, would that difference matter? Specific or not, that he felt threatened or uneasy about this seller is the important point. If the seller had not made that last statement about what he could do if so inclined, we would not be having this debate.

My motivation to continue debating is one of sheer curiosity as to whether or not the vague way the seller "threatened" the buyer constitutes an actual crime. Several people in this thread have claimed that to be the case, and I thought maybe at least one of them would know for sure and be able to explain why. So far it seems that the law merely prohibits specific threats of physical violence, of which this story is utterly devoid.
 
At the risk of flogging a dead horse - you have to ask yourself what is the purpose of the seller turning up on the doorstep? He has already indicated he is good and angry about this, so the heavy implication is that there will be a 'discussion' about the events that went before that likely won't include them enjoying a beer together, unless the OP doesn't like beer.

"doing what I do" - suggests he is a PI, even a Policeman, or just a plain unpleasant person with connections, not that I am implying there is any similarity in the above three.

To leave the OP with the thought that at any time a really angry person will turn up on his doorstep is pretty severe intimidation in my book. I think for peace of mind the OP should report this to the local law enforcement officers, they may do nothing, but just make them aware.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom