"Don't Be So Evil You Come to the Attention of the New York Times".
Federal authorities on Monday arrested a website operator accused of selling counterfeit eyeglasses who subjected customers to foul-mouthed tirades when they complained about the quality of the goods. “GO FUCK YOURSELF COCKSUCKER ... I pee on your negative [comments]” Vitaly Borker, 34, of Brooklyn, New York, allegedly wrote …
This post has been deleted by its author
is that this allows the entry of the "ATF", otherwise known as the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Control Division...or the Secret Service. This allows the introduction of much more serious charges.
That the three are related along with presidential security is perhaps the most perfect illustration of political logic I've ever seen.
You mention he had several firearms and ammunition. So what? Was he charged with an offence with firearms?
I love reading the reg and the great articles but this one makes a statement which means nothing. I have guns and ammunition (in the UK) and yet it is totally legal and above board.
Please either state the problem with him holding guns or remove that comment please. Guns get a bad enough reputation and without any good reason.
It's just a fact of the case as reported. It's neutral information. You'd have to take it up with the cops.
Of course guns have a bad reputation, considering many of the people who use them, and what they're designed to do. You might have to man up and take that on and prove that not everyone has the same attitude/psychosis. Or you could go on a killing spree. That would also show them. Either/or.
You employ the argument of ignorance (no offence but you do). Out of the countless people in the civilised world who own guns and shoot, there is a tiny portion of people which you refer to. Of that small number of criminals only some of them use guns for criminal activity.
So the argument you use is backwards at the least. The benefits of guns and the activities where guns are used are ignored by you. Your statement-
"You might have to man up and take that on and prove that not everyone has the same attitude/psychosis"
Is also vastly wrong. As I have stated, most gun owners dont have that attitude/psychosis but you ignore such facts by stating I could go on a killing spree. I guess you would have all guns removed? All cars as well? Or do you only attack the sensationalised evils?
For a positive shift I recommend you get some education of the topic by visiting your local gun clubs and see what it is really like. We aint all nutters. Just as we aint all petrol heads. They account for a very small number which you only hear about.
What it should say is, "Google has made changes to the search algorithm so that they can artificially raise or lower search results based on a criteria of our choice." So, the governent calls and says, "this is terrorist website, lower its search results to 0, we know you can so it so if you don't you are supporting terrorism." etc etc.
The illegal firearms possession (given NYC's gun laws the odds are extremely high that they are illegal) charges will get added later on. They will have a wonderful "piling on" effect especially for the cyber stalking and death threat charges. Nothing increases your prison sentence quite like committing a crime when in possession of illegal firearms.
He wasn't in possession of a firearm. He owned them. The intent of the consideration of a firearm during the commission of a crime is the highly aggravated and violent aspect of it since one is essentially threatening everyone in the vicinity.
This fellow never waved a gun at anyone, but he does have cyberstalking, interstate threats, and mail and wire fraud. I know mail and wire are serious felonies, I would guess the previous two are as well. He stands to do more time in consecutive sentences for those charges...at least more than walking into a gas station and waving a pistol around demanding cash.
I would guess the charge for owning a pistol without a permit was not serious enough for the prosecutor to include in his arraignment, or including it would open up a search and seizure angle that could get the whole case dismissed. Unless it is included in his arraignment, it IS irrelevant.
I actually think this is the most sane reaction I've read in the comments so far.
Of course, everyone else is merely whining about how the reputation of the pure, untarnished, innocent firearm is being dragged through the mud by people presumably infringing everyone else's Nth amendment right to arm themselves and overthrow the government (in their own private fantasy), while failing to see the motivation one might have to investigate whether someone threatening others might be able to ratchet up that threat to seriously endanger those other people.
I saw the article about this company in the New York Times, which featured the complaint of a woman who allegedly ordered eyeglasses, and was denied a refund when he couldn't supply the brand ordered, but was instead charged a higher price for a different brand.
If he is convicted, will all the customers receive full refunds? I suspect not, as there is nowhere for all that money to come from. It's a pity, therefore, that the authorities didn't investigate this more aggressively following the very first consumer complaint, so that this would have been halted before debts in excess of his capacity to repay could be run up.
NYC does allow for the private ownership of handguns, so unless it's actually been stated somewhere that he didn't have a license I guess he won't be facing any additional charges for this.
If convicted though presumably his license will be revoked.
When it comes to a threat.
It's one thing to say "I'm a gonna shoot you" when all you have is a beebee gun at most.
Another thing to say "I'm a gonna shoot you" whilst having access to an actual firearm with real bullets that go through people making lots of blood and such.
One is an empty threat, the other can be considered to be a genuine threat of real physical violence, with a gun.
And guns are bad mmm'kay
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021