4chan targets a severe rape case PLEASE PLEASE spread this.

[Thrive]

The site claims to be affiliated with Anonymous which is very much affiliated with 4chan.

Stop pretending to know what anonymous is
It has nothing to do with 4chan anymore, specifically the kind that actual does shit like making videos

[Deleted]

This is funny, because most people on that website belong in jail.

[Super Kami Dende]

This is funny, because most people on that website belong in jail.

Implying that 95% of 4chan isn't just Highschool kids that think its a secret clubhouse for hipsters.

[Unclekreepy]

4chan USED TO have something to do with Anonymous .. not anymore.




and no the people on there dont belong in jail .. its very few that post bad stuff and it's usually deleted/ reported within a couple mins.

[haxs101]

Anonymous does great things. Hope this gets more attention.

[LiiLoSNK]

This is the most interesting thread in the world!

But I must say, 4chan =/= anonymous. I would suggest wikipedia-ing both things.

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

This is funny, because most people on that website belong in jail.

Yeah, 'cause 4chan is a site for child porn and doing evil illegal things specifically.

[Tierbook]

ya most of 4 chan is just full of otakus

[Deleted]

Huh? If evidence is obtained illegally it cannot be used in the trial. That is the case in the 'States.

The government can't obtain evidence without warrants. Technically they could, not officially, but they will simply get someone to break in to your house to get something and then they will say in court it showed up on their doorstep in an envelope or something - it's perjury, sure, but it works.

As far as anonymous go for example - it's admissible. Use logic people, say you happen to see something in someone's home/computer that you weren't supposed to and then testify about it (be it murder or child porn, forged documents...). According to your logic this testimony wouldn't be admissible because you aren't supposed to spy on people or go through their computers. Stupid, ain't it? Yea...

[N-7]

As far as anonymous go for example - it's admissible. Use logic people, say you happen to see something in someone's home/computer that you weren't supposed to and then testify about it (be it murder or child porn, forged documents...). According to your logic this testimony wouldn't be admissible because you aren't supposed to spy on people or go through their computers. Stupid, ain't it? Yea...

The argument is about how would be able to make sure that the evidence wasn't forged or manipulated by the person who allegedly obtained it?

[Deleted]

The argument is about how would be able to make sure that the evidence wasn't forged or manipulated by the person who allegedly obtained it?

It's all admissible. Illegally obtained evidence is only prohibited if it's submitted by investigators. If a vigilante group hacks emails, they can submit that evidence to the prosecution who can they use it against the accused. As for if the evidence is forged or not, there are speclists who can check that, digital evidences even better and easyer to test.

http://le.alcoda.org/publications/fi...CESEARCHES.pdf

[Deleted]

The argument is about how would be able to make sure that the evidence wasn't forged or manipulated by the person who allegedly obtained it?

That's always the problem with evidence. It doesn't matter whether you do or don't have a warrant to enter someone's home or a computer, you or someone else can plant evidence just as well (or could in advance to obtaining the warrant).

[N-7]

That's always the problem with evidence. It doesn't matter whether you do or don't have a warrant to enter someone's home or a computer, you or someone else can plant evidence just as well (or could in advance to obtaining the warrant).

But when it is an anonymous person that provided evidence over the internet that problem amplifies.

---------- Post added 2012-12-24 at 09:23 AM ----------

It's all admissible. Illegally obtained evidence is only prohibited if it's submitted by investigators. If a vigilante group hacks emails, they can submit that evidence to the prosecution who can they use it against the accused. As for if the evidence is forged or not, there are speclists who can check that, digital evidences even better and easyer to test.

http://le.alcoda.org/publications/fi...CESEARCHES.pdf

Well, if that is the case, hopefully they will give these bastards what they truly deserve.

[Deleted]

This is funny, because most people on that website belong in jail.

Just out of pure curiosity, how did you come to this brilliant conclusion?

[Deleted]

But when it is an anonymous person that provided evidence over the internet that problem amplifies.

---------- Post added 2012-12-24 at 09:23 AM ----------


Well, if that is the case, hopefully they will give these bastards what they truly deserve.

Yes but still a person needs to submit the evidence. Like I stated before on the other page if they went to all the trouble and really want to bring them to justice I expect one person of the "hack" group to go to submit the evidence at the police. I know he might have a hard time after since the prosecution will have to make sure he is trustworthy, then check the evidence and unless he doesn't get a deal he might end with a fine or jail time for hacking.

But in this case, any punishment for the "ilegal" obtained evidence is outshined by the justice that can be made in regards to the rape at hand, other that might have happend or other in the future that might be stopped.

Also rape or no rape, "handling" a underage unconscious girl (as shown by the pics) is still very very disgusting and douchy thing. Also the same for the people that were there and did nothing.

Im sure if it was just a 40 year old guy the FBI would have him in custody with a full report on him.

[Deleted]

Some of those boys should be jailed on the basis of obnoxious tweets.

[Olianda]

I have a hard time finding pity for any of the people involved.

None of them should have been drinking.
She shouldn't have had anywhere near as much as she had.
They definitely shouldn't have done what they did (if they did.)
And the blogger is only making things worse.

Now, if she had been drugged with rohypnol or something, I'd definitely feel bad, but as it is now, it seems like a series of stupid choices by practically all involved.

[N-7]

Some of those boys should be jailed on the basis of obnoxious tweets.

US has an unrestricted freedom of speech including offensive tweets.

[Elegiac]

US has an unrestricted freedom of speech including offensive tweets.

Not if it's being used to incite violence!

I think stupidity needs to be added to the Shouting Fire in a Crowded Theatre principle...

[Deleted]

Nice thread you linked from reddit. Half posts are removed and title is almost the same as this one.