Because they’re assholes, Steve. No one else has the kind of energy or drive to be a dick to someone else on that kind of level. If they had, they’d be fucking assholes, and I don’t particularly want assholes on my team 
That and picking on the mentally ill like Shirvell, even in kind, is something a lot of people are too mature to do. His boss apparently reviewed the stuff and called it immature and poor judgment. If Shirvell is not in a civil service position, I suspect that he will be let go very soon as he is already a political liability, even if his boss is a righty, Shirvell is a loose cannon and his risk of doing more and worse is simply too high.
So the answer is to let him carry on, and his target has to put up with it, and worry that he may get even crazier? Meanwhile stopping him is immature and unacceptable? You have to count on the “good graces” of someone else to maybe deal with it out of his own “maybe” political reasons or not at all? :rolleyes:
Sickening. This is the sort of thing that enables these scumbags.
Added on edit: If there is a real risk of him doing worse because he’s a psycho, that is MORE reason to deal with him now. He will only get bolder and crazier.
The hearing is tomorrow.
[QUOTE=Boyo Jim]
He gave at least one specific to Anderson Cooper – Armstrong was advocating “gender neutral” dorms. I’m not entirely sure what that would mean in practice. Shirvell took it to mean that males might be assigned female roommates. Or the dreaded “men and women sharing a bathroom” anti-gay meme.
[/QUOTE]
Of course if that is the case, the current students of UM and their parents would be the ones to challenge it. One of the mysteries of Shirvell to me is why he picks a school that he’s had no connection to for almost a decade- are many people that attached to their undergrad alma mater?
This sounds promising. And actually, underaged binge drinking isn’t even a controversy for which Armstrong is a limited-purpose public figure, so I don’t think the bar is that high.
(Unless Shirvell’s larger point is that Armstrong’s gay agenda includes inculcating underage youngsters, which might make the underage drinking relevant.)
Armstrong being out of town proves falsity. But assuming he’s a public figure for this, it’s not enough. You have to show that Shirvell actually knew Armstrong was out of town, or recklessly didn’t care if he was out of town or not.
If it’s true that Shirvell had no reason to believe he was at the party, and didn’t check, I think it’s libel.
But how do we know this? Will Shirvell really say, “Yeah, I simply wrote that; I never checked it.” How do you know Shirvell never checked? Was he told by someone, for instance? That alone could give him cover for his statement. It’s not enough to be false; if someone gave him the statement, even though it’s false, he’s safe.
Which party did Armstrong not drink at?
The same one where he didn’t rape the nine year old.
One of Shirvell’s other accusations was about Armstrong having sex in church buildings and children’s playgrounds.
Because of some joking comment one of his friends made on Facebook, which I’m almost 99% sure was done to troll Shirvell. Armstrong, who apparently realized that he was dealing with the crayzay in a way that said friend did not, deleted the wall post as soon as he saw it, but Shirvell saw it first, and ran with it.
Like I’ve been saying the whole time, this would be amusing if this guy wasn’t clearly on the autism spectrum. Given his odd speech phrasing, tics, obsessions, and inability to understand normal human interaction, it seems to fit.
Unfortunately, that’s exactly the kind of thing that Shirvell can use as a defense.
Damn, I hate a waste of perfectly good liquor.
The hearing was scheduled for this afternoon but was rescheduled for October 25. Apparently the Michigan courts have an appalling lack of concern for AC360’s ratings.
I’ve known in my own acquaintances cases of clearcut stalking and harassment (usually involving an ex) that had delays like this- the “We’ll get straight to this in a month or six weeks or so”. It’s always infuriating.
So how many years does Armstrong have to be stalked, singled out, etc etc etc before the LAW (or anyone for that matter) does something about it? Doesn’t anyone else see a problem with the idea the instigator, the “stalker” can do anything he pleases, and the targeted person has to just suck it up and can’t take any sort of action???
Someone mentioned (Roman) Catholicism, and I feel like going on a bit of a rant.
Lapsed Catholic here. Had my 1st communion in a pretty dress and everything, used to be a choirgirl, owned a magnificat (prayerbook) like all the kids - but if I even look at a church nowadays, it’s from an architecture and art-history geek perspective, not a religious one. My point? Growing up RC isn’t the monster it’s sometimes made out to be - at least if the community is relatively “liberal” and modern, so when you grow up, you can free yourself from it without too much hassle. Fanaticism is a whole 'nother story though!
I’m an agnostic now, and very critical of religion in general.
Oh, and Andrew Shirvell is blocking my view of Lantern Waste! :((
I don’t think anyone has suggested the “stalker” can do anything he pleases. The issue under discussion is: has the “stalker” done anything illegal?
In this case, I believe what’s happening is: the stalker’s actions are legal, but nonetheless create a great deal of concern, like a neighbor who decides to disassemble and clean his shotgun collection in his front yard while glaring menacingly at the kids in the playground across the street.
The fear is that when the line is crossed into illegal action, it will be with such terrible consequences that correcting it at that point will be meaningless.
In other words: while Shirvell may be within the letter of the law, he is not within the spirit of the law?
No, I don’t think I’d say that at all. The “spirit” of the law means many things to many people. I’m sure that many people here viewed the protesters who found out where Karl Rove lived, camped out on his sidewalk, and yelled at him when he came home were acting within the letter of the law, and most people here felt, I’m sure, within the spirit as well. I bet Rove didn’t think so.
So does the spirit of the law protect vigorous protest or does it encourage calm reflective politeness? An argument can be made for either interpretation.
I don’t see Shirvell’s actions as violating the spirit of any law. I just see them as being a dickish jerk, a matter on which the spirit of the law is supremely neutral.
Is there any means by which Shirvell could be compelled to undergo psychiatric evaluation to determine if he is dangerous in the opinion of experts? Because that is the heart of the matter here I believe- not his right to have and say any opinion he chooses but does he constitute a physical threat. All else you can deal with, but the notion there’s a guy stalking your friends and showing up wherever you go when there’s no real vested interest in him doing so has a “nutjob opening fire” fear factor that would be impossible to ignore and would occur to most reasonable people.
That is my worry, and from what you’re saying here, it’s crossed your mind too …
That nothing can be done until someone gets killed.
Well, this isn’t “Law and Order: University Edition.” I don’t think that’s a leap anyone would want to make due to the liability. If you judge him not a danger, and then he actually does something bad, boy are you on the hook.