Nope. If undetected, he could have deceived or lured some board member into revealing their personal info to him. There is no idication that he had yet obtained this information on the prospective victim who lodged the complaint.
No, I mean the victim lodging the credible complaint against the registered sex offender. (Or do you have some undisclosed reason for believing it was an elaborate hoax?)
Not true if she’s an admin with special experience that other admins don’t have.
Vigilantism simply means the taking of the law into ones own hands, as opposed to using the recomended channels.
When the only indication that ever happened came from someone who I find to be about as trustworthy as a stock brokerage owned by Ken Lay and staffed by Martha Stewart? I don’t think so.
Administering a web forum isn’t really all that technically difficult.
False dichotomy logical fallacy.
Just because a complained is lodged, it lends no more credence to the supposed victim than it does the accused. There’s an old adage, I believe it recites as “innocent until proven guilty.”
Ah, but he was “detected,” even before she posted on LJ. “Detection” wasn’t what Tuba did, that’s what happened when the original email was sent (allegedly). Obviously the (alleged) reporter was going to have no further contact with this person, and the person was then banned, ensuring he would have no new contact with people on the board.
I don’t think anyone’s against reporting potential illegal activity occuring through the board. I don’t think posting a name and address after he was already banned, especially on someplace ostensibly unrelated to here, served to help “detect” him.
Taking law enforcement into one’s own hands. There was no law enforcement here. No arrests, no use of force, no confinement, no use of any powers delegated to law enforcement officials.
Any definition of vigilantism that includes Tuba’s actions is so broad as to become meaningless, as to include almost any reaction to a perceived crime other than quietly reporting it to the police. If Tuba’s actions qualify as vigilantism, then a person who shouts, “Hey, HE’S DRIVING MY CAR!” on seeing someone drive down the street in their stolen car, is a vigilante.
And that’s just silly.
Daniel
It doesn’t matter – putting someone at any increased level of risk for vigilantism is serious enough. It is a reflection of rashness and poor judgment, which is the fundamental issue here.
Although, none of us are in a position (presumably) to know if your quoted statements above are true.
I have another old adage for you: “Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.”
If you believe the accusation to be false, give me a motive for the hoax. Otherwise, I’ll give credence to the victim’s word over that of a sex offender known to have a propensity for committing the offense alleged.
Other dictionaries define it differently eg - Cambridge…
All this, of course, wouldn’t have happened, had SM not been a registred sex offender. I get the distinct feeling, though, thatall those who’re defendingTD, do so, because they think that a RSO has no rights and good riddance with him being outed and banned.
I still think an alleged pedophile deserves his day in court - if found guilty, lock him up and throw away the key, for all I care, but I find it sad that so many people are passing judgement on a person they know so little about.
What is known is TD’s actions, and I think this is an example in a microcosm that the fleeting world of a message board is - power corrupts. I’m sure that TD feels that it’s her board, hers along with some other oldtimers, her baby, which she has nursed, sweated over, fought over and helped in many ways. It’s not an unusual feeling and quite understandable. But it’s a feeling best kept to oneself, if it involves thinking you can make your own rules, bend rules at your will, and think you’re above reproach.
Sadly, a lot of posters seem to agree with that notion and clearly, some are more equal than others.
Don’t expect logic or consistency from spoke. I hear he molests babies, those people are crazy.
Serious enough for what? I disagree.
Theoretically, if I shout, “Hey, that dude stole my car!” at some dude driving my stolen car, I’m putting him at increased level of risk for vigilantism. That doesn’t mean I’ve done anything wrong, and it’s bizarre to claim otherwise.
Yes, nobody knows if my quoted statements are true. However, there’s no evidence, not a shred of an iota of a grain of evidence, that SM has been targeted by so much as a thump on the forehead as a result of Tuba’s actions. There’s not even a Weekly World News article suggesting that. Even December hasn’t made such a claim. Pardon me if I don’t count my vigilantes before they strike.
Even if vigilantes do strike, the blame is on the heads of the vigilantes. Unless Tuba has invented a mind-control ray, of course–then all bets are off.
Daniel
Well, bless your heart!
I’ve decided that’s gonna be my stock response when people assign ignoble motives to me in spite of my explicit statements to the contrary.
Daniel
You pathetic wretch.
From a legal standpoint, I’m sure it can be argued that she created an atmosphere that encouraged people to do so.
Either way, you really are fucking thick.
When did you stop molesting babies, spoke?
I trust your law degree as much as it’s worth, Guin. I will, however, say that you’ve mastered the use of the passive voice as a means of avoiding agency.
And you’re the picture of grace, decorum, and integrity. Cheers!
Daniel
Will you stop it with the false analogies? Surely you can make your point without resorting to hypothetical, semi-analogous (in your mind) situations.
A missing car would be evidence. No property was stolen in this case. Furthermore, the one shouting “Hey, that dude stole my car” didn’t share any private information.
And your entire analogy hinges on the fact that we know someone stole a car, whereas in this case, the alleged “victim” had had no demonstratable proof to support your notion. Argue the facts, not arbitrary concocted situations.