Charged with Felony for Retweeting

[KMFJD]

New Jersey prosecutors drop charges over tweeting a cop’s photo [Updated]

“I never heard of retweeting a tweet being a crime,” one defendant wrote.

arstechnica.com

A New Jersey man is facing felony charges for a tweet seeking to identify a police officer. Four others are facing felony charges for retweeting the tweet, the Washington Post reports.
Kevin Alfaro was attending a Black Lives Matter protest in the New York suburb of Nutley, New Jersey in June. He snapped a photo of a masked police officer and tweeted "If anyone knows who this bitch is throw his info under this tweet."


Interesting case, don't see how they can win against the people that retweeted

 

[Amused]

I LOVE that the Washington Post article directly links to an archived save of the tweet.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/08/07/black-lives-matter-tweet-police-felony/

https://archive.vn/qySKX

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

If it was just a photo of someone in public that would be one thing.

Calling for doxing probably has legal implications depending on the state.

 

[Amused]

I LOVE that the Washington Post article directly links to an archived save of the tweet.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/08/07/black-lives-matter-tweet-police-felony/

https://archive.vn/qySKX

I strongly suggest everyone screen shot that tweet and share it as far and wide as possible.

 

[pauldun170]

throw his info under this tweet.

Wouldn't want people to know the name and salary of a public official who was in a public place performing official duties which is classified as "Info"

Township Of Nutley Salaries - New Jersey

Salary information and list of employees for Township Of Nutley. salary information.

govsalaries.com

Definitely would not want put faces to a name. That would be also be classified as info

Nutley Cops Commended For Going Above And Beyond In 2016

These Nutley police officers answered the call – and more – during 2016.

patch.com

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Wouldn't want people to know the name and salary of a public official who was in a public place performing official duties which is classified as "Info"

Township Of Nutley Salaries - New Jersey

Salary information and list of employees for Township Of Nutley. salary information.

govsalaries.com

Definitely would not want put faces to a name. That would be also be classified as info

Nutley Cops Commended For Going Above And Beyond In 2016

These Nutley police officers answered the call – and more – during 2016.

patch.com

So, how many felonies were issued as part of the myriad personal info leaks that have happened over the last decade?

Or do those rules only apply to us plebes?

 

[pauldun170]

So, how many felonies were issued as part of the myriad personal info leaks that have happened over the last decade?

Or do those rules only apply to us plebes?

Checking......
According to case law, its a felony unless you use helvetica font or if your request is spoken in away where it you have that little uptick at the end where everything sounds like you're asking a question.

 

[Amused]

Well, here ya go, with his info that was released by WaPo.



Fuck you, New Jersey.


Alfaro wrote on a GoFundMe page that he was at a peaceful Black Lives Matter protest on June 29 when a group of counterprotesters became physically threatening. He then saw a Nutley police officer, later identified as Detective Peter Sandomenico in Sziszak’s summons, acting friendly with the counterprotesters. Sandomenico had covered up his badge number and was wearing a “Blue Lives Matter” mask, Alfaro added.
“As a citizen exercising my First Amendment rights, I felt threatened that a public servant was befriending blatant racists,” Alfaro said.

Alfaro sent his tweet, which has since been deleted, to his 900-plus followers. But it got hardly any traction, based on an archive of the tweet, besides a handful of likes and five retweets. The police summons sent to Sziszak does not note whether the tweet in fact led to the officer’s information being made public.

Source:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/08/07/black-lives-matter-tweet-police-felony/

 

[pauldun170]

Well, here ya go, with his info that was released by WaPo.

View attachment 27664

Fuck you, New Jersey.


Alfaro wrote on a GoFundMe page that he was at a peaceful Black Lives Matter protest on June 29 when a group of counterprotesters became physically threatening. He then saw a Nutley police officer, later identified as Detective Peter Sandomenico in Sziszak’s summons, acting friendly with the counterprotesters. Sandomenico had covered up his badge number and was wearing a “Blue Lives Matter” mask, Alfaro added.
“As a citizen exercising my First Amendment rights, I felt threatened that a public servant was befriending blatant racists,” Alfaro said.

Alfaro sent his tweet, which has since been deleted, to his 900-plus followers. But it got hardly any traction, based on an archive of the tweet, besides a handful of likes and five retweets. The police summons sent to Sziszak does not note whether the tweet in fact led to the officer’s information being made public.

Source:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/08/07/black-lives-matter-tweet-police-felony/

Peter Sandomenico J in 2015 was employed in Township Of Nutley and had annual salary of $113,266. This salary is 209 percent higher than average and 884 percent higher than median salary in Township Of Nutley.

Not bad considering he has a 20 minute commute to work

 

[Sunburn74]

What felony were they charged with?

 

[Amused]

What felony were they charged with?

"cyber harassment, a fourth-degree felony that carries up to 18 months of incarceration and a $10,000 fine."

 

[interchange]

Would anyone like to explain to me how this tweet could even possibly meet the alleged crime?

"2C:33-4.1 Crime of cyber-harassment.

1. a. A person commits the crime of cyber-harassment if, while making a communication in an online capacity via any electronic device or through a social networking site and with the purpose to harass another, the person:

(1)threatens to inflict injury or physical harm to any person or the property of any person;

(2)knowingly sends, posts, comments, requests, suggests, or proposes any lewd, indecent, or obscene material to or about a person with the intent to emotionally harm a reasonable person or place a reasonable person in fear of physical or emotional harm to his person; or

(3)threatens to commit any crime against the person or the person's property."

1. no violent threat found
2. no lewd, indecent, or obscene material sent/posted/commented/requested/suggested/proposed
3. no threat to commit crime against the person or the person's property

Sure you can argue (although prove beyond reasonable doubt?) that the tweeter and re-tweeters wanted his info for the purposes of doing 1,2, or 3. But the law doesn't say intends to do 1, 2, or 3. It says that they did it. The only possible thing I can think of is that somehow posting someones "info" itself is a crime.

 

[ivwshane]

Yeah I’m not seeing it either.

 

[Amused]

For your sharing and shaming pleasure

Please share far and wide.

 

[interchange]

Charges dropped: https://www.app.com/story/news/loca...t-police-charges-cyber-harassment/3321186001/

I would support civil action against whoever charged them in the first place based on my understanding. It isn't about burden of proof. The tweet exists. The content does not meet statutory requirements, period. The only part that requires proof beyond that is "for purposes of harassment", but it doesn't matter if they didn't do any of 1, 2, or 3 from the statute. So it's my conclusion that the purpose of pursuing charges was only ever about harassment.

 

[FaaR]

Clearly an abuse of power, authoritarians doing what they always do; screwing with the little guy out of petty spite.

 

[BarkingGhostar]

Would anyone like to explain to me how this tweet could even possibly meet the alleged crime?

"2C:33-4.1 Crime of cyber-harassment.

1. a. A person commits the crime of cyber-harassment if, while making a communication in an online capacity via any electronic device or through a social networking site and with the purpose to harass another, the person:

(1)threatens to inflict injury or physical harm to any person or the property of any person;

(2)knowingly sends, posts, comments, requests, suggests, or proposes any lewd, indecent, or obscene material to or about a person with the intent to emotionally harm a reasonable person or place a reasonable person in fear of physical or emotional harm to his person; or

(3)threatens to commit any crime against the person or the person's property."

1. no violent threat found
2. no lewd, indecent, or obscene material sent/posted/commented/requested/suggested/proposed
3. no threat to commit crime against the person or the person's property

Sure you can argue (although prove beyond reasonable doubt?) that the tweeter and re-tweeters wanted his info for the purposes of doing 1,2, or 3. But the law doesn't say intends to do 1, 2, or 3. It says that they did it. The only possible thing I can think of is that somehow posting someones "info" itself is a crime.

You act like prosecutors read their own criminal code. They don't have to. They can trial a case in front of a jury of idiots and still win based on ignorance.

 

[HumblePie]

Would anyone like to explain to me how this tweet could even possibly meet the alleged crime?

"2C:33-4.1 Crime of cyber-harassment.

1. a. A person commits the crime of cyber-harassment if, while making a communication in an online capacity via any electronic device or through a social networking site and with the purpose to harass another, the person:

(1)threatens to inflict injury or physical harm to any person or the property of any person;

(2)knowingly sends, posts, comments, requests, suggests, or proposes any lewd, indecent, or obscene material to or about a person with the intent to emotionally harm a reasonable person or place a reasonable person in fear of physical or emotional harm to his person; or

(3)threatens to commit any crime against the person or the person's property."

1. no violent threat found
2. no lewd, indecent, or obscene material sent/posted/commented/requested/suggested/proposed
3. no threat to commit crime against the person or the person's property

Sure you can argue (although prove beyond reasonable doubt?) that the tweeter and re-tweeters wanted his info for the purposes of doing 1,2, or 3. But the law doesn't say intends to do 1, 2, or 3. It says that they did it. The only possible thing I can think of is that somehow posting someones "info" itself is a crime.

Correct on 1 and 3 in the context of this thread, but not on 2 technically. Using vulgarity falls into indecent in many places. Depending on the context around the tweet and other things the tweeter said 1 and 3 could be met, but just based on the one tweet presented in this thread and the articles it isn't there. Calling someone a bitch, aka a name, can be construed as trying to emotionally harm someone. It would be a stretch though to have that believed by most people.

The issue is what would be the use of such information of people following those tweets and re-tweeting? If it is for personal knowledge only then whatever. If it is to be used to meet 1 or 3.... Again it would have to be more than that single tweet though. I haven't looked much into this though I am admitting, just going off what is in this thread and the one article especially in light of the charges had been dropped.

 

[interchange]

Correct on 1 and 3 in the context of this thread, but not on 2 technically. Using vulgarity falls into indecent in many places. Depending on the context around the tweet and other things the tweeter said 1 and 3 could be met, but just based on the one tweet presented in this thread and the articles it isn't there. Calling someone a bitch, aka a name, can be construed as trying to emotionally harm someone. It would be a stretch though to have that believed by most people.

I think that's a pretty big stretch for meeting #2, but I could see where you might make that argument and am not an expert in the law. However, #2 does in fact require specific intent on behalf of the poster, thus they would have to prove such intent beyond a reasonable doubt. Charging anyone, especially a re-tweeter without any evidence beyond the tweet to establish that intent to me is quite extreme.

The issue is what would be the use of such information of people following those tweets and re-tweeting? If it is for personal knowledge only then whatever. If it is to be used to meet 1 or 3.... Again it would have to be more than that single tweet though. I haven't looked much into this though I am admitting, just going off what is in this thread and the one article especially in light of the charges had been dropped.

I don't agree with you on this. The text of the tweet doesn't have anything in it that would meet 1 or 3, so whether or not they wanted to harm him or use the info to commit a crime after obtaining it is irrelevant since the text itself didn't actually threaten those things.

 

[HumblePie]

I don't agree with you on this. The text of the tweet doesn't have anything in it that would meet 1 or 3, so whether or not they wanted to harm him or use the info to commit a crime after obtaining it is irrelevant since the text itself didn't actually threaten those things.

Huh? I said that specific tweet doesn't meet the statute by and large. I did state that it would have to be more. Like there being other tweets, or the person has a history of committing crimes against people after doxing them, or giving said info to people he knows will commit crimes. I am stating the tweet in and of itself isn't enough. If for example, you are re-tweeting to get the message across to a criminal group looking for a target....

 

[interchange]

Huh? I said that specific tweet doesn't meet the statute by and large. I did state that it would have to be more. Like there being other tweets, or the person has a history of committing crimes against people after doxing them, or giving said info to people he knows will commit crimes. I am stating the tweet in and of itself isn't enough. If for example, you are re-tweeting to get the message across to a criminal group looking for a target....

I don't think that would be enough, either, since the tweet doesn't threaten anything. The other stuff, though, could constitute a different crime.

 

[JEDIYoda]

If it was just a photo of someone in public that would be one thing.

Calling for doxing probably has legal implications depending on the state.

Nope!! Nice try!!

 

[JEDIYoda]

Would anyone like to explain to me how this tweet could even possibly meet the alleged crime?

"2C:33-4.1 Crime of cyber-harassment.

1. a. A person commits the crime of cyber-harassment if, while making a communication in an online capacity via any electronic device or through a social networking site and with the purpose to harass another, the person:

(1)threatens to inflict injury or physical harm to any person or the property of any person;

(2)knowingly sends, posts, comments, requests, suggests, or proposes any lewd, indecent, or obscene material to or about a person with the intent to emotionally harm a reasonable person or place a reasonable person in fear of physical or emotional harm to his person; or

(3)threatens to commit any crime against the person or the person's property."

1. no violent threat found
2. no lewd, indecent, or obscene material sent/posted/commented/requested/suggested/proposed
3. no threat to commit crime against the person or the person's property

Sure you can argue (although prove beyond reasonable doubt?) that the tweeter and re-tweeters wanted his info for the purposes of doing 1,2, or 3. But the law doesn't say intends to do 1, 2, or 3. It says that they did it. The only possible thing I can think of is that somehow posting someones "info" itself is a crime.

It doesn`t they are fishing!! The cop got his feelings hurt!!

 

[JEDIYoda]

Correct on 1 and 3 in the context of this thread, but not on 2 technically. Using vulgarity falls into indecent in many places. Depending on the context around the tweet and other things the tweeter said 1 and 3 could be met, but just based on the one tweet presented in this thread and the articles it isn't there. Calling someone a bitch, aka a name, can be construed as trying to emotionally harm someone. It would be a stretch though to have that believed by most people.

The issue is what would be the use of such information of people following those tweets and re-tweeting? If it is for personal knowledge only then whatever. If it is to be used to meet 1 or 3.... Again it would have to be more than that single tweet though. I haven't looked much into this though I am admitting, just going off what is in this thread and the one article especially in light of the charges had been dropped.

Technically only an idiot would charge these people with a crime!! But since the charges were dropped...

 

[ch33zw1z]

More retaliation for standing up to shitbags. Civil suit inbound hopefully.