Yes, but it's not the only possible choice within that time frame.

Maybe, but in my country the employer wouldn't give a shit about the nude photos (usually).

How it fits in your sense of justice that someone gets fired for third party's malicious actions those bring up some private nude photos? Firing for that reason is illegal in here. Why it's not in there?

It's got very little to do with the nude photos. You're being blinded by that. it doesn't sound like her employer fired her at all. It's 110% to do with the guy being a violent harasser and his intentions, hence making him go to domestic violence counselling, the topless photo was probably just the best way to get him.

so it should be on what your personal decision would be?

and again, regardless of whether she did get fired, could be fired, the rights and wrongs of firing her for that - his INTENT was to cause her harm in a variety of ways, and most likely achieved.

Just because *you* and *your* culture/environment wouldn't see it as being harmful in the mental sense, that doesn't mean she didn't suffer mental harm in *her* environment, amongst others of that same environment.

If you are arguing that environment shouldn't exist - I agree with that, and in a perfect world, no harm would be caused to her mentally because society wouldn't push that train of thought on an individual. The problem then is, your argument about the 1 year (or 1 day, or 5 years, or a lifetime, or death by lethal injection) in jail has zero relevance. literally zero.

If he did something else, he should get sentence for that, after trial. Even Al Capone was sentenced for what he was caught for, and not for something he may have done. It's the core principle of justice system.

It would be my personal decision (within law) if I would be a judge, but I am not. But someone was judge for that case, and someone did the law.

Intent to cause harm is not that relevant. It's fucking common, we would be all in jail for that. I don't think there is any person who wouldn't have called names or something like that.

The sentence is all that is relevant. That is what matters. Although in your US thinking, if you are able to label someone as criminal, you are willing to give all kind of punishments, fair or not. It's kinda you are some decent white folk or fucking criminal, there is no middle road, mercy, humanity, or whatever. It's all about the look, not what you actually do or are. US is religous, so where is the turning the cheek, loving enemies and so on, all the Christian stuff? More like muslims if you ask me: eye for an eye and that stuff.

How about making the sentence truly proportionate to the damage caused?

I'd be cool with releasing the idiot the moment his ex girlfriend can report going 30 consecutive days without hearing any new mention that picture from anyone.

And not one day sooner.

I think you're trolling now. This is exactly the Al Capone situation, they wanted him for killing but they could only prove tax evasion. This guy was a Grade A psycho cunt and they got him for the picture, probably because it was the easiest thing to prove and sentence. You've just proved my point. Thanks.

Your guess is wrong. I didn't defend him and say that what he did was right. He should do hard time. But relative to other felonies, 1 year in prison seems excessive. If the courts were this harsh toward ch!1cl m()1esters, they would all receive death sentences. To me, that's justice. But no, the legal system sentences them to a few years in prison and then lets those pieces of shit back out on the streets.

It's the core principle that you get sentenced for what you are proved to be guilty. It's not trolling. The thing that it applies to even biggest criminals, makes it even more fair.

ok I get that (apologies for my mistake), and what I always say is this: you're absolutely correct that the molesters don't get enough time, and *that's* what the problem is - not that this guy got too long.

I am not from americaland :) And intent is absolutely relevant. Calling someone a name versus taking specific action (not words) to cause someone harm is just the top of the list, taking further actions/decisions to maximise hurt is another, and invading a person's privcy, and breaking their right to privacy is also another.

You need to be a sack of absolute shit to think those thoughts AND follow it up with pre-meditated actions, and a year in jail is an appropriate punishment for being such a low life cunt :2 cents: :thumbsup

Obviously we aren't going to agree, but it's bedtime for me so I'm out of this. Interesting discussion, as is usally the case with you :thumbsup

ps the sentence also needs to act as a deterrent to others, so it isn't purely an eye for an eye, though again, you are bringing many side-arguments into a mish-mash of one.

Apology accepted, I'm happy we see eye to eye.

In justice, the sentence is not given for being low life cunt, it is given for breaking the law, and judging the action that broke it. Everything concentrates to the action, from making to laws to implementing those laws.

In western justice system (maybe US excluded) sentence is not revenge.

Also, the punishment is considered beyond per se. For example being ex-convict has very far reaching consequences those reach far beyond the jail time. But maybe you just ignore it saying "That or those low life cunts deserve it." The funny part is that the "decent white folks" those are willing to throw criminals into jail and throw away the key, are not themselves so decent after all. Few of us really are. It is good example from irrational thinking that is not based on facts, rather on image.

I'm saying he is a low life cunt BECAUSE of his pre-meditated actions, and *that* is why he fully deserves the year in jail. I get that english is not your first language, but this has now become too much hard work. Have the win.

This has nothing to do with the language, don't go to that road Mr. decent white folk, as that is not so decent.

A year in jail for posting a pic or pics. That is essentially what happened, pre-meditated or not, malicious or not.

And there is no win, you can't win these arguments. You think that the sentence is fair, I don't.

The bastard should get 10 years of hard labor. In fact we should bring back the chain gangs.

Noe Iniguez and the victim date for four years. A reasonably serious relationship by all accounts.

They break up and by all evidence she was the one to split the relationship.

Noe harasses her resulting in the victim taking restraining orders out against him.

He posts a topless photo of her on her employers FB page, along with comments calling her a ?drunk? and a ?slut? and saying she should be fired.


And the first thing you do in your reply is call the victim a "whore and slut" and that she "got what she deserved" even though all she actually did was to have a normal relationship for four years with some guy and for whatever reason decided to end it.

Isn't this what people do ? Have relationships to see if they're compatible and if they decide at some point they're not they are free to move on and look for another partner ?

Are you Noe Iniguez ?

Are you the guy that calls a women a slut and a whore if they don't show interest in you ? Are you the revenge guy that thinks its ok to take what were private relationship moments and if spurned, splurge them all over the internet because you're butthurt ?


If you're going to attempt a troll in future, try not to make it so obvious. Unless of course you really do believe what you typed, which would be disturbing.