I’m for anonymity on the internet.

It’s things like this that proves the first rule you learned back in the 90s still rings true.

“Never give out your personal information unless shopping online.”

He just wanted a free beer? 😀

Isn’t this an example of, ahem, ‘Connecting’ with Fans?

(For certain interpretations of ‘Connecting’)

I disagree that the boxer’s behavior was hypersensitive or out of touch with modernity. Indeed, I think it was really funny. By tweeting the entire episode,
he was exhibiting transparency and showing a mastery of new media. Plus, he was connecting with fans. I’m with Woodhouse on this one.

In the first place, Curtis Woodhouse is English, and these stirring events took place in England. That changes everything. For one thing, Americans of the rougher sort are likely to have firearms, and Englishmen generally aren’t. There is perhaps a one in three chance that an American householder will be armed. English hooligans play at violence, but it isn’t quite as serious with them.

Woodhouse admits to having offered, on the internet, a reward of a thousand British pounds to whoever would find his taunter, with the intention that he could go and beat him up. That is only incrementally different from paying for a contract killing. By American standards, that would probably make him liable to federal conspiracy charges. At any rate, I suppose one of “jimmyob88″‘s cronies probably sold him. At any rate, Woodhouse proposed to rampage down the street, breaking into different houses until he found his man. Obviously, in a fair number of cases, the person answering the door would have been a little old lady, and presumably Woodhouse would have assaulted said old lady, and forced his way into the house, searching for “jimmyob88.” Otherwise, how could he be sure that the old lady was not shielding her grandson, “jimmyob88”? He was engaged in a fundamentally criminal errand. If he had tried that in the United States, some innocent bystander would surely have “capped” him.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/mar/12/english-boxer-curtis-woodhouse-twitter-troll

http://storify.com/campbellwpaul/boxer-curtis-woodhouse-deals-with-twitter-troll

Provocation is that which of significant magnitude that the person provoked can claim it as a full or partial defense for his own crimes. At any rate, the claim of provocation does not cover entering into a conspiracy. Provocation means a case in which someone is insulted, and responds with a direct assault. It has long been established that dueling is murder, pure and simple. An American court might very well take the view that Woodhouse wanted, for pecuniary reasons to maintain his reputation as a “tough guy,” and that his pursuit of the taunter was therefore motivated by the desire for profit. Similar arguments have been raised in cases where a neighborhood gangster killed someone for no apparent reason.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provocation_(legal)

The Texas statute cited by Mikael (#46) , referring to Provocation as a limit of Self Defense, is obviously intended to cover the case where A calls B a name, they both draw their guns more or less simultaneously, and A survives the shootout.

Presumably, the Royal Police ought to be approaching Twitter to find out the names of the people who passed information to Woodhouse, so that they can be charged as accessories in R. v. Woodhouse. Curtis Woodhouse claims that his fists are superior to the law. The local Chief Constable either has to deal starkly with Curtis Woodhouse, or there will be no law. By observation in the next few days, I shall discover to what extent England has degenerated.

I’ve lived in some fairly rough places in my time, and on an occasion, or three, I’ve had to tell professional tough guys to get lost, to take a hike. It’s always a bit scary, because you never quite know whether the bad boy is packing a “rodney,” but there’s generally no alternative. One incident will do: Once upon a time, I was accosted on a Philadelphia street corner by an obviously fit young man, dressed in the style of a pimp-dandy, who wanted me to “give him something.” I thought to myself, “Oh, S–t”; tensed myself to move instantly, to slam into him faster than he could draw his gun; looked him in the eye; and retorted: “Why should I?” The young man looked at me, and saw Death looking back at him, and backed off rapidly, holding his hands up in the air where I could see them, saying “no reason, man, no reason!” Just as I didn’t know whether he had a rod or not, he didn’t know whether I had a rod or not (I didn’t), and he decided rather quickly that the hundred or two hundred dollars which might be in my wallet wasn’t worth a roll of the dice with death. It was a rather ambiguous encounter. It was in broad daylight, in front of a store, but I suppose he relied on witnesses being intimidated.

That said, I don’t have any sympathy whatsoever for small-time boxers who think they can use their fists outside of the ring.

You’re technically right, however Texas isn’t Britain and even if it was the Boxer didn’t touch the troll (to my knowledge). It’s also not against the law to knock on someone’s door and if you shoot someone while they are on your doorstep, announcing themselves you better expect jail time because that is 100% illegal.

Lawyers can speculate and conjecture but unless there’s cold, hard evidence to back it up it’s nothing but smoke and mirrors (in reference to being motivated by profit) The Boxer was totally within his legal right, it would only be considered conspiracy if he actually made arrangements and even then, buying public information is not a crime but beating someone up without justification (such as self defense) is.

Sorry for the necropost.

Why are people like that towards others. It makes no sense and is not constructive in the least.