- Joined
- Jun 24, 2020
She didn't mention the pepperoni. Of course, that's too funny and absurd for "EVERYTHING IS POLITICAL AND SERIOSU AS A HEART ATTACK!" WaPo.
Patrick Sean Tomlinson / @stealthygeek / "Torque Wheeler" / @RealAutomanic / Kempesh / Padawan v2.5 - "Conservative" sci-fi author with TDS, armed "drunk with anger management issues" and terminated parental rights, actual tough guy, obese, paid Quasi, paid thousands to be repeatedly unbanned from Twitter
- Thread starter Caverlock
- Start date
-
🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
- Joined
- May 6, 2020
Beginning in 2014, and over the next two years, Billy Raymond Counterman posted dozens of messages on the Facebook page of a local Colorado musician. The posts, sometimes accompanied by pictures, clearly indicate a man obsessed with his target:
“Was that you in the white Jeep?”
“I’ve had tapped phone lines before. What do you fear?”
“I’m currently unsupervised. I know, it freaks me out too, but the possibilities are endless.”
“How can I take your interest in me seriously if you keep going back to my rejected existence?”
“Fuck off permanently.”
“Your arrogance offends anyone in my position.”
“You’re not being good for human relations. Die. Don’t need you.”
“Staying in cyber life is going to kill you. Come out for coffee. You have my number.”
I can't find anything else and none of these even approach what I would consider threats, such as "I am going to come to your house and kill you". At best it's stalking and should be treated as such. Also this pdf indicates they didn't even have physical proof of him going near her or stalking her car. Doubtless he is an obsessed psychopath, but it's clear that he hasn't directly threatened her life. Also this mutt looking woman he was stalking is literally a public performer, this kind of shit comes with the territory. Hire security or purchase a firearm. Based SCOTUS.
supreme court pdf
From 2014 to 2016, petitioner Billy Counterman sent
hundreds of Facebook messages to C. W., a local singer and
musician. The two had never met, and C. W. never re-
sponded. In fact, she repeatedly blocked Counterman. But
each time, he created a new Facebook account and resumed
his contacts. Some of his messages were utterly prosaic
2 COUNTERMAN v. COLORADO
Opinion of the Court
(“Good morning sweetheart”; “I am going to the store would
you like anything?”)—except that they were coming from a
total stranger. 3 App. 465. Others suggested that Counter-
man might be surveilling C. W. He asked “[w]as that you
in the white Jeep?”; referenced “[a] fine display with your
partner”; and noted “a couple [of] physical sightings.” 497
P. 3d 1039, 1044 (Colo. App. 2021). And most critically, a
number expressed anger at C. W. and envisaged harm be-
falling her: “Fuck off permanently.” Ibid. “Staying in cyber
life is going to kill you.” Ibid. “You’re not being good for
human relations. Die.” Ibid.
The messages put C. W. in fear and upended her daily
existence. She believed that Counterman was
“threat[ening her] life”; “was very fearful that he was fol-
lowing” her; and was “afraid [she] would get hurt.” 2 App.
177, 181, 193. As a result, she had “a lot of trouble sleeping”
and suffered from severe anxiety. Id., at 200; see id., at
194–198. She stopped walking alone, declined social en-
gagements, and canceled some of her performances, though
doing so caused her financial strain. See id., at 182–183,
199, 201–206, 238–239. Eventually, C. W. decided that she
had to contact the authorities. Id., at 184.
Colorado charged Counterman under a statute making it
unlawful to “[r]epeatedly . . . make[ ] any form of communi-
cation with another person” in “a manner that would cause
a reasonable person to suffer serious emotional distress and
does cause that person . . . to suffer serious emotional dis-
tress.” Colo. Rev. Stat. §18–3–602(1)(c) (2022). The only
evidence the State proposed to introduce at trial were his
Facebook messages.1
1 The statute Counterman was charged with violating is titled a “stalk-
ing” statute and also prohibits “[r]epeatedly follow[ing], approach[ing],
contact[ing], [or] plac[ing] under surveillance” another person. §18–3–
602(1)(c). But the State had no evidence, beyond what Counterman
claimed, that he actually had followed or surveilled C. W. For example,
C. W. had never noticed anything of that kind. So the prosecution based
its case solely on Counterman’s “[r]epeated[ ] . . . communication” with
C. W. Ibid.
Counterman moved to dismiss the charge on First
Amendment grounds, arguing that his messages were not
“true threats” and therefore could not form the basis of a
criminal prosecution. In line with Colorado law, the trial
court assessed the true-threat issue using an “objective ‘rea-
sonable person’ standard.” People v. Cross, 127 P. 3d 71, 76
(Colo. 2006). Under that standard, the State had to show
that a reasonable person would have viewed the Facebook
messages as threatening. By contrast, the State had no
need to prove that Counterman had any kind of “subjective
intent to threaten” C. W. In re R. D., 464 P. 3d 717, 731, n.
21 (Colo. 2020). The court decided, after “consider[ing] the
totality of the circumstances,” that Counterman’s state-
ments “r[o]se to the level of a true threat.” 497 P. 3d, at
1045. Because that was so, the court ruled, the First
Amendment posed no bar to prosecution. The court accord-
ingly sent the case to the jury, which found Counterman
guilty as charged.
The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed. Counterman
had urged the court to hold that the First Amendment re-
quired the State to show that he was aware of the threat-
ening nature of his statements. Relying on its precedent,
the court turned the request down: It “decline[d] today to
say that a speaker’s subjective intent to threaten is neces-
sary” under the First Amendment to procure a conviction
for threatening communications. Id., at 1046 (quoting
R. D., 464 P. 3d, at 731, n. 21). Using the established objec-
tive standard, the court then approved the trial court’s rul-
ing that Counterman’s messages were “true threats” and so
were not protected by the First Amendment. 497 P. 3d, at
1050. The Colorado Supreme Court denied review.
hundreds of Facebook messages to C. W., a local singer and
musician. The two had never met, and C. W. never re-
sponded. In fact, she repeatedly blocked Counterman. But
each time, he created a new Facebook account and resumed
his contacts. Some of his messages were utterly prosaic
2 COUNTERMAN v. COLORADO
Opinion of the Court
(“Good morning sweetheart”; “I am going to the store would
you like anything?”)—except that they were coming from a
total stranger. 3 App. 465. Others suggested that Counter-
man might be surveilling C. W. He asked “[w]as that you
in the white Jeep?”; referenced “[a] fine display with your
partner”; and noted “a couple [of] physical sightings.” 497
P. 3d 1039, 1044 (Colo. App. 2021). And most critically, a
number expressed anger at C. W. and envisaged harm be-
falling her: “Fuck off permanently.” Ibid. “Staying in cyber
life is going to kill you.” Ibid. “You’re not being good for
human relations. Die.” Ibid.
The messages put C. W. in fear and upended her daily
existence. She believed that Counterman was
“threat[ening her] life”; “was very fearful that he was fol-
lowing” her; and was “afraid [she] would get hurt.” 2 App.
177, 181, 193. As a result, she had “a lot of trouble sleeping”
and suffered from severe anxiety. Id., at 200; see id., at
194–198. She stopped walking alone, declined social en-
gagements, and canceled some of her performances, though
doing so caused her financial strain. See id., at 182–183,
199, 201–206, 238–239. Eventually, C. W. decided that she
had to contact the authorities. Id., at 184.
Colorado charged Counterman under a statute making it
unlawful to “[r]epeatedly . . . make[ ] any form of communi-
cation with another person” in “a manner that would cause
a reasonable person to suffer serious emotional distress and
does cause that person . . . to suffer serious emotional dis-
tress.” Colo. Rev. Stat. §18–3–602(1)(c) (2022). The only
evidence the State proposed to introduce at trial were his
Facebook messages.1
1 The statute Counterman was charged with violating is titled a “stalk-
ing” statute and also prohibits “[r]epeatedly follow[ing], approach[ing],
contact[ing], [or] plac[ing] under surveillance” another person. §18–3–
602(1)(c). But the State had no evidence, beyond what Counterman
claimed, that he actually had followed or surveilled C. W. For example,
C. W. had never noticed anything of that kind. So the prosecution based
its case solely on Counterman’s “[r]epeated[ ] . . . communication
C. W. Ibid.
Counterman moved to dismiss the charge on First
Amendment grounds, arguing that his messages were not
“true threats” and therefore could not form the basis of a
criminal prosecution. In line with Colorado law, the trial
court assessed the true-threat issue using an “objective ‘rea-
sonable person’ standard.” People v. Cross, 127 P. 3d 71, 76
(Colo. 2006). Under that standard, the State had to show
that a reasonable person would have viewed the Facebook
messages as threatening. By contrast, the State had no
need to prove that Counterman had any kind of “subjective
intent to threaten” C. W. In re R. D., 464 P. 3d 717, 731, n.
21 (Colo. 2020). The court decided, after “consider[ing] the
totality of the circumstances,” that Counterman’s state-
ments “r[o]se to the level of a true threat.” 497 P. 3d, at
1045. Because that was so, the court ruled, the First
Amendment posed no bar to prosecution. The court accord-
ingly sent the case to the jury, which found Counterman
guilty as charged.
The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed. Counterman
had urged the court to hold that the First Amendment re-
quired the State to show that he was aware of the threat-
ening nature of his statements. Relying on its precedent,
the court turned the request down: It “decline[d] today to
say that a speaker’s subjective intent to threaten is neces-
sary” under the First Amendment to procure a conviction
for threatening communications. Id., at 1046 (quoting
R. D., 464 P. 3d, at 731, n. 21). Using the established objec-
tive standard, the court then approved the trial court’s rul-
ing that Counterman’s messages were “true threats” and so
were not protected by the First Amendment. 497 P. 3d, at
1050. The Colorado Supreme Court denied review.
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2022
This is a very good start from the SCOTUS, but they really should be focusing on other, more pressing legal matters. I mean how long will it takes before they finally enshrine into law that Patrick is a fat faggot with bitch tits?
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2019
He does work at Hoolies, but he does not work for Hoolies. Tomlinson technicality. His tweeting is work to him, and sometimes he types a page or two in whatever unfinished bit of a novel he has opened in Word, while sitting at the bar, nursing a Miller Lite.
Let's see if SpaceEdge can get this article corrected, like he had several other media articles corrected. Easy first correction: the knitted dolls -- and not voodoo dolls -- are of Pringle Can Jon and Ade, Patso's ex, not of his current slattern Nikki.
Let's see if SpaceEdge can get this article corrected, like he had several other media articles corrected. Easy first correction: the knitted dolls -- and not voodoo dolls -- are of Pringle Can Jon and Ade, Patso's ex, not of his current slattern Nikki.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2020
What the fuck is "cyber stalking" like nigga why put your name and ego all over the fucking internet...
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2020
Ayo, check it out. Patso's gonna be on the news.
I can already hear the Monkey Paw curling. Get ready for more sweating and Duping Delight on camera.
I can already hear the Monkey Paw curling. Get ready for more sweating and Duping Delight on camera.
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2022
I can't possibly see this backfiring at all. Not a chance.
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2020
It must be a last-ditch effort to dodge the debt. Evidently, he thinks he can use a sob story and override a court order with the court of public opinion.
ETA: is that why he rejected the amortization plan? He somehow was in the loop on the recent SCOTUS case, and was waiting for this instead?
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 6, 2020
I wonder if they're gonna play they audio where he doesn't stop telling a stalker baby child to shut up for 20 straight minutes
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2021
Total stalker child victory. Now pay Quasi, you fat fuck.
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2020
The Brothermen say that the headline is "FBI takes on Swatting", and that Fat and Niki are in the preview.
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2022
I hope they've got a wide angle lens if fatrick is gonna be on TV.
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2017
He's going to be greasy from sweat again. The flop-sweat of an end-stage alcoholic. This time in front of a huge national audience.
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2022
Saw him on the news, got the video.
Sorry for it being shitty phone quality, I saw him on the news by chance, and I just grabbed the video and edited out the commercials after.
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2020
Goodness, they both look like shit.
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2019
What an amazing set of lies. This is MSNBC/CNN/FoxNews tier bad. No attempt to fact check anything.
You know exactly what people imagine when people hear swatting. And that happened, sort of, once. Everything else is just the police responding to a call, most of which were welfare checks. There are lies, lies of omission, and of denial, and of falsifying and of exaggeration. But I think most Farmers are aware of how the media operates. It's always disappointing to see it happen again though.
Entertaining to hear the FBI is taking time from its busy schedule of harassing parents for domestic terrorism to look at the swattings. I hope they catch the culprits, and the culprit is in fact Patso himself.
You know exactly what people imagine when people hear swatting. And that happened, sort of, once. Everything else is just the police responding to a call, most of which were welfare checks. There are lies, lies of omission, and of denial, and of falsifying and of exaggeration. But I think most Farmers are aware of how the media operates. It's always disappointing to see it happen again though.
Entertaining to hear the FBI is taking time from its busy schedule of harassing parents for domestic terrorism to look at the swattings. I hope they catch the culprits, and the culprit is in fact Patso himself.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2017
Imagine if you acted like Fat Pat does on the internet IRL, replying to each and every slight with NO STALKER CHILD THAT'S YOU. A lot of people would laugh in your face and call you a fat faggot, just like what happens on the occasions Fat Pat does this IRL. If the Internet and IRL are one and the same, then being endlessly called a fat faggot with bitch tits is part and parcel of life when you are indeed a fat faggot with bitch tits.
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2022
His jowels have jowels.
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2014
Piggy was featured in a Taylor Lorenz article about the US Supreme Court's recent ruling on cyber-stalking:
I'm riding on the train
home from a stupid work event and reading his quotes in Null's impression made me laugh so hard that now people are going to think I'm a crazy person for the rest of the ride. Thanks a lot Fatrick.
Edit: The above part should have been a quote, I hate phone fagging
home from a stupid work event and reading his quotes in Null's impression made me laugh so hard that now people are going to think I'm a crazy person for the rest of the ride. Thanks a lot Fatrick.
Edit: The above part should have been a quote, I hate phone fagging
Last edited:
Hungry Homeless Handjob
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2021
Imagine all the normies who are going to find Pat's Twitter feed tonight and see him "no, stalker" to every single person who doesn't completely agree with him.