Tanya 93 said:

---

PrincessButtercup said:

---

I agree. That's absolutely insane. There's no way the accused could know his tweet would cause a seizure even if he knew the recipient had epilepsy.

---

How could he not know the flashing lights could trigger one?

---

in the vast majority of forms of epilepsy, flashing lights do not trigger events

To be an aggravated assault in Texas, you have to:

1) Use a deadly weapon
2) Cause serious bodily injury

This case has neither.

proc said:

---

To be an aggravated assault in Texas, you have to:

1) Use a deadly weapon
2) Cause serious bodily injury

This case has neither.

---

Neither of those things are standards for aggravated assault.

The weapon must only be possible to cause serious bodily harm. If it can put out an eye, that's enough.

No bodily harm is required, serious or otherwise. The victim must just have reason to believe the threat of serious injury is credible. Basically if it puts the victim in fear of injury, that's enough.

AliasMan02 said:

---

proc said:

---

To be an aggravated assault in Texas, you have to:

1) Use a deadly weapon
2) Cause serious bodily injury

This case has neither.

---

Neither of those things are standards for aggravated assault.

The weapon must only be possible to cause serious bodily harm. If it can put out an eye, that's enough.

No bodily harm is required, serious or otherwise. The victim must just have reason to believe the threat of serious injury is credible. Basically if it puts the victim in fear of injury, that's enough.

---

Sec. 22.02. AGGRAVATED ASSAULT. (a) A person commits an offense if the person commits assault as defined in Sec. 22.01 and the person:
(1) causes serious bodily injury to another, including the person's spouse; or
(2) uses or exhibits a deadly weapon during the commission of the assault.

I'd say it's probably a case of overcharging by the prosecution.

Also, given it's Eichenwald, I'd probably need video evidence, along with sworn statements by three separate doctors that the GIF in question actually caused a seizure, before I take his word for it.

FWIW this was the gif

Does a seizure not count as serious bodily injury?

Disclaimer: I know nothing about seizures but they seem pretty freaky.

I wish you guys would stop posting the flashing gifs just because they are annoying.

Beer Baron said:

---

Does a seizure not count as serious bodily injury?

Disclaimer: I know nothing about seizures but they seem pretty freaky.

---

You are going to need some eyewitness testimony that he was unconscious for a lengthy period of time. That's the borderline according to the caselaw.

proc said:

---

AliasMan02 said:

---

proc said:

---

To be an aggravated assault in Texas, you have to:

1) Use a deadly weapon
2) Cause serious bodily injury

This case has neither.

---

Neither of those things are standards for aggravated assault.

The weapon must only be possible to cause serious bodily harm. If it can put out an eye, that's enough.

No bodily harm is required, serious or otherwise. The victim must just have reason to believe the threat of serious injury is credible. Basically if it puts the victim in fear of injury, that's enough.

---

Sec. 22.02. AGGRAVATED ASSAULT. (a) A person commits an offense if the person commits assault as defined in Sec. 22.01 and the person:
(1) causes serious bodily injury to another, including the person's spouse; or
(2) uses or exhibits a deadly weapon during the commission of the assault.

---

But the assault portion is defined:

Sec. 22.01. ASSAULT. (a) A person commits an offense if the person:
(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another, including the person's spouse;
(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens another with imminent bodily injury, including the person's spouse; or
(3) intentionally or knowingly causes physical contact with another when the person knows or should reasonably believe that the other will regard the contact as offensive or provocative.

And a deadly weapon doesn't have to be deadly.

(17) "Deadly weapon" means: (A) a firearm or anything manifestly designed, made, or adapted for the purpose of inflicting death or serious bodily injury; or. (B) anything that in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury.

I think this falls into the let's teach him a lesson category. Drag him through court for a few years, jeopardize his career in fast food management, and more importantly, make him aware that they were able to find out who he was and where he lived without any cooperation from Twitter.

I have temporal lobe epilepsy and this stupid thread gave me a seizure. My own fault for opening it, though.

CDUB98 said:

---

I wish you guys would stop posting the flashing gifs just because they are annoying.

---

...you're in a thread about a gif that gave someone a seizure...

AliasMan02 said:

---

proc said:

---

AliasMan02 said:

---

proc said:

---

To be an aggravated assault in Texas, you have to:

1) Use a deadly weapon
2) Cause serious bodily injury

This case has neither.

---

Neither of those things are standards for aggravated assault.

The weapon must only be possible to cause serious bodily harm. If it can put out an eye, that's enough.

No bodily harm is required, serious or otherwise. The victim must just have reason to believe the threat of serious injury is credible. Basically if it puts the victim in fear of injury, that's enough.

---

Sec. 22.02. AGGRAVATED ASSAULT. (a) A person commits an offense if the person commits assault as defined in Sec. 22.01 and the person:
(1) causes serious bodily injury to another, including the person's spouse; or
(2) uses or exhibits a deadly weapon during the commission of the assault.

---

But the assault portion is defined:

Sec. 22.01. ASSAULT. (a) A person commits an offense if the person:
(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another, including the person's spouse;
(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens another with imminent bodily injury, including the person's spouse; or
(3) intentionally or knowingly causes physical contact with another when the person knows or should reasonably believe that the other will regard the contact as offensive or provocative.

And a deadly weapon doesn't have to be deadly.

(17) "Deadly weapon" means: (A) a firearm or anything manifestly designed, made, or adapted for the purpose of inflicting death or serious bodily injury; or. (B) anything that in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury.

22.01 doesn't make it an Agg Assault. 22.02 does, and I spelled out the only two elements. Then I followed it up with what the caselaw on a borderline SBI is. Not sure what else I can do for you, so I am going to sip coffee and look at the certification on my wall. I trust it's opinion more than yours.

---

Seems like he intended to cause a seizure, and did. Why does it matter how he did it, or what he used? I'm a loldumb and am probably missing something though.

Bob Loblaws Law Blog said:

---

Seems like he intended to cause a seizure, and did. Why does it matter how he did it, or what he used? I'm a loldumb and am probably missing something though.

---

But there's gotta be a difference between hoping something happens, and stabbing or shooting someone. (I say that as someone who has no law experience. Just seems like there should be a difference.

AP, that's a terrible gif. I've had one non-epileptic, febrile seizure. I was driving, so it caused serious bodily harm, but I don't think they always do. I had a teacher who had epilepsy, and sometimes she'd come into class with a bruise or busted lip from falling during a seizure.

Yeah you have intent and causation. Only issue really is whether the injury was severe enough to elevate to "aggravated."

Claude! said:

---

I'd say it's probably a case of overcharging by the prosecution.

Also, given it's Eichenwald, I'd probably need video evidence, along with sworn statements by three separate doctors that the GIF in question actually caused a seizure, before I take his word for it.

---

There is very little in the complaint about it other than the claims by him and his wife, and one sentence from a neurologist.

According to the wife, she walked in on her husband having a seizure and then:

1. Took a picture of the computer screen
2. Laid him on the ground in a safe position
3. Called 911 to report the incident to the police. (Not to call for any type of medical help)

She also was responding to the trolls through her husbands twitter account during this time.

Wouldn't the first thing you would do if tend to your loved one that's actively seizing, and call for medical help? I just don't get the prioritizing taking pictures of his computer first.

Also, for a seizure that he claims lasted 8 minutes long, it just seems strange that she would be posting on twitter and calling police instead of an ambulance. Did he even go to the hospital?

Yeah this seems like the kind of thing that could in theory be prosecuted as aggravated assault with the right facts, but the things you mentioned make its application here iffy.

The DA, judge, and defense on the aggravated assault case I sat on all disagree.

Just so I can clarify our standoff. Am I arguing about criminal law with someone who once served on a criminal jury?

proc said:

---

Just so I can clarify our standoff. Am I arguing about criminal law with someone who once served on a criminal jury?

---

Honestly, this sounds like part of a fact pattern you'd see on a Criminal Law exam, or maybe Torts.

Claude! said:

---

Honestly, this sounds like part of a fact pattern you'd see on a Criminal Law exam, or maybe Torts.

---

I had a tort for breakfast.

proc said:

---

Just so I can clarify our standoff. Am I arguing about criminal law with someone who once served on a criminal jury?

---

I don't know **** about it beyond what I saw firsthand in a court case where I was on the jury. The unknown weapon caused no harm to the victim (very minor scratches) when held to his throat. The fact that no actual harm was necessary for the aggravated assault was discussed at length during jury selection and during the trial. It was reinforced by the judge later. The defense raised no objection.

Our guy was convicted, who was just the driver who never entered the store. So was the other guy in a separate case.

That's all I'm saying. Maybe everyone involved were idiots and got it totally wrong. They were lawyers, after all.

The accused was very deliberate and intentional in creating a gif that would induce a seizure and sending it to someone he knew would be affected by it. No different than mailing peanuts to someone with a serious allergy.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/39315393

Quote:

---

Investigators found that Mr Rivello had sent messages to other Twitter users about Mr Eichenwald and a plan to attack him virtually, including one that read: "I hope this sends him into a seizure".

"Spammed this at [victim] let's see if he dies," another message read, according to the justice department.

...

After the attack was reported in December, Stefano Seri, a professor of neurophysiology at Aston University in the UK, said the material in the tweet must have been carefully constructed.

"Abrupt changes in light intensity, or luminance, can trigger seizures. The most sensitive range is about 15-25 flashes per second," he said.

"The picture would need to occupy most of the visual field. It would take some very sick people to do this, but technically, it is possible.

"Modern LED screens are not as provocative as older ones. It takes a very carefully designed stimulus to induce a seizure," Prof Seri added.

---