HawkShack.com

by **Hawktawk** » Tue Jul 05, 2016 12:43 pm

Ciaras children's sperm donor is threatening gun violence against Wilson in rap songs and online media. Ciara has listed these threats in part of her 15 million dollar defamation claim vs Future. Cant figure out a link but its in the media.

Hopefully Russ is taking precautions. In an age where gangster rappers and their thug associates routinely wind up shooting one another this isn't that big a stretch.

by **NorthHawk** » Tue Jul 05, 2016 1:43 pm

Here's a link from PFT:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... sons-life/

by **c_hawkbob** » Tue Jul 05, 2016 2:27 pm

It doesn't do your street cred any good to seem so insignificant by comparison to your ex's new man.

by **Hawk Sista** » Tue Jul 05, 2016 3:07 pm

This thought actually crossed my mind before the beginning of last season when Ciara was at training camp with the child and both she and Wilson were holding hands with the child. Her ex....Future...said something about it then....just sayin' the thought has crossed my mind. What a tool.

by **jshawaii22** » Tue Jul 05, 2016 3:26 pm

I'm very happy the game against Atlanta is at home this year. You just never know with a punk who thinks he's something.

by **Hawktawk** » Tue Jul 05, 2016 4:09 pm

With all the 2nd amendment talk lately I have to ask. How can someone who clearly threatens gun violence publicly and provably be able to pack or in fact escape any sort of legal penalty from LAW ENFORCEMENT?
That's common sense reform IMO.

by **Hawktown** » Wed Jul 06, 2016 8:42 am

Hawktawk wrote:With all the 2nd amendment talk lately I have to ask. How can someone who clearly threatens gun violence publicly and provably be able to pack or in fact escape any sort of legal penalty from LAW ENFORCEMENT?
That's common sense reform IMO.

This is actually protected speech from the 1st amendment. If you have ever listened to rap music there is plenty of threats on peoples lives, including many of POTUS. Most can just claim that it is just music (for the drama and sales)and get away with it without consequence. I'm not saying I agree but I can't disagree either with free speech.

by **burrrton** » Wed Jul 06, 2016 10:33 am

How can someone who clearly threatens gun violence publicly and provably be able to pack or in fact escape any sort of legal penalty from LAW ENFORCEMENT?

What do you want to charge him with to justify denial of a Constitutional right and arrest?

Guy's a class-A douche, but with the cesspool of violent, misogynous, self-defeating language that is most of "rap", I have trouble believing this would be actionable.

by **Hawktawk** » Wed Jul 06, 2016 1:50 pm

Yeah Burt I hear ya. I'm a big proponent of the first and second amendment but I'm a big proponent of common sense too.

Everyone is on the gun bandwagon but conveniently forget the evil lyrics of much of this music as well as the gruesome killing video games being sold. It doesn't get discussed anymore. The societal decay it is borne of is the biggest factor in these senseless tragedies.

IMO if you make an online threat you should at least get checked out by law enforcement, period. Threats of violence shouldn't be protected speech. If you make a rap video about killing law enforcement you should be jailed.

by **RiverDog** » Wed Jul 06, 2016 4:36 pm

Hawktawk wrote:Yeah Burt I hear ya. I'm a big proponent of the first and second amendment but I'm a big proponent of common sense too.

Everyone is on the gun bandwagon but conveniently forget the evil lyrics of much of this music as well as the gruesome killing video games being sold. It doesn't get discussed anymore. The societal decay it is borne of is the biggest factor in these senseless tragedies.

IMO if you make an online threat you should at least get checked out by law enforcement, period. Threats of violence shouldn't be protected speech. If you make a rap video about killing law enforcement you should be jailed.

They're not. Just ask Aldon Smith.

by **Hawk Sista** » Wed Jul 06, 2016 5:29 pm

Threats of violence shouldn't be protected speech.

they are not protected speech.

by **RiverDog** » Wed Jul 06, 2016 7:55 pm

Hawk Sista wrote:Threats of violence shouldn't be protected speech.

they are not protected speech.

Agreed 1000%! Free speech does not give you the right to threaten another individual with bodily harm or with their lives. I have no problem with someone calling me an A-hole, but I do have a problem with someone saying they're going to kill that A-hole.

Of course, it's all relative. I don't expect to be arrested because I said I was going to kick someone's ass.

by **HumanCockroach** » Wed Jul 06, 2016 8:15 pm

Don't agree with publicly threatening anyone via written word, songs, or miming... But violent music or video games is a red herring. The difference between now and 1950 is everyone hears about everything, every time. Not the rate at which the crimes are occurring, percentage wise 2014 and 1950 were almost identical ( add in the fact that many "violent" crimes like spousal abuse, child abuse and rape weren't prosecuted as stringently, or weren't even viewed as anything other than maintaining discipline in the home. Not to mention hate crimes etc and one could make a fairly strong argument that violent crime was higher in 1950 than 2014).

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0873729.html

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

by **EmeraldBullet** » Thu Jul 07, 2016 8:08 am

I agree it isn't funny, and I agree it isn't right. But...there's a big difference between writing some lyrics and yelling fire in a crowded theater. I don't like Future's music or his personality but he has every right to say what he wants, and furthermore, express how he fills about things via lyrics. Now if he actually has made an attempt to come into physical contact with RW then it would be different.

by **c_hawkbob** » Thu Jul 07, 2016 9:41 am

I disagree. Even if this is not a direct threat of violence it could easily be considered incitement of violence. If one of his nutjob wanna be wangster fans decided that capping Russ would put him in Futures good graces it would be every bit as much on him as it would on his fan.

Not that I think anything will ever be done about it unless someone actually does act on it, but as an after the fact case it could have some real teeth.

by **EmeraldBullet** » Thu Jul 07, 2016 9:54 am

c_hawkbob wrote:I disagree. Even if this is not a direct threat of violence it could easily be considered incitement of violence. If one of his nutjob wanna be wangster fans decided that capping Russ would put him in Futures good graces it would be every bit as much on him as it would on his fan.

Not that I think anything will ever be done about it unless someone actually does act on it, but as an after the fact case it could have some real teeth.

Horse SH!T! You are only responsible for YOUR OWN actions. You have no control over what someone else does, or even how they will react to whatever you say.

by **HumanCockroach** » Thu Jul 07, 2016 12:57 pm

Unfortunately, encouraging violence against one person isn't a crime until the crime is committed ( which IMHO pretty stupid) it's different if one is inciting mass violence for some reason, but in this instance if some wanna be gansta' decided to act on Futures stupidity, he would be the principle, and Future could be tried under the law for encouraging the act ( and even recieve the same sentence) though it is doubtful in my mind they would ( some artistic expression BS, though the tweets wouldn't fall into that category, it would fall under freedom of speech).

by **HumanCockroach** » Thu Jul 07, 2016 1:04 pm

Horse SH!T! You are only responsible for YOUR OWN actions. You have no control over what someone else does, or even how they will react to whatever you say.

EmeraldBullet
Legacy

Posts: 261
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 11:55 am

While I agree with the premise, this isn't inherently true. Many have acted out with encouragement from others, they don't absolve the person telling them to do it, though each person is ultimately responsible for their own actions, we don't absolve the leaders for telling them to carry out those actions. Whether it be Manson, Capone or the leader of Isis they have culpability in the actions of those they tell to commit violent crimes ( and yes I am aware Future is none of those things, just an example).

History is littered with people that committed crimes after being encouraged to do so, that haven't received full ( or any) punishment for carrying those crimes out. All it takes is one unstable person believing they are doing what they have been encouraged to do.

by **EmeraldBullet** » Thu Jul 07, 2016 1:51 pm

Ok, first of all, in your examples coercion was involved, sure I agree if future DEMANDED someone do something to RW then he should be held responsible. However, if some crazed fan did something, and has never met future or communicated with him, I don't see how future could or should be implicated.

Also, as a side note, I don't like Future or his music, and I really don't like was he's saying with regards to RW.

by **HumanCockroach** » Thu Jul 07, 2016 2:01 pm

EmeraldBullet wrote:Ok, first of all, in your examples coercion was involved, sure I agree if future DEMANDED someone do something to RW then he should be held responsible. However, if some crazed fan did something, and has never met future or communicated with him, I don't see how future could or should be implicated.

Also, as a side note, I don't like Future or his music, and I really don't like was he's saying with regards to RW.

What coercion was involved in any of the examples I listed? If the premise is ultimately every individual is responsible for their own actions, then when someone says kill that person, and they do, the killer is responsible for their actions, and only the killer. Granted, Many of those aren't of their "right mind", but are you claiming someone acting on a tweet or song lyrics from Future would be? Ultimately, it seems Future is trolling for an unstable asshat to carry out what he isn't going to do ( because he IS in his right mind).

I agree with the thought that everyone has a choice, and those carrying out the crimes for those listed did as well ( believe me I picked those at random, there's thousands of more), there's always a choice, pretending like there isn't isn't realistic. However, people that aren't rational, sometimes aren't capable of making those choices intelligently. Future in essence is fishing for someone incapable of making a rational choice in a pretty large scale.

by **EmeraldBullet** » Thu Jul 07, 2016 2:30 pm

Maybe I don't understand the severity of the comments future has made? Can someone quote the threats?

HC, you really don't believe that manson or capone didn't use coercion?

by **Hawktawk** » Thu Jul 07, 2016 3:50 pm

EmeraldBullet wrote:Maybe I don't understand the severity of the comments future has made? Can someone quote the threats?

HC, you really don't believe that manson or capone didn't use coercion?

EB theres a link near the top. Future basically says "you tryin to "F### my babys mama Im gonna bust a cap rollin up on ya, or some such nonsense. Its a clear inference to Wilson being killed in a drive by shooting. He also posted emoji s of guns pointing at footballs in social tweets with Ciara.

I guess I know the law but we don't live in the same world or the same America where these laws were made.In the era of social instant media and In a day and age where the average inner city cesspool sees more death than Afghanistan from gang violence on a given weekend then its time to make some changes.We should pursue gangs and gun violence with the same fervor as ISIS.

Or we can cling to our interpretation of the 1st and 2nd amendment until they are completely removed, OK. If you provably threaten someone you should be contacted by law enforcement. You should have to surrender your weapons while the matter is resolved, period.

by **HumanCockroach** » Thu Jul 07, 2016 8:23 pm

EmeraldBullet wrote:Maybe I don't understand the severity of the comments future has made? Can someone quote the threats?

HC, you really don't believe that manson or capone didn't use coercion?

Manson I don't believe did, his followers followed him because they believed him the messiah, Capone I guess is up for debate, you could refuse him, but there was a high probability you would find yourself with a pair of concrete boots. Regardless, I believed your point was that ultimately everyone is responsible for their own actions, which I do agree with, that said, that includes those with or without coercion. Anyone can choose to refuse anyone at any time.

My point was really just that it only takes ONE unstable person, just one to turn air into action, and Future is casting that air mighty broad.

by **burrrton** » Thu Jul 07, 2016 8:32 pm

HumanCockroach wrote:Unfortunately, encouraging violence against one person isn't a crime until the crime is committed ( which IMHO pretty stupid) it's different if one is inciting mass violence for some reason, but in this instance if some wanna be gansta' decided to act on Futures stupidity, he would be the principle, and Future could be tried under the law for encouraging the act ( and even recieve the same sentence) though it is doubtful in my mind they would ( some artistic expression BS, though the tweets wouldn't fall into that category, it would fall under freedom of speech).

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm not sure that's how it would go down in that instance- isn't there language (at least in judicial interpretation) that the violence has to be a *direct* result of the offending speech, and "direct" as in "Go kill that person now", not "Boy, I wish that guy was dead"?

by **obiken** » Fri Jul 08, 2016 12:17 am

This marriage is a joke, he is such a good guy deserved better. She is a vampire.

by **HumanCockroach** » Fri Jul 08, 2016 10:32 am

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... se-offence

by **HumanCockroach** » Fri Jul 08, 2016 10:33 am

obiken wrote:This marriage is a joke, he is such a good guy deserved better. She is a vampire.

Say what? What are you basing that assessment on?

by **burrrton** » Fri Jul 08, 2016 11:03 am

HumanCockroach wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/14/kill-guilty-murder-supreme-court-law-joint-enterprise-offence

Exactly what I was saying, right (even though that's the UK)?

by **HumanCockroach** » Fri Jul 08, 2016 11:35 am

Definitely murky. Like I said, it seems to me like Future is casting a huge net hoping someone is unstable enough to act on his innuendos and words. Ultimately, if something did happen, I don't see how anyone could prosecute him ( which is probably something he took into account to be honest), though personally I would hold him responsible.

Here's hoping that he doesn't find his moron.

by **c_hawkbob** » Fri Jul 08, 2016 11:55 am

EmeraldBullet wrote:Horse SH!T! You are only responsible for YOUR OWN actions. You have no control over what someone else does, or even how they will react to whatever you say.

Sure, that's why Manson has spent his life behind bars even though he never actually killed anyone.

*edit: and reading further, I see you back-peddled to disinclude coercion as an example of what one says having a measure of control over what someone else does ... how does that work exactly? Coercion is still quite exactly what one person says having that control you claimed doesn't exist over what another person does. Next time before you blow up at someone, make clear exactly what you're trying to say.

by **Hawktawk** » Fri Jul 08, 2016 12:24 pm

obiken wrote:This marriage is a joke, he is such a good guy deserved better. She is a vampire.

Yeah well Ashton getting down with Tate probably wasn't too cool either.
I wish them well.They are a celebrity power couple.
Marrying Giselle hasn't hurt Brady

by **RiverDog** » Fri Jul 08, 2016 3:44 pm

EmeraldBullet wrote:Horse SH!T! You are only responsible for YOUR OWN actions. You have no control over what someone else does, or even how they will react to whatever you say.

Yes, we are all responsible for our own actions. But that doesn't mean that we're the only ones that can be held accountable for our actions. CBob's example of Charles Manson is a perfect example. He wasn't even at the scene of the crimes yet he was (rightfully IMO) convicted of first degree murder.

If that guy Future goes around shooting his mouth off, whether in music lyrics or whatever, and someone decides to take his words to heart and goes out and commits an act, you damn right that he could be held accountable, although admittedly, it might be difficult to prove.

by **Hawktawk** » Fri Jul 08, 2016 4:03 pm

hes already being sued in civil court over it so Ciaras Lawyer must think there is some traction. Would he really be that stupid? If you look at the amount of shootings in the rap industry I certainly wouldn't rule it out.
Russ better keep his head on a swivel. Hes pretty good at that playing behind our line

.

Id get some nice sturdy window glass etc for my rig if I had his amount of dough as well.

by **EmeraldBullet** » Fri Jul 08, 2016 7:41 pm

"Sure, that's why Manson has spent his life behind bars even though he never actually killed anyone.

*edit: and reading further, I see you back-peddled to disinclude coercion as an example of what one says having a measure of control over what someone else does ... how does that work exactly? Coercion is still quite exactly what one person says having that control you claimed doesn't exist over what another person does. Next time before you blow up at someone, make clear exactly what you're trying to say."

Coercion means you are taking away someone else's free will to make the decision for themselves, you are forcing them to do it, that's the very definition of coercion. I didn't back peddle, I did clarify I suppose. I also didn't blow up at you, though I did cuss. I enjoy sailing and sometimes I talk like a sailor, I didn't mean to display anger or anything. Guess I though this forum was more lighthearted and casual than that.

by **HumanCockroach** » Fri Jul 08, 2016 10:23 pm

No one can " take away someones free will" it simply isn't possible. Someone can make someone make a choice, one they don't like, but they can't "make them" do sh#t.

by **EmeraldBullet** » Sat Jul 09, 2016 6:18 pm

HumanCockroach wrote:No one can " take away someones free will" it simply isn't possible. Someone can make someone make a choice, one they don't like, but they can't "make them" do sh#t.

I understand what you are saying but I disagree. If someone forces you to make a choice, and either choice you make is against your free volition, then they have in effect made you do something.

by **HumanCockroach** » Sat Jul 09, 2016 6:55 pm

Sorry, I completely disagree, even if the two choices are against your volition it's still "your choice". Ultimately, we all decide what we are going to do, by saying that, I don't mean that the choices are fair, just or regular human nature, but in the end it is a choice each of us would get to make ( ie. Someone holding a gun to my head and telling me either kill that guy or die. Still my choice who dies, and whether it's me doing the killing. Sh#tty choice, but still mine to make.).

Edit: I guess I WOULD agree in a circumstance with a child ( like a drunk parent forcing them to get in a car with them, or a kid napper forcing them physically to do something etc).

by **burrrton** » Sat Jul 09, 2016 9:25 pm

I hate to wade into elementary philosophical discussions, and I don't know if this applies to whatever's being discussed, but if someone tells you to "choose" whether you want your wife or your child to be killed (or whatever), saying a name doesn't mean you "chose" to have one of them killed.

C'mon. This isn't 5th grade.

by **HumanCockroach** » Sun Jul 10, 2016 1:13 am

Once again, they can't dictate the outcome. Even with a completely f'ld up choice like that, you don't have to make the choice, you can indeed refuse to answer, ultimately, you are making a choice ( or in other words exerting what small amount of "free will" is left you).

The discussion was based on the thought that someone can take your free will, and in no circumstance I could forsee would someone be able to remove ALL of your options. It might be F'ld up, with no possible good outcome ( ie not choosing probably results in both dying, or you dying, or dying after watching them both die etc) but even in that unrealistic scenario, you still have the ability to exert some form of free will, it's bad in all ways, but removal completely? Nope.

by **HumanCockroach** » Sun Jul 10, 2016 1:16 am

burrrton wrote:I hate to wade into elementary philosophical discussions, and I don't know if this applies to whatever's being discussed, but if someone tells you to "choose" whether you want your wife or your child to be killed (or whatever), saying a name doesn't mean you "chose" to have one of them killed.

C'mon. This isn't 5th grade.

And yet you had zero issues, wading in, and then insulting us. Nicely done.

HawkShack.com

Who is online