> “Spammed this at [victim] let’s see if he dies,”

Seizures can kill and this is widely known, so widely that we got instruction in high school on how to deal with a seizure victim to make sure they don't die.

Surely someone sending a seizure inducing picture to someone they know is prone to seizures is well aware of the risk they are taking, they are definitely not doing it to give them a monitor induced suntan. See perps quote above, definitely a slam dunk for intent.

Griefers don't care about the damage they cause, the more the merrier.

That quote sounds like common smack-talk rather than a genuine statement of intent. I think you could hang "intent to do the victim harm" on the combination of that and the actions here. But, actual intent to cause death? I'd want to see much more than mention of dying - "do that and I'll kill you" or "I hope you die", or similar, must have been said a trillion times in situations where actual death was _not_ intended.

12 angry men.

Sorry, I don't understand the implication of your reference?

And I totally missed your reply. Apologies. It's a reference to an old movie that explores that kind of situation leading to an acquittal.

That's not hyperbole, it's just the wording directly out of the law they're charging him under:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2261A

And in full context it says:

… engages in conduct that—

…

(2) with the intent to kill, injure, harass, intimidate, or place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate another person, uses the mail, any interactive computer service or electronic communication service or electronic communication system of interstate commerce, or any other facility of interstate or foreign commerce to engage in a course of conduct that—

__(A) places that person in reasonable fear of the death of or serious bodily injury to a person described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of paragraph (1)(A); or

__(B) causes, attempts to cause, or would be reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress to a person described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of paragraph (1)(A),

So they're not trying to prove "intent to kill". They only need to prove "intent to intimidate anther person" using an "electronic communication system of interstate commerce" that either for (A) "places that person in reasonable fear of … serious bodily injury", or for (B) "would be reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress".

Seems to me they've laid out all the evidence needed to show that - the only thing a court needs to decide is if that evidence is all true and admissible.

I wouldn't want to be the defendant here.

That was my first thought too. After reading the document, it's pretty clear he acted with intent. He visited websites to figure out how to make images that trigger seizures, clearly created the gif for maximum impact and chance of a seizure, which he knows could be fatal. It was planned and well thought out.

Page 7 there are some DMs. "Spammed this at [Victim#1] lets see if he dies".

While his own DMs might be construed to be hyperbolic, he's done himself no favours there at all, and his defense attorney is going to have the fun task of trying to prove that.

The clauses aren't as strict. The criteria's merely intent to induce fear/distress.

> whoever (2) with the intent to kill, injure, harass, intimidate[...] or intimidate another person[...] in a course of conduct that—

> (A) places that person in reasonable fear of the death of or serious bodily injury to a person described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of paragraph (1)(A); or

> (B) causes, attempts to cause, or would be reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress to a person described in clause (i), (ii), or (iii) of paragraph (1)(A),

> shall be punished as provided... [0]

[0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2261A

What the statute says[1] is "the intent to kill, injure, harass, intimidate, OR place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate another person."

The affidavit in the complaint does say "AND" but maybe that's just a calculated legal ploy, where they can still fall back on the "OR" of the actual statute?

1: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2261A

Status epileptics can definitely be fatal. Epileptics are at serious risk of death from seizures or seizure-related injury so I would not be so dismissive of the risk.

See page 7 of the affadavit. The perpetrator sent a series of direct messages to another Twitter user stating:

> I hope this sends him into a seizure

> Spammed this at [Mr. Eichenwald] let's see if he dies

> I know he has epilepsy

So, the intent to harm and/or kill is pretty damn clear.

An 8 minute seizure is really, really bad. That was probably very close to fatal.