this post was submitted on 24 Feb 2026
95 points (83.2% liked)

interestingasfuck

9356 readers
29 users here now

For exceptionally interesting content

Rules:

  1. Posts must be interesting
  2. Posts must be based in reality
  3. No hateful content
  4. No harmful content
  5. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
all 15 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ThePantser@sh.itjust.works 52 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The fact you have to censor the name of a crime is fucking stupid.

[–] cerebralhawks@lemmy.dbzer0.com 24 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It’s to get around word filters. People who are traumatized set up these filters so they don’t get triggered. The stars get around that.

It’s not stupid. It’s people being mean.

What’s stupid is, a screenshot (image of text) wouldn’t be filtered anyway.

[–] rumschlumpel@feddit.org 41 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Do these registries even list the crime they committed, or did he just not know whether he was hammering child rapists or people who peed in public?

[–] VerilyFemme@lemmy.blahaj.zone 16 points 4 months ago

I've always wondered that about this story.

Did he go for 100% sleazeball child rapists, or was it just a random selection off the sex offender registry?

Because there are a lot of different ways to end up on that list.

[–] Tattorack@lemmy.world 26 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] hex123456@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 months ago
[–] Mac@mander.xyz 9 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (3 children)

I don't think vigilante justice is acceptable, but i do find it unacceptable that vigilantes get locked up while criminals go free.

[–] FatVegan@leminal.space 36 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I mean sure, but people are often wrong. Maybe some other dude is home, maybe it's the wrong house. Maybe someone is on a sex offender list because at some point they were 18 while their girlfriend was 17, Peed in public and someone saw it. Whatever the fuck.

[–] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

One would hope hammer man also does supplementary research

[–] FatVegan@leminal.space 7 points 4 months ago

Probably more than the police. But still

[–] IWW4@lemmy.zip 17 points 4 months ago

This guy is a criminal.

[–] Iconoclast@feddit.uk 15 points 4 months ago (1 children)

If there's even a hint of doubt, I'd rather let someone guilty walk free than put an innocent person in jail.

[–] Mac@mander.xyz 4 points 4 months ago

Yes, but there are a lot of known criminals sleeping comfy in their lofts and mansions.

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 5 points 4 months ago

To answer what everybody's asking, here's the least bad one:

Barbosa was convicted of a charge brought in 2014 of possession of child pornography, according to the sex-offender registry.

So you know... get hacked, get smashed with a hammer 12 years later.