this post was submitted on 24 Feb 2026
77 points (82.9% liked)

interestingasfuck

9131 readers
120 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
all 15 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ThePantser@sh.itjust.works 45 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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

[–] cerebralhawks@lemmy.dbzer0.com 19 points 1 month 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 33 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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

[–] VerilyFemme@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 points 1 month 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 22 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] hex123456@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago
[–] Mac@mander.xyz 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month 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 31 points 1 month 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 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

One would hope hammer man also does supplementary research

[–] FatVegan@leminal.space 3 points 1 month ago

Probably more than the police. But still

[–] Iconoclast@feddit.uk 15 points 1 month 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 2 points 1 month ago

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

[–] IWW4@lemmy.zip 13 points 1 month ago

This guy is a criminal.

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 month 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.