+- Hack Forums (https://hackforums.net)
+-- Forum: Hacks, Exploits, and Various Discussions (https://hackforums.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=45)
+--- Forum: Grayhat • Purple Team • Hybrid Security (https://hackforums.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=449)
+---- Forum: Beginner Hacking (https://hackforums.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+---- Thread: How to find out a phone number if it calls from being a private number (/showthread.php?tid=5738253)
Pages: Pages
1
2
How to find out a phone number if it calls from being a private number - XeX Jynx - Oct 16, 2017
i have someone that keeps calling 18-20 times a day threating me from a private number, i need to know if theres a way i can find his number out when he calls me from a blocked number?
* - Charger - Oct 16, 2017
Use TrapCaller. It’s paid but it’s worth it.
* - XeX Jynx - Oct 16, 2017
not paying $14 for an app when i know where the dude lives i just need his cell number
* - Michael Jensch - Oct 16, 2017
(Oct 16, 2017 10:59 AM)XeX Jynx Wrote: not paying $14 for an app when i know where the dude lives i just need his cell number
Go beat his ass, men, bring a knife and if the men says that you were tryna kill him say it was all under terms of self defense (assumes he brings out a pistol or weapon or tries to attack you).
* - Lord - Oct 16, 2017
(Oct 16, 2017 11:01 AM)Michael Jensch Wrote: Go beat his ass, men, bring a knife and if the men says that you were tryna kill him say it was all under terms of self defense (assumes he brings out a pistol or weapon or tries to attack you).
You're an idiot. How are you gonna plead self defense when you're armed and on his property?
* - XeX Jynx - Oct 16, 2017
I have my Concealed carry, its just annoying getting 20 phones calls a day lol
* - Michael Jensch - Oct 16, 2017
(Oct 16, 2017 11:03 AM)That One Random Wrote: You're an idiot. How are you gonna plead self defense when you're armed and on his property?
Take 2 minutes to think about how it'd work before responding, men 👍
* - Lord - Oct 16, 2017
(Oct 16, 2017 11:04 AM)XeX Jynx Wrote: I have my Concealed carry, its just annoying getting 20 phones calls a day lol
I'm fairly certain phone providers have the option to block blocked calls.
If yours doesn't I do believe there are apps that automatically deny blocked numbers and such.
Having a carry permit doesn't mean shit if you go to his property and shove it down his throat. You'd get charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and depending on how far you go you may also get with intent to kill. Do you really want a felony on your record? As well as losing your carry permit?
(Oct 16, 2017 11:04 AM)Michael Jensch Wrote: Take 2 minutes to think about how it'd work before responding, men 👍
The problem there is I know exactly how it works, men. 👍
* - Michael Jensch - Oct 16, 2017
(Oct 16, 2017 11:06 AM)That One Random Wrote: The problem there is I know exactly how it works, men. 👍
Nah, you don't know anything. You quoted me with a completely disillusioned map of how it'd work; you didn't provide anything beyond insults and pathetic explanation...
men 👍
* - Lord - Oct 16, 2017
(Oct 16, 2017 11:09 AM)Michael Jensch Wrote: Nah, you don't know anything. You quoted me with a completely disillusioned map of how it'd work; you didn't provide anything beyond insults and pathetic explanation...
men 👍
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and assume you're on some heavy drugs.
How could you possibly think that you could legally get away with bringing a gun to someone's house and threatening them?
* - Mastor - Oct 16, 2017
(Oct 16, 2017 11:09 AM)Michael Jensch Wrote: Nah, you don't know anything. You quoted me with a completely disillusioned map of how it'd work; you didn't provide anything beyond insults and pathetic explanation...
men 👍
Why are you arguing with someone of HF?
That One Random knows EXACTLY what he's talking about.
If you have a "concealed carry" that doesn't put you above the law.
"Disillusioned" is an understatement about how you think you know it all G.
You can't win that argument, nor this one.
(Oct 16, 2017 11:11 AM)That One Random Wrote: I'm gonna go out on a limb here and assume you're on some heavy drugs.
How could you possibly think that you could legally get away with bringing a gun to someone's house and threatening them?
Don't waste your time on someone like that man. You're giving him exactly what he so desires.... attention.
Anyways, he's not above the law, but as for whether or not he knows... Who knows?
You won that argument tho.
* - Michael Jensch - Oct 16, 2017
(Oct 16, 2017 11:11 AM)That One Random Wrote: I'm gonna go out on a limb here and assume you're on some heavy drugs.
How could you possibly think that you could legally get away with bringing a gun to someone's house and threatening them?
See, men, it wasn't that hard to show what bit you're wrong on 👍
Allow me to display a stack traceback of what post went wrong and why:
Quote:Go beat his ass, men, bring a knife and if the men says that you were tryna kill him say it was all under terms of self defense (assumes he brings out a pistol or weapon or tries to attack you).
1) 'legally get away with bringing a gun', nene I didn't say to bring a gun 👍
2) the parenthesized bit is important, men, it includes additional, yet relevant information; yes men? The parenthesized bit indicates that the previous clause is purely relevant on regards to whether the pursuee does something illegal (in this case, the general law is categorized as a law that allows for protection under self protection for the pursuer)
Quote:You're an idiot. How are you gonna plead self defense when you're armed and on his property?
1) no need for the insult, English comprehension should always take (1/2)t (where t is time with respect to the x-axis, meaning longitudinality is relative to speed).
1a) in layman's terms, you should've taken a bit longer to read and have put a bit more thought into posting.
2) yet again you missed what I said in regards to the parenthesized clause, it all indicates that the concurring should be abode when the interlocutor has surpassed legality of a law which indicates allowance for self defense to be put into the question.
...
n+1) the rest of what you said is incorrect based off the leading points.
So, men, let me put what I said into different yet relative terms.
"Go to his house, confront him and do whatever you want to possibly (intentionally) incur a violent reaction for-which you could utilize your legal license to carry and pull out your fire-arm and unload assuming sufficient measures."
And another latter addition would be:
"If nothing aggressive happens and all is concluded (albeit not peacefully, thenceforth proceed to [ref. 1]) you should have solved your issue. [ref. 1]-- you can call the authorities to deal with the situation as it falls under cyber-harassment"
men 👍
EDIT:
If your next post is going to be speaking out of your ass without a single word in thought that's been inscribed, I would suggest adding a request-for-clarification opposed to making yourself look like more of an idiot 👍
* - Lord - Oct 16, 2017
(Oct 16, 2017 11:24 AM)Michael Jensch Wrote: See, men, it wasn't that hard to show what bit you're wrong on 👍
Allow me to display a stack traceback of what post went wrong and why:
1) 'legally get away with bringing a gun', nene I didn't say to bring a gun 👍
2) the parenthesized bit is important, men, it includes additional, yet relevant information; yes men? The parenthesized bit indicates that the previous clause is purely relevant on regards to whether the pursuee does something illegal (in this case, the general law is categorized as a law that allows for protection under self protection for the pursuer)
1) no need for the insult, English comprehension should always take (1/2)t (where t is time with respect to the x-axis, meaning longitudinality is relative to speed).
1a) in layman's terms, you should've taken a bit longer to read and have put a bit more thought into posting.
2) yet again you missed what I said in regards to the parenthesized clause, it all indicates that the concurring should be abode when the interlocutor has surpassed legality of a law which indicates allowance for self defense to be put into the question.
...
n+1) the rest of what you said is incorrect based off the leading points.
So, men, let me put what I said into different yet relative terms.
"Go to his house, confront him and do whatever you want to possibly (intentionally) incur a violent reaction for-which you could utilize your legal license to carry and pull out your fire-arm and unload assuming sufficient measures."
And another latter addition would be:
"If nothing aggressive happens and all is concluded (albeit not peacefully, thenceforth proceed to [ref. 1]) you should have solved your issue. [ref. 1]-- you can call the authorities to deal with the situation as it falls under cyber-harassment"
men 👍
EDIT:
If your next post is going to be speaking out of your ass without a single word in thought that's been inscribed, I would suggest adding a request-for-clarification opposed to making yourself look like more of an idiot 👍
Okay my bad I got gun stuck in my head because OP mentioned a carry permit.
Either way bringing a weapon to someone's property with the intent to cause bodily harm to them would not end well for you. Now if they attack you first then that would be a different story, but that would be crazy hard to prove in court. The long or the short of it is, if you end up on someone's property with a weapon and they end up harmed it's gonna be a bitch for you to prove self defense. Even if they attack first they will plea self defense and say you did and chances are they will side with him due to the fact that you were on his property.
If you're gonna follow this route I suggest recording the incident or having one or two witnesses.
* - Michael Jensch - Oct 16, 2017
(Oct 16, 2017 11:36 AM)That One Random Wrote: Okay my bad I got it mixed up and somehow stuck in my head that you said gun, not knife.
Either way bringing a weapon to someone's property with the intent to cause bodily harm to them would not end well for you. Now if they attack you first then that would be a different story, but that would be crazy hard to prove in court. The long or the short of it is, if you end up on someone's property with a weapon and they end up harmed it's gonna be a bitch for you to prove self defense. Even if they attack first they will plea self defense and say you did and chances are they will side with him due to the fact that you were on his property.
If you're gonna follow this route I suggest recording the incident or having one or two witnesses.
As I said and clarified, there was no intent to harm- there was an implicit (not intentionally recognized nor acknowledged) ability to protect one's self falling under the jurisdiction of self defense.
I'll try to minimize my hyperbolic English and put it in simpler terms:
Note: afore confronting the person, you should wear a piece of technology that can record and provide clear proof of the conversation, as this could be used in the court (if necessary).
1) You go to the person's house with a weapon, absolutely with no intent to harm at first. Not maliciously, not if the judge asks.
2) You knock on the door and have a chat with the person to stop the calls or face legal repercussions, either this takes path 2a-- meaning they reject or path 2b-- meaning they accept the terms. Or lastly, 2c, which'd show aggression and need for self-defense.
2a) You can call for legal repercussions with proof of call logs and audial proof (being them saying harassing things) under the possible motive to harm; cause being of biased cause relating to the background between OP and the person. What law this could fall under is cyber-harassment.
2b) You go on with your life, if he does it again you can go straight to the authorities without a second-hand warning as one was given in prior which could be used to apply more basis to your case.
2c) You can use that weapon you carried, assuming the aggression perceived from the person is enough to warrant self-defense. Simply escape, you'll have it either on video or audio- regardless you should either have wounds or proof that the person was trying to attack you which puts them in a legal-checkmate as they've broken one possible law and definitely broken another law, that being assault.
Fairly simple.
* - Charger - Oct 16, 2017
(Oct 16, 2017 11:01 AM)Michael Jensch Wrote: Go beat his ass, men, bring a knife and if the men says that you were tryna kill him say it was all under terms of self defense (assumes he brings out a pistol or weapon or tries to attack you).
Wrong if it's a Castle Doctrine State. I can murder 4 of your family members and if you step on my property with a weapon drawn I can legally kill you.