Man caught on video attacking pro-life protesters gets slap on wrist by judge

[Allan]

And did anyone else hear said claimed racial insults.

This is why the judge's sentencing decision would be nice to read. How much weight if any did he give testimony regarding a racial slur allegation.

 

[Cosmo]

And did anyone else hear said claimed racial insults.

I await his detailed, well-substantiated, and critically thought out masterclass response with trepidation!

 

[Gordy327]

I can think of plenty of logical reasons to restrict abortion, but that's my point. Abortion isn't a "medical" or "legal" issue, it is purely a political issue. Rights exist under the shadow of the state, they're not real physical entities floating out in the ether somewhere.

Politics injected itself into abortion. Thats the problem. Abortion itself is a medical procedure and it involves women's rights and autonomy under the law. But go ahead and specify these "logical reasons." You'd be the first to do so, if successful. Not sure how you can reconcile the whole personhood thing grounded in the Constitution and federal law.

Morally and logically speaking, both sides have a fair argument about abortion and, in a society that favors individual rights, you're eventually going to reach an impasse where morals and logic will not negotiate the hurdle. At that point, it becomes a political issue where you wield the power of the state to determine what is best for the people you are governing.

Morality is subjective and cannot or should not be legislated. If society favors individual rights, as ours supposedly does, there is no basis to restrict abortion woman's individual rights and autonomy. Abortion restrictions are not and have been demonstrated to not be in the best interests of the pregnant woman.

 

[Gordy327]

It is my understanding that the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

So, the "right to life" is not there. Got it. Btw, rights apply to persons, not to non-persons.

 

[Allan]

Its in #1 and quoted.

What was the "perceived" slur?

 

[JMB1911A1]

This is why the judge's sentencing decision would be nice to read. How much weight if any did he give testimony regarding a racial slur allegation.

A 28 year old beat a 73 year old and an 84 year old unconscious.

 

[iliveonramen]

I'm betting the poster's knowledge of fighting words and how they apply here is limited to spotting an MSM blurb and parroting excuses to defend this highly violent leftist.

I'm betting you'd be wrong on all accounts

 

[Gatsby]

My opinion on the video which I didn't watch and on the article which I didn't read, is that celebrating the Confederacy is bad and slavery is bad.

 

[Allan]

A 28 year old beat a 73 year old and an 84 year old unconscious.

I'm a senior. If I walk up to a 28 year old black man and call him the ''N" word I'm probably going to get knocked out.

That's why more details on the sentencing decision would be helpful.

You and @VySky are condoning vigilante violence and death to the perp so you're not one to talk.

 

[Gozaburo]

Politics injected itself into abortion. Thats the problem. Abortion itself is a medical procedure and it involves women's rights and autonomy under the law. But go ahead and specify these "logical reasons." You'd be the first to do so, if successful. Not sure how you can reconcile the whole personhood thing grounded in the Constitution and federal law.

Women's rights and autonomy is in conflict with the rights and individual autonomy of the human fetus she's carrying, that's my point. There are valid moral and logical arguments on both sides, whether you choose one over the other is simply a matter of taste, which is why the argument cannot be resolved with moral and logical arguments.

Morality is subjective and cannot or should not be legislated. If society favors individual rights, as ours supposedly does, there is no basis to restrict abortion woman's individual rights and autonomy. Abortion restrictions are not and have been demonstrated to not be in the best interests of the pregnant woman.

I'm not disagreeing with you man, you present a convincing argument for women's bodily autonomy. I'm just telling you that - in strict moral and logical terms - the argument for the individuality of the fetus is as convincing in a liberal society that takes a maximalist approach to individual rights. That's why this is a political issue, meaning that we have to make a decision using the power of the state one way or another based on what is best for society. Neither the pro-choice or pro-life position is "more moral" or "more logical", that's an absurd way to view the problem.

 

[Binary_Digit]

I'd go with this . Triggered by hate speech, a reaction. But still inexcusable.

OTOH, he is being taken off the streets, removed from the public, and from being a further threat. Do we need another body in prison to pay our tax dollars for? To most likely create a worse criminal, or at least end up with a person less able to contribute to society?

The way I see it, throwing people into cages like animals is for when they've acted like animals. I think this guy did, so I think he should spend some time in a cage.

 

[Bok Tuklo]

Women's rights and autonomy is in conflict with the rights and individual autonomy of the human fetus she's carrying, that's my point. There are valid moral and logical arguments on both sides, whether you choose one over the other is simply a matter of taste, which is why the argument cannot be resolved with moral and logical arguments.



I'm not disagreeing with you man, you present a convincing argument for women's bodily autonomy. I'm just telling you that - in strict moral and logical terms - the argument for the individuality of the fetus is as convincing in a liberal society that takes a maximalist approach to individual rights. That's why this is a political issue, meaning that we have to make a decision using the power of the state one way or another based on what is best for society. Neither the pro-choice or pro-life position is "more moral" or "more logical", that's an absurd way to view the problem.

You can't talk to Americans like that; like they are adults.

 

[Gordy327]

Women's rights and autonomy is in conflict with the rights and individual autonomy of the human fetus she's carrying, that's my point.

Then your point is invalid and your argument fails. The fetus does not have any rights or autonomy. That is both constitutionally and federally based and supported. As such there is no conflict of rights until someone tries to deprive a woman of hers. However, even if the fetus did have rights, there's still the issue of it occupying and uilizing a woman's body and bodily resources. Legal precedent has established no one can be compelled to have their body or bodily resources used to support our benefit another without consent.

 

[Lursa]

The way I see it, throwing people into cages like animals is for when they've acted like animals. I think this guy did, so I think he should spend some time in a cage.

I'm looking bigger picture, rather than vengeance. He's likely to come out more dangerous and his chances of employment, contributing positively to society, impacts of immersion in violence and dysfunction, etc are reduced. Plus the taxpayer savings I mentioned.

 

[Bok Tuklo]

Then your point is invalid and your argument fails. The fetus does not have any rights or autonomy.

It has been a while since I have read the Dred Scott decision. This post reminds of it and I think I will do so tonight.

 

[JMB1911A1]

I'm a senior. If I walk up to a 28 year old black man and call him the ''N" word I'm probably going to get knocked out.

That is OK with you?

That's why more details on the sentencing decision would be helpful.

You and @VySky are condoning vigilante violence and death to the perp so you're not one to talk.

BREAKING: Jury Finds Patrick Brice Guilty on Four Charges in Brutal Assault of Pro-Life Advocates | American Center for Law and Justice

In a significant legal development, a jury has found 27-year-old Patrick Brice guilty on four charges related to his violent assault on two elderly pro-life advocates (including our client) outside a Baltimore Planned Parenthood clinic. The prosecution of this case and ensuing conviction are . . .

aclj.org

Brice was convicted of two cases of second degree assault and two cases of reckless endangerment. In the state of MD, second-degree assault charges carries up to 10 years in prison.

The judge sentenced him to one year on home detention — plus three years’ probation.

He beat two men over twice his age into unconsciousness.

Do you think the judges’s sentence was fair?

Here is some data on sentencing for second degree assault in MD.

https://msccsp.org/Files/Sentencing_Snapshot/Issue2.pdf

45% serve a year or less. Only 9% receive probation (however that is 80% for first offenders). Of course, this was multiple charges and elderly victims. Brice should be doing a year in prison, not home confinement.

 

[Gordy327]

It has been a while since I have read the Dred Scott decision. This post reminds of it and I think I will do so tonight.

Whatever. It doesn't change the facts I presented. Neither is it relevant to the abortion issue.

 

[Cosmo]

I'm betting you'd be wrong on all accounts

Then go ahead and post what was said.

I won't hold my breath.

 

[Gozaburo]

Then your point is invalid and your argument fails. The fetus does not have any rights or autonomy. That is both constitutionally and federally based and supported. As such there is no conflict of rights until someone tries to deprive a woman of hers. However, even if the fetus did have rights, there's still the issue of it occupying and uilizing a woman's body and bodily resources. Legal precedent has established no one can be compelled to have their body or bodily resources used to support our benefit another without consent.

So what you're outlining here is a political solution, although you're relying pretty heavily on this nebulous entity called "rights" which we've established are abstract and not real, but obviously very helpful in manufacturing consent in a liberal nation. You don't seem to recognize that you're arbitrarily dismissing the individual rights of the fetus in favor of the woman - which I concede for many reasons is compelling - but I don't agree that this argument is morally, logically, and rationally superior (nor is it inferior) to the idea that the fetus' rights should be superior to the woman's rights, hence the need for a political solution.

 

[iliveonramen]

Then go ahead and post what was said.

I won't hold my breath.

What point does this comment prove? That I don't have access to court records?

 

[Lursa]

So what you're outlining here is a political solution, although you're relying pretty heavily on this nebulous entity called "rights" which we've established are abstract and not real, but obviously very helpful in manufacturing consent in a liberal nation. You don't seem to recognize that you're arbitrarily dismissing the individual rights of the fetus in favor of the woman - which I concede for many reasons is compelling - but I don't agree that this argument is morally, logically, and rationally superior (nor is it inferior) to the idea that the fetus' rights should be superior to the woman's rights, hence the need for a political solution.

If we dont implement a "political solution", what do you recommend?

(btw, you are correct on rights on all counts except that within your own descriptions...the unborn have no rights recognized. The nation has chosen to codify those rights, man-made and abstract, etc., which makes their protection "real." )

 

[Gordy327]

So what you're outlining here is a political solution, although you're relying pretty heavily on this nebulous entity called "rights" which we've established are abstract and not real, but obviously very helpful in manufacturing consent in a liberal nation. You don't seem to recognize that you're arbitrarily dismissing the individual rights of the fetus in favor of the woman - which I concede for many reasons is compelling - but I don't agree that this argument is morally, logically, and rationally superior (nor is it inferior) to the idea that the fetus' rights should be superior to the woman's rights, hence the need for a political solution.

There are no fetal rights to begin with. A fetus is not a legal person with rights. You dont seem to understand that.

 

[Gozaburo]

If we dont implement a "political solution", what do you recommend?

There's no such thing as not implementing a political solution here. Either abortion is legal or it is not. My point is: whether or not abortion is legal does not determine if our society is more moral, logical, or rational.

There are no fetal rights to begin with. A fetus is not a legal person with rights. You dont seem to understand that.

This is your opinion. Many people disagree with you and have compelling reasons for that disagreement. You don't seem to understand how liberal societies are supposed to work.

 

[Cosmo]

What point does this comment prove? That I don't have access to court records?

So basically you're talking about a figment of your imagination.

 

[ElChupacabra]

You get the impression that a lot of people on this board can see themselves in the shoes of the guys beat up. Yelling racial slurs at someone and shocked they got whooped.

What doesn't change is it doesn't grant someone the right to assault someone. Clearly the man who was assaulted must have said something very offensive, but charging anyone like that for something they said isn't going to fly. What doesn't help him is he then kicked the person who came at him after they were down.