mike lee: It's 'Overreach' To Arrest Anti-Abortion Activist For Assaulting Elderly Man Twice

[MrNiceGuy]

Yes yes you would. Se you are the type that would claim a normal conversation as harrassment.

Oh, absolutely not. I'm quite a tolerant person, and I have quote a long fuse. You have no idea what "type" of person I am.

regardless of that you would be wrong. Its called escalation.

It depends, of course, what happened, but in the fact pattern I posited, where a person was in my daughter's face, harassing her in a threatening manner, a shove away is reasonable. Now, if YOUR different fact pattern were true, that it was just a "normal conversation" and I shoved the guy for no reason other than "normal conversation", then you'd be correct, arrest might be warranted.

Your kids space is subjective and naturally you would be arrested.

That depends. Most of life is subjective. But in the situation presented already a cop and a district attorney declined to arrest. That's what we're talking about.

And now we have come full circle as to why this dude was arrested amd thus justified.

Originally, he was not arrested. The subsequent federal thing is political.

And, your comment that he was "arrested and thus justified" is asinine. Being arrested doesn't mean the arrest was justified. What a ridiculous comment.

Will you learn anything from this? No

You couldn't teach me anything, because you obviously don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Plasmaball]

Oh, absolutely not. I'm quite a tolerant person, and I have quote a long fuse. You have no idea what "type" of person I am.

You live in a world of conspiracies. I'd actually staybdar away from you because you can't live in normal reality.

It depends, of course, what happened, but in the fact pattern I posited, where a person was in my daughter's face, harassing her in a threatening manner, a shove away is reasonable. Now, if YOUR different fact pattern were true, that it was just a "normal conversation" and I shoved the guy for no reason other than "normal conversation", then you'd be correct, arrest might be warranted.

Arrest is warranted regardless of the level. You put your hands on someone. End of story. Now what a judge might do or da? That I can't honestly say. They could just dismiss it and give you a verbal for all I know. The arrest would be justified period.

That depends. Most of life is subjective. But in the situation presented already a cop and a district attorney declined to arrest. That's what we're talking about.

Answered above

Originally, he was not arrested. The subsequent federal thing is political.

He should have been.

And, your comment that he was "arrested and thus justified" is asinine. Being arrested doesn't mean the arrest was justified. What a ridiculous comment.

Sure it does. Don't try to broaden the scope now to all arrests. We are just talking about this one. It was justified. It would also be justified if the cops detained him till he cooled off and sent him off with a warning.

You couldn't teach me anything, because you obviously don't know what you're talking about.

Of course I do. Had a cop explain this to me once and I also had a dude arrested for choking me becsuse he couldn't handle my words that I didn't even say to his face.

 

[choiceone]

Since you lump Republicans together with one idiot's action, I'm not sure you really want to discuss anything. Same as when someone lumps all Democrats with one idiot's actions.

Wanna try to back that up with an example?

 

[choiceone]

Oh, absolutely not. I'm quite a tolerant person, and I have quote a long fuse. You have no idea what "type" of person I am.

It depends, of course, what happened, but in the fact pattern I posited, where a person was in my daughter's face, harassing her in a threatening manner, a shove away is reasonable. Now, if YOUR different fact pattern were true, that it was just a "normal conversation" and I shoved the guy for no reason other than "normal conversation", then you'd be correct, arrest might be warranted.

That depends. Most of life is subjective. But in the situation presented already a cop and a district attorney declined to arrest. That's what we're talking about.

Originally, he was not arrested. The subsequent federal thing is political.

And, your comment that he was "arrested and thus justified" is asinine. Being arrested doesn't mean the arrest was justified. What a ridiculous comment.

You couldn't teach me anything, because you obviously don't know what you're talking about.

You could teach me why the cop and district attorney declined to arrest the first time.

I don't like it when younger people physically victimize seniors when the latter are not doing anything wrong. because it's elder abuse. So explain why it's political for the feds to arrest the guy.

 

[Hamish Howl]

It depends, of course, what happened, but in the fact pattern I posited, where a person was in my daughter's face, harassing her in a threatening manner, a shove away is reasonable.

At that point, the dumbass committed two crimes.

1. Assault (in this state it would be aggravated assault, because the victim was elderly.

2. Child endangerment. He started a violent, unpredictable situation with his kid right there. Sounds like CPS needs to swoop on in.

 

[hoopsnake]

I'd like to know what kind of medical attention this guy received. Band aid? I'd also like to know if anything like this ever previously happened to the 30 year escort. Was one of the qualifications for this escort to be a tough guy? I'd bet this guy received and inflicted far more damage than this in his 30 years. So here we go again with the FBI going nuclear on a conservative for next to nothing. Personally, I think this is an extreme overreaction to a push.

 

[holbritter]

Wanna try to back that up with an example?

Not that I was talking to you, but take a look around the forum. You'll find plenty.

 

[choiceone]

What isn't so?

You mean Dr Tiller was never murdered? He's still alive?

You mean the federal laws about protesting in front of clinics don't exist?

Just saying I what I know isn't so, doesn't make what you said true.

Back it up.

What did I post that wasn't true? What do I know that "isn't so?"

Please be specific.

He's telling you by thinking it?

 

[Manc Skipper]

I'd like to know what kind of medical attention this guy received. Band aid? I'd also like to know if anything like this ever previously happened to the 30 year escort. Was one of the qualifications for this escort to be a tough guy? I'd bet this guy received and inflicted far more damage than this in his 30 years. So here we go again with the FBI going nuclear on a conservative for next to nothing. Personally, I think this is an extreme overreaction to a push.

These eighty year old tough guys can be a handful. They know all kinds of old-fashioned curse words!

 

[MrNiceGuy]

You live in a world of conspiracies. I'd actually staybdar away from you because you can't live in normal reality.

I don't, actually. What "conspiracies" do you think I believe in which aren't reasonable?

Arrest is warranted regardless of the level. You put your hands on someone. End of story. Now what a judge might do or da? That I can't honestly say. They could just dismiss it and give you a verbal for all I know. The arrest would be justified period.

That plainly isn't true. Shit, one can shoot someone without being arrested if one is in reasonable fear of imminent great bodily harm or death. Absolutely, one can shove a person where there is reasonable fear that someone is harassing or intimidating my 12 year old kid, getting in their face in a threatening matter. The line is not as black and white as you pretend.

Answered above


He should have been.


Sure it does. Don't try to broaden the scope now to all arrests. We are just talking about this one. It was justified. It would also be justified if the cops detained him till he cooled off and sent him off with a warning.

Just because cops do something doesn't make it "justified." They would be justified in making an arrest if they witnessed or had probable cause to believe that a crime was committed without justification or excuse. If the cop and the DA reviewed the matter, and found that there is reasonable doubt because the shove appeared to be in defense of the 12 year old, then an arrest would not be justified. If they reviewed the matter and determined that there was probable cause to arrest because self defense wasn't an issue, then they would be justified in making the arrest. In this case, a cop and a DA declined to arrest.

Of course I do. Had a cop explain this to me once and I also had a dude arrested for choking me becsuse he couldn't handle my words that I didn't even say to his face.

Clearly that's a different scenario. You were in his face in a threatening manner, it may well have been reasonable for him to defend himself. People don't have to wait to get punched in the face, if they are in reasonable fear of imminent bodily contact or imminent attack. To be justified in using force in self-defense, the threat of harm must be imminent. An imminent threat puts the victim in reasonable fear of immediate physical harm. A verbal threat can be enough to constitute an imminent threat of harm. The legal test is: If a reasonable person in the same situation would have perceived an immediate threat of physical harm, then the use of force is justified. So, reasonableness depends on a lot of facts - what was said, how close the "escort" was to the 12 year old, how loud he was, was he using profanity, did he touch the kid, was he pointing his finger at him, etc., etc. - so, again, it's not black and white, and we don't know most of those details. What we do know is that a cop and a district attorney declined to prosecute under state law, and they knew the allegations and facts -- the federal indictment came later.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

At that point, the dumbass committed two crimes.

1. Assault (in this state it would be aggravated assault, because the victim was elderly.

2. Child endangerment. He started a violent, unpredictable situation with his kid right there. Sounds like CPS needs to swoop on in.

According to the investigating police officer and the district attorney, that's not what happened, or at least they did not feel confident they could prove that beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Plasmaball]

I don't, actually. What "conspiracies" do you think I believe in which aren't reasonable?

That plainly isn't true. Shit, one can shoot someone without being arrested if one is in reasonable fear of imminent great bodily harm or death. Absolutely, one can shove a person where there is reasonable fear that someone is harassing or intimidating my 12 year old kid, getting in their face in a threatening matter. The line is not as black and white as you pretend.

Just because cops do something doesn't make it "justified." They would be justified in making an arrest if they witnessed or had probable cause to believe that a crime was committed without justification or excuse. If the cop and the DA reviewed the matter, and found that there is reasonable doubt because the shove appeared to be in defense of the 12 year old, then an arrest would not be justified. If they reviewed the matter and determined that there was probable cause to arrest because self defense wasn't an issue, then they would be justified in making the arrest. In this case, a cop and a DA declined to arrest.

Clearly that's a different scenario. You were in his face in a threatening manner, it may well have been reasonable for him to defend himself. People don't have to wait to get punched in the face, if they are in reasonable fear of imminent bodily contact or imminent attack. To be justified in using force in self-defense, the threat of harm must be imminent. An imminent threat puts the victim in reasonable fear of immediate physical harm. A verbal threat can be enough to constitute an imminent threat of harm. The legal test is: If a reasonable person in the same situation would have perceived an immediate threat of physical harm, then the use of force is justified. So, reasonableness depends on a lot of facts - what was said, how close the "escort" was to the 12 year old, how loud he was, was he using profanity, did he touch the kid, was he pointing his finger at him, etc., etc. - so, again, it's not black and white, and we don't know most of those details. What we do know is that a cop and a district attorney declined to prosecute under state law, and they knew the allegations and facts -- the federal indictment came later.

You think they are gonna kill trump so he won't hold office.

What you think I didn't have evidence.? You think I would forget that gem?

Castles laws and what we are talking about here are two different things. You are trying to make excuses for the actions. I'm the end I'm right.

Of course it would be justified and then the courts would settle it. Assault is assault.

Pointing fingers isn't a threat. Yelling profanities isn't a threat. Nor is it reasonable to shove someone.