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

[What if...?]

Thanks for demonstrating once again that logic is not your strong suit.

You very very clearly excused the assault due to it being protection of his child from verbal abuse.

You did not define how broad that applied.

So the only conclusion is assault is ok over verbal abuse.

So a clerk in some store could have shoved a trumpie to the ground over the verbal abuse they suffered day in and day out.

It’s not my fault if you paint yourself into a corner that won’t pass the most basic of veracity tests: replacing the subject with other examples.

 

[Taylor]

I'd prob'ly get along with the old gentleman protecting woman at an abortion clinic

He wasn't protecting anybody.

from an A-hole the likes of this big bully MFer. Sorry if you don't approve of my language choices, I'm a blue collar kind of guy. I call it like i see it. I remember cats like that harassing the anti Vietnam protests. Effe 'em.

 

[Taylor]

You very very clearly excused the assault due to it being protection of his child from verbal abuse.

No I didn't. This is a lie...

So rather than shoving an old man to the ground, he should have called the police and let them handle it.

Yes, I agree.

 

[vanceen]

Apparently, the guy was engaged in a demonstration nearby an abortion clinic, and the 72 year old guy was an "escort" taking someone into the clinic. The 72 year old guy was apparently harassing the accused man's 12 year old son, and what is said ot have happened is the guy pushed the man away to get him away from his 12 year old son. The city police and the district attorney declined to file charges. The escort guy then filed a private criminal complaint in Philadelphia municipal court, Middleton said. That case was dismissed in July when the man repeatedly didn’t show up in court.

So, a few days later, the man/accused received a “target letter” from the U.S. Attorney’s Office informing him that he was the focus of a federal criminal probe into the same incident. So the guy had his attorney contact the US Attorney's Office to find out what was going on and discuss the case. They didn't get a response from the US Attorney's Office, who then sent like a SWAT team to the guy's house, pounded on the door, guns drawn and demanded the door be opened or it would be broken down.

So, now the guy is federally charged - for shoving someone - under federal law and facing 11 years in prison - for shoving.

We'll see what the defense is here, but a red flag for me in looking at this is that city police and the state district attorney both declined to file charges, AND while the 72 year old guy filed a criminal complaint, it was dismissed because he did not show up to court repeatedly.



.

Do you have a link to those details?

The link in the OP was very short on facts. There was no description of the circumstances or details of the "assault". I've learned to be skeptical of such information-poor news stories.

Of course I don't know if the details you provide are correct. But assuming they are, "overreach" is a mild term.

 

[Taylor]

The criminal complaint was dismissed by the municipal court because the accuser failed to appear multiple times.

I wonder if he had second thoughts after discovering that the whole thing was caught on video?

 

[vanceen]

Even Fox news disputes your & the assailant's version of the incident:

Pennsylvania pro-life activist arrested by FBI, charged with assaulting clinic escort

FBI agents arrested a Catholic pro-life activist at his Pennsylvania home Friday following allegations that he physically assaulted a 72-year-old man outside a Planned Parenthood.

www.foxnews.com

To be precise, Fox New did not "dispute... the assailant's version of the incident". They quoted other sources who disputed several important details. That seems fair.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

Do you have a link to those details?

The link in the OP was very short on facts. There was no description of the circumstances or details of the "assault". I've learned to be skeptical of such information-poor news stories.

Of course I don't know if the details you provide are correct. But assuming they are, "overreach" is a mild term.

I thought I linked it in a post above- I read an article in the Washington Times, I believe. I read 2 or 3 articles about it that gave that additional information. He may have been out of line in either case - generally no call for shoving, but understandable if the other guy is badgering or cursing at a 12 year old kid. These exchanges do tend to get heated. I'm pro choice, generally speaking, so I'm no fan of people who spend their days hollering at abortion clinics. But, I also think that charges entailing 11 years in prison for shoving someone are a bit much.

 

[What if...?]

Ok - but that doesn't mean the Feds get to step in willy-nilly.

If it's true that this was simply a response to the man berating his son, then it should get tossed out of court.

So you say you never said it was ok to assault someone for verbally assaulting your kid.

But here you say that if that’s what happened the case should be tossed.

So what other conclusion should I draw from your statement, as tossing would mean it should never have been charged.

Which would mean that it was justified, as a response to a verbal attack on your child, by your statement above.

Or you don’t express yourself well.

Or don’t pay attention to what you say in responses.

Or owe me an apology for calling me a liar.

 

[Hatuey]

The arrest of George Floyd was overreach.

Well haven't you heard? George Floyd was no angel.

Ain't that right @Roadvirus ?

 

[What if...?]

I thought I linked it in a post above- I read an article in the Washington Times, I believe. I read 2 or 3 articles about it that gave that additional information. He may have been out of line in either case - generally no call for shoving, but understandable if the other guy is badgering or cursing at a 12 year old kid. These exchanges do tend to get heated. I'm pro choice, generally speaking, so I'm no fan of people who spend their days hollering at abortion clinics. But, I also think that charges entailing 11 years in prison for shoving someone are a bit much.

I can agree with that. And I think the locals should have dealt with it, and wonder why they didn’t. It’s a pretty simple line to draw: don’t put your hands on people over words.

A charge and reduction to an infraction or misdemeanor would have reminded him of the above rule without doing any damage to his life. And maybe convinced him that was no place to take a child in the first place, as emotions run high and bad things can result.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

So you say you never said it was ok to assault someone for verbally assaulting your kid.

But here you say that if that’s what happened the case should be tossed.

So what other conclusion should I draw from your statement, as tossing would mean it should never have been charged.

Which would mean that it was justified, as a response to a verbal attack on your child, by your statement above.

Or you don’t express yourself well.

Or don’t pay attention to what you say in responses.

Or owe me an apology for calling me a liar.

There is "ok" and then there is "ok" -- degrees of "ok." It's not "ok" to kill someone, but if you kill someone in the heat of passion because you walk in on them banging your spouse it entails less punishment than if you plan their murder ahead of time and deliberate about it.

Sure, it's technically not "ok" to shove someone, but you better believe if someone is getting in the face of my daughter, I'll shove the mother****er. And, maybe I'd still deserve to face some music for it, but it isn't the same thing as a groundless, purposeless assault and batter.

Sometimes, there are extenuating circumstances. Things aren't always black and white.

 

[Taylor]

So you say you never said it was ok to assault someone for verbally assaulting your kid.

Yes, to claim otherwise is a lie.

But here you say that if that’s what happened the case should be tossed.

I said it should be tossed out of Federal Court because simple assault is outside their jurisdiction. If what prompted this was a man overreacting to abusive comments directed toward his son, then it's a a local law enforcement issue.

So what other conclusion should I draw from your statement, as tossing would mean it should never have been charged.

Which would mean that it was justified, as a response to a verbal attack on your child, by your statement above.

Or you don’t express yourself well.

Or you're simply not paying attention. I've made my position very clear.

 

[What if...?]

There is "ok" and then there is "ok" -- degrees of "ok." It's not "ok" to kill someone, but if you kill someone in the heat of passion because you walk in on them banging your spouse it entails less punishment than if you plan their murder ahead of time and deliberate about it.

Sure, it's technically not "ok" to shove someone, but you better believe if someone is getting in the face of my daughter, I'll shove the mother****er. And, maybe I'd still deserve to face some music for it, but it isn't the same thing as a groundless, purposeless assault and batter.

Sometimes, there are extenuating circumstances. Things aren't always black and white.

The conversation though included an it should be tossed because it was his kid being verbally assaulted. Not a charge reduction.

And personally I wondered why none of the mothers being savagely harassed because their kid was wearing a mask walking home from school, when the kid was obviously terrified, didn’t just whip the harassers ass and let the courts settle it.

 

[Cope]

I can agree with that. And I think the locals should have dealt with it, and wonder why they didn’t. It’s a pretty simple line to draw: don’t put your hands on people over words.

A charge and reduction to an infraction or misdemeanor would have reminded him of the above rule without doing any damage to his life. And maybe convinced him that was no place to take a child in the first place, as emotions run high and bad things can result.

I think the entirety of the disagreement in this thread is exactly that (except for the extremely biased positions that have shown up here and there that believes 11 years is ok, and the FBI doing it, even though the local pd dismissed it)

 

[MrNiceGuy]

The conversation though included an it should be tossed because it was his kid being verbally assaulted. Not a charge reduction.

They can't reduce the charge, because the only federal jurisdiction here is under the FACE Act. They can't just drop it to misdemeanor assault, because that isn't a federal crime. That's the trouble with a ton of these federal laws - they get worded so broadly that what is intended to stop someone from attacking people trying to get a legal abortion can be applied to a shoving match.

And personally I wondered why none of the mothers being savagely harassed because their kid was wearing a mask walking home from school, when the kid was obviously terrified, didn’t just whip the harassers ass and let the courts settle it.

Not sure what this refers to. Who was savagely harassing kids? Frankly, if they were savagely harassing kids, then I'd fully support the moms clobbering them.

 

[Cope]

Your kids is one of those 'fiercely' protected things that a man has. I can very well see doing much worse than shoving someone if they called one of my kids a fag.

On the other hand, I can't see how I would put any of my children in places that it is much more likely to happen either. (at a protest)

 

[What if...?]

They can't reduce the charge, because the only federal jurisdiction here is under the FACE Act. They can't just drop it to misdemeanor assault, because that isn't a federal crime. That's the trouble with a ton of these federal laws - they get worded so broadly that what is intended to stop someone from attacking people trying to get a legal abortion can be applied to a shoving match.

Not sure what this refers to. Who was savagely harassing kids? Frankly, if they were savagely harassing kids, then I'd fully support the moms clobbering them.

They were screaming at the mothers walking the kids home. Telling them they were abusing him, etc.

Nothing that the kid should have been exposed to. Nothing I would have tolerated.

The other comment was local law enforcement. And I have no idea why no charge was levied at all to what is obviously assault. There’s lots of things people hit each other about. So the rule is no hitting unless hit first. Makes it nice and clear.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

They were screaming at the mothers walking the kids home. Telling them they were abusing him, etc.

Nothing that the kid should have been exposed to. Nothing I would have tolerated.

The other comment was local law enforcement. And I have no idea why no charge was levied at all to what is obviously assault. There’s lots of things people hit each other about. So the rule is no hitting unless hit first. Makes it nice and clear.

because just because it was reported in the news one way doesn't mean that is the way it happened. Local police AND a district attorney both declined to press charges - AND the guy filed his own private criminal charges, but the charges were dismissed because he repeatedly did not show up to court - so, that's some additional facts reported about the incident that appear relevant.

 

[What if...?]

because just because it was reported in the news one way doesn't mean that is the way it happened. Local police AND a district attorney both declined to press charges - AND the guy filed his own private criminal charges, but the charges were dismissed because he repeatedly did not show up to court - so, that's some additional facts reported about the incident that appear relevant.

I think he filed a civil suit not a criminal one. I could be mistaken.

And I don’t trust cops to be impartial enforcers of the law. Haven’t in a long time. By my reckoning hitting someone is illegal except in self defense or defense of another. And words don’t count as things that trigger “self defense”, absent say, a gun and you say “I’m gonna shoot you now!” Then the words would count. “Your wife is a fat bitch!” does not confer the right to punch the speaker.

That’s why I said a misdemeanor assault/battery charge reduced to an infraction would have sent the message without ruining any lives. At the local level.

 

[Cope]

They were screaming at the mothers walking the kids home. Telling them they were abusing him, etc.

Nothing that the kid should have been exposed to. Nothing I would have tolerated.

The other comment was local law enforcement. And I have no idea why no charge was levied at all to what is obviously assault. There’s lots of things people hit each other about. So the rule is no hitting unless hit first. Makes it nice and clear.

But the disagreement here isn't about whether the charge should or should not have been laid by local PD. The question here is how and why did the FBI get involved in this at all, it was a simple shove (that was dangerous yes, but not life threatening and the guy had a semi-reasonable cause for the shoving) ?
And then the question of 11 years for that shove?

 

[What if...?]

But the disagreement here isn't about whether the charge should or should not have been laid by local PD. The question here is how and why did the FBI get involved in this at all, it was a simple shove (that was dangerous yes, but not life threatening and the guy had a semi-reasonable cause for the shoving) ?
And then the question of 11 years for that shove?

It kinda is. The feds frequently step in because local law enforcement didn’t. The arbrey case for example. Local prosecutor, who worked with one of them, declared it self defense. The video showed different.

But it does appear that the law they’re there under refers to assault on an abortion seeker or escort. And while he was an escort I don’t think he was escorting when it happened. If he was, then that’s what the law calls for: federal intervention.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

I think he filed a civil suit not a criminal one. I could be mistaken.

My recollection is that it was a private criminal charge, which is allowable in that jurisdiction.

And I don’t trust cops to be impartial enforcers of the law. Haven’t in a long time. By my reckoning hitting someone is illegal except in self defense or defense of another.

Sure, but that doesn't make it an 11 year felony. Shoving someone in a brief altercation where the shove-ee was berating a 12 year old ain't an 11 year felony. It's small misdemeanor under state law, at most.

And words don’t count as things that trigger “self defense”, absent say, a gun and you say “I’m gonna shoot you now!” Then the words would count. “Your wife is a fat bitch!” does not confer the right to punch the speaker.

Sure, the facts matter, of course. And, it's not always a question of going completely without punishment - one can commit an assault which is a second degree misdemeanor, but if one planned the assault and jumped a black man as part of a conspiracy to attack people because of their race, then it becomes a federal hate crime. So, the facts matter. Shoving some asshole who is yelling at one's 12 year old son seems more in line with a second degree misdemeanor. If he shoved a pregnant woman who was minding her own business and just walking to a clinic, then I would have another view of it.

That’s why I said a misdemeanor assault/battery charge reduced to an infraction would have sent the message without ruining any lives. At the local level.

Yes, local level. But, the feds came in, as usual, overcharging and "sending a message." What it says is, if someone provokes you during your antiabortion protest, you may go to jail for 11 years, so think carefully before you protest....

 

[MrNiceGuy]

It kinda is. The feds frequently step in because local law enforcement didn’t. The arbrey case for example. Local prosecutor, who worked with one of them, declared it self defense. The video showed different.

But it does appear that the law they’re there under refers to assault on an abortion seeker or escort. And while he was an escort I don’t think he was escorting when it happened. If he was, then that’s what the law calls for: federal intervention.

Sure, in Arbery, though, it was a murder, on video. Feds stepping in like this in this case seems like overreach.

 

[jpevans]

What does that have to do with an abortion protester being charged with a felony for pushing someone? How many felonies were these people charged with?:

Oh you didn’t mean white insurrectionest? You mean those Blacks who were protesting a real thing.

 

[jpevans]

It's their choice.

The poster could have said breed like Rabbits, but there may a hidden meaning.