NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
Stepping down forcefully on something is 'stomping'. By definition. Her head was stepped on forcefully.
Stomping Rand Paul Supporter Wants Victim To Apologize To Him
- Thread starter Bfgrn
- Start date
Stepping down forcefully on something is 'stomping'. By definition. Her head was stepped on forcefully.
Sallow
The Big Bad Wolf.
Ummm..no.
Unless we are in the twilight zone..I am pretty damned sure that in this country you can't do..what the Rand Paul acolytes did.
NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
Like the woman in the miniskirt, the woman in the hot outfit, who gets raped? Not completely innocent? eh?
I'm pretty sure that the security knows the law about protecting a government candidate. Having said that, I want to make it perfectly clear that the woman never deserved what she got on the curb from that one dude.
NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
She received an intentional blow to the head/neck area, with a foot, administered by Proffitt. What are you quibbling about?
the foot was on her SHOULDER
stop lying
Your a hopeless left wingnut.
It seems the leftwing whacko's have and echo chamber and they told these buffoons to use the old "A woman got raped because she wore a miniskirt" Mantra.
Completely different scenario. The woman had no business sticking the sign through the window. Deny it all you want...ignore it all you want, but it's a Epic Fail for not taking in account the facts, instead using a spin of the facts to reach your objective.
Cuyo
Training a Guineapig army
See, you're talking as though there is no debate about her intention. You state as fact that her intention was to push the sign into the car. I don't think she did. Even if she did intend to do so, it would not fit your definition of simple assault unless her intent in doing so was to frighten Mr. Paul to the extent that he feared physical harm.
So, really we have three issues here. 1. Can assault (as you've defined it) be proven based on preponderance of evidence. Answer: Absolutely not. 2. If it somehow could be proven that her intention was to shove the sign into the vehicle, was it her intention in doing so that she wanted Mr. Paul to be frightened for his physical safety. Answer: Doubtful. and 3. If it was not her intention to cause Mr. Paul to be frightened for his physical safety, but Mr. Paul was nonetheless frightened for his physical safety, does it fit your definition of assault. Answer: Absolutely not.
I'm not a lawyer, but I have had legal coursework and I'm sure any lawyer will tell you I'm correct in this assertion. Politics have nothing to do with it. Goldcatt? Where u @?
Last edited:
Sallow
The Big Bad Wolf.
I owned a bar in Georgia, chief. My security people couldn't do what they did.
That said..I agree with your second point.
Cuyo
Training a Guineapig army
In other words, you know you're licked. That's cool, you don't have to debate; There is no debate to be had. What I just said, is.
Cuyo
Training a Guineapig army
Well COME ON for christ's sake, look at the jerk-off answer you give me. "Dooooy you have no idea what you're talking about." What do you expect me to say? You throw up this preposterous theory that this woman is guilty of assault, and unfortunately, your analysis has no basis in law. You cast aside perfectly executed legal analysis and revert to name calling and silly cuckoo smilies.
You're wrong dude, get over it!
Well COME ON for christ's sake, look at the jerk-off answer you give me. "Dooooy you have no idea what you're talking about." What do you expect me to say? You throw up this preposterous theory that this woman is guilty of assault, and unfortunately, your analysis has no basis in law. You cast aside perfectly executed legal analysis and revert to name calling and silly cuckoo smilies.
You're wrong dude, get over it!
When you throw out the definition of simple assault and use your own personal definition of assault, yes...the debate is over. The goal posts have been moved and the field has been tilted in your favor.
I just watched the Video for the first time, I've been busy. A few things really jump out at me. The Woman was way out of line and did appear as a threat. The man that took her to the ground did a good job of it, the second man who did push her shoulder down with his foot did in deed whack her in the head with his foot and should consider himself lucky if he is not charged.
That's what is on the surface. There are issues with what led up to this point. There are do's and Do Not's in Protesting. Protesting can be a really dangerous activity should situations get out of hand. Where there is organized Protest there should be Certified Non-Violence Training. One person does something stupid, many can get hurt. If Moveon is instructing people to do stupid things that put people at risk, they should be sued and exposed.
No unnecessary force, as a private citizen, restrain and neutralize the threat, that is all.
That's what is on the surface. There are issues with what led up to this point. There are do's and Do Not's in Protesting. Protesting can be a really dangerous activity should situations get out of hand. Where there is organized Protest there should be Certified Non-Violence Training. One person does something stupid, many can get hurt. If Moveon is instructing people to do stupid things that put people at risk, they should be sued and exposed.
No unnecessary force, as a private citizen, restrain and neutralize the threat, that is all.
Cuyo
Training a Guineapig army
Right....now you know what's in my head too...very telling.
Well COME ON for christ's sake, look at the jerk-off answer you give me. "Dooooy you have no idea what you're talking about." What do you expect me to say? You throw up this preposterous theory that this woman is guilty of assault, and unfortunately, your analysis has no basis in law. You cast aside perfectly executed legal analysis and revert to name calling and silly cuckoo smilies.
You're wrong dude, get over it!
When you throw out the definition of simple assault and use your own personal definition of assault, yes...the debate is over. The goal posts have been moved and the field has been tilted in your favor.
UGH you are insufferable. I didn't create my own definition; I merely applied common law principles to the definition you provided.
Just forget it...
NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
Your a hopeless left wingnut.
It seems the leftwing whacko's have and echo chamber and they told these buffoons to use the old "A woman got raped because she wore a miniskirt" Mantra.
Completely different scenario. The woman had no business sticking the sign through the window. Deny it all you want...ignore it all you want, but it's a Epic Fail for not taking in account the facts, instead using a spin of the facts to reach your objective.
You continue to try to shift part of the blame to the woman protestor, which is EXACTLY what defense lawyers will try to do in rape cases.
The analogy is perfect.
NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLJDMm-jp28&feature=related[/ame]
Freeze the vid at :10
NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
Your a hopeless left wingnut.
It seems the leftwing whacko's have and echo chamber and they told these buffoons to use the old "A woman got raped because she wore a miniskirt" Mantra.
Completely different scenario. The woman had no business sticking the sign through the window. Deny it all you want...ignore it all you want, but it's a Epic Fail for not taking in account the facts, instead using a spin of the facts to reach your objective.
I asked you why her sign waving was relevant to what happened to her.
I don't think you gave me a straight answer yet.
the foot was ON HER SHOULDER
so stop lying
Similar threads
- Poll
New Topics
-
Supreme Court Oral Arguments in the Birthright Citizenship Case- Started by SweetSue92
- Replies: 1
-
Border Patrol chief Michael Banks Hit With Prostitution Allegations By Agents
- Started by 0311
- Replies: 1
-
The Difference Between The Obama/Biden Adms And Trump's Adm Are Illustrated By Their Presidential Library Designs- Started by mudwhistle
- Replies: 1
-
-
