Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is not relevant. It is not a fact implicated by the legal elements of battery. It is not relevant to whether she got her head stomped or not.
You must be using a different definition of relevant that the evidence code does. Her background information does not reasonably relate to a dispositive fact in this case, at all, period. It is entirely immaterial.
Have you ever served on a jury? If you have, you would know that the lawyers can bring up prior history/offenses to go to the state of mind of the people involved. The woman was there to cause a problem. It was not innocent what she did. Unless the judge rules against bringing up this information, it is fair game. The story behind her being there rounds out the story and would be important for a jury to hear.
How is any of this relevant? I'm not sure its a defense to say that because someone unknown bit off the finger of a third party that makes it okay for me to stomp on the head of a young woman.
Show me at what minute/second mark her head was stomped. Seriously. You all keep saying her head was stomped but that is simply not in the video. Watch his foot, it never leaves her shoulder.
The problem is the libbies are trying to say that the conservatives are defending him. I'm not defending his actions and neither is anyone else. I can see where he's coming from and if I was an attorney, I sure as heck could come up with a darn good defense argument. But the thing is, we all recognize that it was wrong for him to do that. They just want to twist things to avoid the real topic of discussion, which was that she was there to make a problem, which she did.
I suspect that she was there to make a "point" rather than a "problem". In a democracy, that is allowed.
I have seen three main defenses of his actions on here. The first is that he did not really stomp on her head. Legally, that is irrelevant as Strel has pointed out. The second is that it was an act of self-defense. However, given that she was already on the ground and "restrained" when "stomped upon", there might be some difficulty with that. The third is that "liberals" do nasty things too so that makes it okay. The best that can be said of that argument is that it is moronic (apologies to morons).
Show me at what minute/second mark her head was stomped. Seriously. You all keep saying her head was stomped but that is simply not in the video. Watch his foot, it never leaves her shoulder.
Irrelevant. The fact that his foot is anywhere on her person makes it battery.
Nope. I never said that at all. Dishonesty in debate is not going to help you here. It might be OK, it might not. It depends on the circumstances.
In THESE circumstances, I do not see how it justifies THIS DEFENDANT'S commission of an obvious battery.
Quote:
Fine someone is going to kill a candidate with that belief
Quote:
How do his handlers know why she is rushing the car. Are they suppose to be all knowing.
This goes to the reasonableness of their belief that she intended to cause bodily harm.
The video really doesn't help them in that argument, and I predict the jury isn't going to buy into that defense...if they are stupid enough to try it. I know I wouldn't.
Quote:
Once again how would the left handle it should their candidates be rushed by tea party members?
This isn't a political issue, it's an evidentiary one. Try taking off YOUR partisan hat for a minute.
Quote:
You do not know the intent of the person. So you can either assume the intent is friendly and hope the candidate is not shot, or you can stop the person rushing the candidate.
And if your second assumption isn't reasonable either, you get convicted of battery. You seem to think it OK for them to assume either way.
It isn't.
Quote:
Yes we will see what the jury has to say. heaven help candidates if you can not stop people with unknown intent from rushing you
What right is that? Are they law enforcement officers? Was the manner in which this person was "restrained" a reasonable, measured and appropriate response to the situation?
It's not okay to intrude upon someone else's personal space. If I was driving down the street, slowing down for a light and someone rushed MY car, I sure as HELL would want someone to restrain the person! Cop or not, I want the person off. If there is security at an event to protect a candidate, then yes, someone rushing the car is a big deal. They're not going to get shot at by the secret service or anything, but jeeeze, that doesn't mean it's okay.
Show me at what minute/second mark her head was stomped. Seriously. You all keep saying her head was stomped but that is simply not in the video. Watch his foot, it never leaves her shoulder.
It doesn't matter.
Battery is an "unwanted touching." He touched her without her permission. Unless he can come up with a valid defense, that's battery.
What right is that? Are they law enforcement officers? Was the manner in which this person was "restrained" a reasonable, measured and appropriate response to the situation?
The woman is a unstable and planned on shoving the sign in Rands face and causing havoc. She milked the publicity she got.
That said, there was no need for him to press down on her with his foot. It didn't help at all restraining her. He was out of line. Even if he had the best intentions he needs to be held accountable for his actions. You mess up, you pay the piper. (unless your name is Rangel )
It's a shame the issues don't get this many posts.
Show me at what minute/second mark her head was stomped. Seriously. You all keep saying her head was stomped but that is simply not in the video. Watch his foot, it never leaves her shoulder.
That ^ is just plain delusional.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
