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.
Just like in office, when the Repubs don't like something they play hardball and get all sneaky and stubborn and obnoxious, and the Dems are always trying to work with them.
I think I've had enough humor tonight to last me a lifetime
It appears that in their opinions, there are 2 sets of rules, one for those they agree with, and one for those who do not. Thank God for the ACLU and the Courts who never agree with that.
Just like in office, when the Repubs don't like something they play hardball and get all sneaky and stubborn and obnoxious, and the Dems are always trying to work with them.
I wonder what would happen if the Dem's ever decided to play by the Repubs rules, I am sure no repubs would be left standing.
Oh like when the ACLU defended NAMBLA? Yep its always ok for a group that wants it to be ok for men to sexually abuse boys. We need to defend them everytime.
Irrelevant. She was assaulted. That is sufficient.
She was ineptly restrained.
In all likelihood the inept restrainer will pay a much higher price for having done so than she will suffer for having endured it. That said, actions have consequences and she went well out of her way to make herself susceptible to the unpleasant consequences she endured.
Who knew if she was armed or not? I am a nobody but if someone charged at me in an aggitated state, I might drop them in their tracks and find out what their malfunction was later.
Irrelevant and completely inadmissable. Agitated state? Who are you to speak to her frame of mind? She didn't look agitated in the footage. I think you are making things up to justify Crazies actions.
Quote:
At the same time the (Woman) owns a measure of the blame. Charging a group of people like an idiot normally ends badly no matter who does it.
And yet completely LEGAL! She never touched him nor attempted to. Sorry you can wave a sign near someones face and yell at them, and yet, it is still completely legal.
If you all think she should be arrested for something, what CRIME did she commit? Please provide link to the Penal Code in Kentucky's legal system that you say she broke.
Irrelevant and completely inadmissable. Agitated state? Who are you to speak to her frame of mind? She didn't look agitated in the footage. I think you are making things up to justify Crazies actions.
And who are you to speak to the frame of mine for those who restrained her?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taboo2
And yet completely LEGAL! She never touched him nor attempted to. Sorry you can wave a sign near someones face and yell at them, and yet, it is still completely legal.
If you all think she should be arrested for something, what CRIME did she commit? Please provide link to the Penal Code in Kentucky's legal system that you say she broke.
You dont need to have committed a crime to be restrained. Fear that you might be about ready to commit one is sufficient. Do you think the FBI wouldnt take you down if you went lunging at the president, even if you just wanted to wave a big sign in his face?
Sorry but you cant wave a sign near someone elses face. The law describes it as "the buffer zone we like to maintain around our bodies".
And the US Court of Appeals affirmed the legality of buffer zones July 9th, 2009. This was in regards to abortion clinics, but the same would be true for all activities, even political ones.
The real legal winner is going to be the civil lawsuit for injuries. The area where that man "put his foot" is a very easily injured area of the body.....neck and spine injuries. Can cause lifelong pain. I can't imagine how anyone would not sustain some sort of neck/back injury if another LARGE individual "put his foot" on your shoulder to RESTRAIN you, and his foot "slipped" down to your neck.....yeah, if that man has any money, he's going to lose it if that woman sues him after the criminal case. And, NO, you all have no idea what medical attention she has received at this point or what the medical evaluation is or will be.
Irrelevant and completely inadmissable. Agitated state? Who are you to speak to her frame of mind? She didn't look agitated in the footage. I think you are making things up to justify Crazies actions.
And yet completely LEGAL! She never touched him nor attempted to. Sorry you can wave a sign near someones face and yell at them, and yet, it is still completely legal.
If you all think she should be arrested for something, what CRIME did she commit? Please provide link to the Penal Code in Kentucky's legal system that you say she broke.
So if a complete stranger came at you yelling you wouldn't feel threatened? Not even a little?
In a day and age where people going postal is happening just about every week?
Did I give the man stepping on her a free pass? I think not. I simply don't give her a free pass. Because you might be able to do something legally doesn't mean that its always smart.
For example a man might be legally able to walk up and scream racial slurs in a mans wife's face. That doesn't mean that it is smart.
Long story short. A group of men attempted to abduct my autistic daughter. I could have waited until they actually grabbed her, then asked them what they were about. They were after all up until they touched her in violation of no laws. Instead I reacted to what my gut told me. My daughter was not abducted.
My point being. This woman ran at strangers. She according to witnesses was screaming. That sounds agitated to me. It was stupid on her part and she should not be rewarded. As I said the man who stepped on her should be held accountable. Never said otherwise.
I never attempted to justify the guy stepping on her. I do justify the others subduing her. They had no way of knowing her intensions or if she were armed.
And who are you to speak to the frame of mine for those who restrained her?
You dont need to have committed a crime to be restrained. Fear that you might be about ready to commit one is sufficient. Do you think the FBI wouldnt take you down if you went lunging at the president, even if you just wanted to wave a big sign in his face?
Sorry but you cant wave a sign near someone elses face. The law describes it as "the buffer zone we like to maintain around our bodies".
And the US Court of Appeals affirmed the legality of buffer zones July 9th, 2009. This was in regards to abortion clinics, but the same would be true for all activities, even political ones.
Are you an attorney? What law school did you graduate from?
Like I stated earlier, I have worked for celebrities and unless there has been prior contact (just like with any citizen) there is no just cause to physically restrain someone. That is why the man got arrested and they are trying for a conviction. He did something ILLEGAL and WRONG.
You do get it, don't you?
The only time being a "Public person" get's you any special treatment is actually one that works NOT in your favor. He actually violated her right to Free Speech. The Civil Suit will be interesting.
So how do you feel when someone rushes the car you are in.
So your stopped a t a diner an d someone rushes your car for reasons you do not know. You say you can not have a right to defend yourself.
id Paul's people thought he was in anyway in danger by a person rushing his car the certainly have the right to protect the person
You argue that its OK o rush people cars. Its not no matter how you look at it. Profitt will be acquitted
So how do you feel when someone rushes the car you are in.
So your stopped a t a diner an d someone rushes your car for reasons you do not know. You say you can not have a right to defend yourself.
id Paul's people thought he was in anyway in danger by a person rushing his car the certainly have the right to protect the person
You argue that its OK o rush people cars. Its not no matter how you look at it. Profitt will be acquitted
Even if you accept the argument of self defense he will still be convicted. This is because the "use of force is justified when a person reasonably believes that it is necessary for the defense of oneself or another against the immediate use of unlawful force. However, a person must use no more force than appears reasonably necessary in the circumstances."
The woman was already on the ground and "restrained" before Profitt stepped on her. Therefore, his action was not "reasonably necessary" at that point. That makes it an assault.
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.
