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.
So if a complete stranger came at you yelling you wouldn't feel threatened? Not even a little?
Well, I tend to get into altercations quite frequently because I am not afraid of people and their big attitudes. There was one time at a shopping center where my car door hit some ladies fugly station wagon as I was putting my child away in the car seat. She flipped out because my apology was not sincere enough for her and she got ALL up in my face. I got into a screaming match with her for about 20 minutes just waiting for her to lay even a finger on me, just a shove even. She was pretty insane about the whole thing, and NO I did not hit her because even though she was CLOSE to me, in a court of law, it would not have held up. She was shorter and older than I was so my claim of FEAR was not going to hold up. I was waiting for her to hit me/push me so I could lay into her and defend myself and my child. She was inches from my face but I RESTRAINED MYSELF and she eventually crawled back into her car and drove off. All talk, no show. I am not willing to go to jail like that idiot Profitt because I have self control and he did not. None of those people did.
I have no right to ATTACK someone unless they touch me first, just claiming you were "scared" is not a reason to assault someone when it is irrational. If so, people would be hitting each other and claiming the defense of "Fear" all over the place.
I am tall, perhaps some tiny person thinks I am going to hurt them because I am walking up to them w/my keys in my hand to tell them their gas cap is open, yet they are SCARED because I walk fast and have a weapon and they go and attack me and mace me. You cannot use FEAR as a defense without JUST CAUSE. It is just not valid.
How was he threatened while he was sitting IN THE CAR? HE could have rolled up the window, he could have SPED OFF. Her size is a very important. She was on foot, he was actually rolling in a car. She is not a large woman, not compared to all the people who violently grabbed her. They were not afraid for THEIR lives, and she had not touched anyone, they had no LEGAL RIGHT.
There was no VALID reason to believe they feared her. You cannot assume someone is going to hurt you because they are holding a sign or they rush up to you in this particular setting.. People rush you outside the store asking for change, does that mean I can lay them flat? NOPE.
Quote:
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.
That is quite a scary situation, sorry to hear you were targeted.. If they did not abduct her, nor did they attempt to touch her, how can you assume they wanted to kidnap her? Do autistic children have a sign on them? No, I worked with them, so I am not sure what that has to do with anything. There must have been other signs and actions of theirs that lead you to believe they were going to take her, otherwise you acted irrational. Please provide more information on this abduction for context purposes. I am just curious what led you to believe they were going to steal her. I do believe creeps are everywhere, but you cannot cross legal bounds (for my child I probably would).
I can understand BEING AFRAID, but that does not mean you can just act however you want towards people because YOU ARE SCARED of them if you are not being rational. My grandmother is afraid of everything. She should be @88 yrs old and 4"10, but she is equally afraid for me and the way that I am NOT afraid. I do know that your fear does NOT trump people's rights to not be attacked randomly. Were they intimidating you or following you? That is illegal to intimidate and harass someone. Were they threatening her? That is just cause.
They did not have just cause to attack that girl as she was protesting in a public space in front of a public figure who had a rally.I can see trying to get her away from the car until they could speak with her (the authorities that is) but the way they handled her was completely wrong and I would sue every person who laid their hands on me inappropriately.
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.
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
d
Like I stated earlier, what if they are rushing to tell me I just ran over a small child? Or a squirrel? Or I have fire coming out my tailpipe. YOU CANNOT ASSUME PEOPLE ARE ALWAYS TRYING TO HARM YOU, even if you are a public figure.
IN this case, she may have been saying I LOVE YOU, I SUPPORT YOU, or YOU SUCK AND ARE GONNA LOSE... Either way, it is perfectly legal as long as she did not smack him or try to CLIMB into the car.
He is merely a public figure, maybe she wanted A KISS?? So she gets attacked for that? Think back to the Beatles/Back street Boys/Tom Cruise etc... were other fans allowed to attack people trying to get autographs? NO, you cannot assume they want to harm you, you HAVE to wait for actions or threatening words. SCREAMING is not a word, Girls scream for Justin Bieber, you think they are going to ATTACK the girls? No.
She certainly could have SPIT ON HIM, and yet did not, that would have been a good reason to restrain her. But she did not spit on him, touch him, nor try to make anything but verbal contact with him just like hundreds of others there.
He is a public figure like you all said, he just cannot assume someone will harm him and his supporters cannot attack people claiming to defend a man who was in a LOCKED CAR that was IN MOTION. Unless there was a prior incident like threatening letters written to him from HER, or a order of protection against her, they had no right. She did not do anything illegal to warrant such actions against her.
If he is acquitted it means only that the people of Kentucky are idiots who wouldn't know justice if it bit them on the arse. But I know it is not a good place to be anyway. I've heard bad things about KY.
Like I stated earlier, what if they are rushing to tell me I just ran over a small child? Or a squirrel? Or I have fire coming out my tailpipe. YOU CANNOT ASSUME PEOPLE ARE ALWAYS TRYING TO HARM YOU, even if you are a public figure.
IN this case, she may have been saying I LOVE YOU, I SUPPORT YOU, or YOU SUCK AND ARE GONNA LOSE... Either way, it is perfectly legal as long as she did not smack him or try to CLIMB into the car.
He is merely a public figure, maybe she wanted A KISS?? So she gets attacked for that? Think back to the Beatles/Back street Boys/Tom Cruise etc... were other fans allowed to attack people trying to get autographs? NO, you cannot assume they want to harm you, you HAVE to wait for actions or threatening words. SCREAMING is not a word, Girls scream for Justin Bieber, you think they are going to ATTACK the girls? No.
if you feel you are in danger you have a right to act.
As you say they do not know why she is rushing the car so do they assume it an act of peace or an act to endanger someone. The problem with your belief is if it is peaceful act then nothing would happen, if it is not a peaceful act Paul could be dead. As you said you do not know why she is rushing the car
She certainly could have SPIT ON HIM, and yet did not, that would have been a good reason to restrain her. But she did not spit on him, touch him, nor try to make anything but verbal contact with him just like hundreds of others there.
He is a public figure like you all said, he just cannot assume someone will harm him and his supporters cannot attack people claiming to defend a man who was in a LOCKED CAR that was IN MOTION. Unless there was a prior incident like threatening letters written to him from HER, or a order of protection against her, they had no right. She did not do anything illegal to warrant such actions against her.
If he is acquitted it means only that the people of Kentucky are idiots who wouldn't know justice if it bit them on the arse. But I know it is not a good place to be anyway. I've heard bad things about KY.
if you feel you are in danger you have a right to act.
As you say they do not know why she is rushing the car so do they assume it an act of peace or an act to endanger someone. The problem with your belief is if it is peaceful act then nothing would happen, if it is not a peaceful act Paul could be dead. As you said you do not know why she is rushing the car
Like I stated earlier, what if they are rushing to tell me I just ran over a small child? Or a squirrel? Or I have fire coming out my tailpipe. YOU CANNOT ASSUME PEOPLE ARE ALWAYS TRYING TO HARM YOU, even if you are a public figure.
IN this case, she may have been saying I LOVE YOU, I SUPPORT YOU, or YOU SUCK AND ARE GONNA LOSE... Either way, it is perfectly legal as long as she did not smack him or try to CLIMB into the car.
He is merely a public figure, maybe she wanted A KISS?? So she gets attacked for that? Think back to the Beatles/Back street Boys/Tom Cruise etc... were other fans allowed to attack people trying to get autographs? NO, you cannot assume they want to harm you, you HAVE to wait for actions or threatening words. SCREAMING is not a word, Girls scream for Justin Bieber, you think they are going to ATTACK the girls? No.
She certainly could have SPIT ON HIM, and yet did not, that would have been a good reason to restrain her. But she did not spit on him, touch him, nor try to make anything but verbal contact with him just like hundreds of others there.
He is a public figure like you all said, he just cannot assume someone will harm him and his supporters cannot attack people claiming to defend a man who was in a LOCKED CAR that was IN MOTION. Unless there was a prior incident like threatening letters written to him from HER, or a order of protection against her, they had no right. She did not do anything illegal to warrant such actions against her.
If he is acquitted it means only that the people of Kentucky are idiots who wouldn't know justice if it bit them on the arse. But I know it is not a good place to be anyway. I've heard bad things about KY.
If you don't agree with me, you are an idiot. What a novel position. I don't think I have heard that before. Wait a minute, I think i've read it in a lot of posts here on CD.
"YOU CANNOT ASSUME PEOPLE ARE ALWAYS TRYING TO HARM YOU'.
I couldn't disagree more. You ALWAYS prepare for the worse. If not, you could be the next victim.
if you feel you are in danger you have a right to act.
As you say they do not know why she is rushing the car so do they assume it an act of peace or an act to endanger someone. The problem with your belief is if it is peaceful act then nothing would happen, if it is not a peaceful act Paul could be dead. As you said you do not know why she is rushing the car
How you act has to be proportional to the threat. Paul was in a car which was moving. The woman was manhandled to the ground. Profitt stood on her after she was on the ground at which point the car would have moved even further away. Even if he truly believes that he was acting in defense of Paul, his actions went far beyond what was "reasonably necessary".
In my view, his attorneys will advise him to take a plea bargain because I really doubt that his defense will stand up in court.
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.
How mature.
