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.
Who has defended him? Is not jumping on the bandwagon to convict him that is clearly exaggerated by so many in this thread the same to blind-rage leftists as defending? Really?
It doesn't surprise me that lefties will line up to defend the actions of one of their own professional provacateur activists with an arrest record.
And it doesn't surprise me that many right-wingers will come on here and defend a guy who assualts a woman just because she belongs to a group that righties don't like.
Intent is an essential element of both offenses. Generally, it is only necessary for the defendant to have an intent to do the act that causes the harm. In other words, the act must be done voluntarily. Although an intent to harm the victim is likely to exist, it is not a required element of either offense. There is an exception to this rule for the attempted battery type of criminal assault. If a defendant who commits this crime does not have an intent to harm the victim, the individual cannot be guilty of the offense.
The question comes down to, did they INTEND to assault the girl? The video appears that they intended to restrain her until the police came.. They were clearly yelling for someone to get the police.
Again. Whatever happened to the SEIU guy who beat up Gladney on video? Anyone want to answer this? Any of you hypocrits want to take a stab at this one? What about the guy who bit off a TP'ers finger?
No one in their right mind, would think this act is acceptable yes it was wrong. But to say that this young Women's Background and her prior Criminal Record, is not relevant is wrong also.
Do we truly know the reason why this women was there, sounds as if with her prior record, she was there to do harm of some kind. We today have got to look at everything, don't just assume.
Unless i am there to wintess accounts for myself, i believe in no videos today, they can be Doctored
so easily.
With her past criminal record, she obviously had motive of some kind. Two wrongs never make a right!
No one in their right mind, would think this act is acceptable yes it was wrong. But to say that this young Women's Background and her prior Criminal Record, is not relevant is wrong also.
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.
Think about the implications of the standard you are imposing here....
Quote:
Do we truly know the reason why this women was there, sounds as if with her prior record, she was there to do harm of some kind.
And the guy that stomped her head just somehow had her dossier on him at the time? Even if it were relevant, your proposal is ridiculous.
Quote:
We today have got to look at everything, don't just assume.
Then why do we have evidence codes?
Quote:
Unless i am there to wintess accounts for myself, i believe in no videos today, they can be Doctored
so easily.
Then prove it was doctored. If not, it's the best evidence we have. It is not going to be disregarded or excluded on the basis that it *might* be fake. It does have to be corroborated by the photographer to get into evidence, but that's easy.
Quote:
With her past criminal record, she obviously had motive of some kind. Two wrongs never make a right!
She's not on trial, her criminal record (if any, we have seen no proof thereof) is not a material issue in the defendant's trial. Now, certain KINDS of prior offenses - like fraud - can be relevant to her credibility...but she doesn't really need any in this case, since we have videotape. As far as I know, the defense has not claimed the video is doctored. So why do you?
Again. Whatever happened to the SEIU guy who beat up Gladney on video? Anyone want to answer this? Any of you hypocrits want to take a stab at this one? What about the guy who bit off a TP'ers finger?
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.
Think about the implications of the standard you are imposing here....
And the guy that stomped her head just somehow had her dossier on him at the time? Even if it were relevant, your proposal is ridiculous.
Then why do we have evidence codes?
Then prove it was doctored. If not, it's the best evidence we have. It is not going to be disregarded or excluded on the basis that it *might* be fake. It does have to be corroborated by the photographer to get into evidence, but that's easy.
She's not on trial, her criminal record (if any, we have seen no proof thereof) is not a material issue in the defendant's trial. Now, certain KINDS of prior offenses - like fraud - can be relevant to her credibility...but she doesn't really need any in this case, since we have videotape. As far as I know, the defense has not claimed the video is doctored. So why do you?
thanks!
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.
