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 did anything to the girls other than the guy who took off one of their hats?
Anyone of the HU students who approached the high school girls in an aggressive manner while yelling at them could (but not necessarily) be guilty of Assault.
Once a battery is committed (and a battery was most certainly committed), however, it raises the likelihood that the high school girls were in fact assaulted, too.
At least one male HU student committed a battery and a theft.
Why is the number of students who committed the torts/crimes important to you?
I'm arguing the principle and the law. If only one student broke the law, that is sufficient for this discussion.
Some of you people scare the living daylights out of me.
The US was founded on the principle that individuals have certain inalienable rights. Our Constitution reminds us, with the very first amendment thereto, that we all have the right to peacefully express our political opinions.
Our various statutes make assault, battery and theft civil and or criminal offenses.
One need not use any discretion, common sense, and or decency when one peacefully expresses one's political opinion.
Are those of you arguing that it would be wise to use discretion, common sense, and or decency when one peacefully expresses one's political opinion going to criticize people who burn the US flag, or kneel during the playing of our National Anthem?
What exactly is it about the notion that we have the right to peacefully express a political opinion without being subjected to assault, battery, and or theft that is so apparently difficult to understand?
The right protected by the 1st Amendment is virtually absolute and subject only to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions.
There is NO protected right to assault, batter, or commit theft against those who peacefully express an opinion with which you disagree. None.
Again, there is no "however" in the 1st Amendment. There is no requirement or qualification in the 1st Amendment that requires us to use discretion, common sense, and or decency when we peacefully expresses our political opinion.
Isn't the first amendment for government sanctions, not pissed off people who were deliberately goaded? Second what horrible bodily harm did these princesses suffer?. Third do you really think these entitled snots were just "expressing their political opinion"? Cmon. Your bias is showing. These types base their political beliefs on what their friends think is hip and cool, or what their parents tell them to believe. How much do you really think they know about real issues. Hell they probably think the Magna Carta is a new not band ffs! These spoiled sheltered types just echo what they hear from their surroundings, which is more arrogant privileged folks born with silver spoons in their ears talking about how bad them colored folks are and how poor Americans NOT born on third base just need to " get jobs and quit doing drugs"
YOU scare me with you thinking a bunch of vapid privileged Barbie dolls growing up around racist privileged snobs are some deep political thinkers who can never gave the music for the bullchit time they were playing. Btw look up the First Amendment again. Quit pandering to those types. I bet if a Lilly white sweet sixteen bash for these girls- if held in a public place- were crashed by a bunch of BLM t shirt wearing poor blacks, your views would be a tad different. Also you might want to step up your reading comprehension. No where did I say they CAN'T express their views, as I stated no laws were , broken, But maybe a little discretion. Also learn about the first amendment it does NOT protect you from non-gov't consequences of your speech!! WHAT IS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT THAT???? I even typed it sloooooow so you could comprehend it! I swear it takes some people 4 hours to watch 60 Minutes!
Anyone of the HU students who approached the high school girls in an aggressive manner while yelling at them could (but not necessarily) be guilty of Assault.
Once a battery is committed (and a battery was most certainly committed), however, it raises the likelihood that the high school girls were in fact assaulted, too.
At least one male HU student committed a battery and a theft.
Why is the number of students who committed the torts/crimes important to you?
I'm arguing the principle and the law. If only one student broke the law, that is sufficient for this discussion.
We already established that the male committed battery.
Who else? When it comes to the law, there are findings of fact and then conclusion of law. So provide facts...
Haven't really been following this drama, who's pressing charges?
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess
Nobody.
Battery does not require charges from an individual.
Your Lord and Savior, the almighty benevolent State, can press charges in battery cases.
And that's why I asked earlier in this thread if Howard U. was investigating this incident. Battery and theft allegedly occurred on campus. It should be their duty to review any video and interview witnesses to determine if a crime has been committed and then turn that information over to the police. That way the prosecutor can determine if charges should be filed.
Victim approval is not necessary.
My dear friend No_Recess, always the romantic one in these types of convos , I was merely asking to be 'brought up to speed' on Mr. Trump's 'rollercoaster of emotions' tour. Reminds me of the Cyclone at Coney Island ~ oldest wooden coaster in the world & rickety too ~ & not for those with weak hearts or other conditions! Above all, I suppose, entertaining.
Unsure why you'd assume Howard University is not investigating?
Working with the 'skeleton of details' I had concerning this incident, I was mostly going by personal & work-related experiences to familiarize myself & asked about charges filed.
I've observed LEO & security professionals interact with individuals 'on the scene' of the event or incident. Mostly I've been impressed by the strategies that were undertaken to de-escalate the highly emotional folks 'on the scene'. Mostly it's viewed as the steps taken & involves using as little force as necessary as the various scenarios & circumstances dictate.
Usually, it goes something like this. Separate the folks involved, calming techniques, & some sortof reasonable, albeit often temporary, resolution. The professionals 'on the scene' will often be reluctant to leave the scene until they're assured the situation won't immediately re-erupt or escalate. Sometimes this involves asking the individuals involved about what the next step should be. I've observed folks being asked, 'Do you want to press charges?' Even this is sometimes part of the process of de-escalation, calming & resolution ~ it encourages folks to consider the consequences, both the natural ones & legal ramifications of, in the particular scenario at hand.
Nope. I've read multiple articles on it. My question is directed to you. What did all these other students do? Be specific.
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.
, I was merely asking to be 'brought up to speed' on Mr. Trump's 'rollercoaster of emotions' tour. Reminds me of the Cyclone at Coney Island ~ oldest wooden coaster in the world & rickety too ~ & not for those with weak hearts or other conditions! Above all, I suppose, entertaining.
