Congressman assaults student

[jjski78]

Well, the kid DID ask him a tough question.

[helomech]

Originally Posted by WoodCrestTitan

ZING! On a side note: It was great to see Lidell get knocked out cold. And I can't believe Franklin kept fighting with a broken arm.

On topic: I wouldn't exactly call that an assault. The kid shoved a camera in his face and I would have probably done the same thing.

Grab your wife in a angry manner and let her call the police. Then tell me that was not an assault.

[TexUs]

Originally Posted by helomech

Grab your wife in a angry manner and let her call the police. Then tell me that was not an assault.

Well, if that angry grabbing was on tape it wouldn't stand in court. A professional liar (aka, a lawyer) can spin a story though.

The difference with this is that it WAS on tape, proving how much of a non-assault it was.

[walleeme]

Originally Posted by TITANPOWERMD

Wow grandpa likes to pick on kids.

At least he wasn't tapping his toe in a bathroom stall.

[Papa_D]

Originally Posted by helomech

Grab your wife in a angry manner and let her call the police. Then tell me that was not an assault.

Maybe an experienced trial attorney can correct if if I'm wrong here but my understanding of assault is that unwanted and threatening physical contact had to take place and although this did not constitute battery from what I can tell, it was in fact assault and if he were in Florida, he could legally be shot for that sort of maneuver because in the end, you have no idea what that guy was capable of and the fact that he was a Congressional Representative exhibits that clearer than anything, lol.

To put it another way, imagine a Tea Partier grabbed the Congressman like that and demanded to know what the hell he was doing and prevented the Congressman from going about his business and then one of the Congressman's body guards shot the guy, do you think the body guard would go to jail?

I would contend not because any reasonable person would say "well you have no idea what the Tea Partier was going to do and the Congressman was clearly being assaulted" and the same holds true for the Congressman because again, he is as capable of harm to someone the same as anyone else, regardless of his political office and in my view, even more so because of that office.

[37L1]

In most states, an assault/battery is committed when one person 1) tries to or does physically strike another, or 2) acts in a threatening manner to put another in fear of immediate harm

http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/assault_battery.html

[helomech]

Originally Posted by TexUs

Well, if that angry grabbing was on tape it wouldn't stand in court. A professional liar (aka, a lawyer) can spin a story though.

The difference with this is that it WAS on tape, proving how much of a non-assault it was.

WRONG Read #3, and this is texas penal code.

CHAPTER 22. ASSAULTIVE OFFENSES

§ 22.01. ASSAULT.
(a) A person commits an offense if the person:
(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another, including the person's spouse;
(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens another with imminent bodily injury, including the person's spouse; or
(3) intentionally or knowingly causes physical contact with another when the person knows or should reasonably believe that the other will regard the contact as offensive or provocative.

[37L1]

Criminal Law: The Elements of Simple Assault in Washington, DC | Koehler Law

dc criminal code §22-404(a)(1)

There are two forms of misdemeanor assault (that is, simple assault) in Washington, D.C. First, there is “attempted battery assault” which occurs when the defendant injures or attempts to injure another person. The second form, “intent-to-frighten” assault, is defined as a threatening act that puts another person in reasonable fear of immediate injury.
In both cases, the prosecution must also demonstrate that the defendant’s act was voluntary and that the defendant had the actual ability to injure the other person at the time of the incident. “Injury” is defined as any physical injury, however slight, and includes an “offensive touching.” The penalty for either form of this type of assault is $1,000 and/or imprisonment of up to 180 days.

[Papa_D]

Originally Posted by 37L1

The second form, “intent-to-frighten” assault, is defined as a threatening act that puts another person in reasonable fear of immediate injury.[/i]
In both cases, the prosecution must also demonstrate that the defendant’s act was voluntary and that the defendant had the actual ability to injure the other person at the time of the incident. “Injury” is defined as any physical injury, however slight, and includes an “offensive touching.” The penalty for either form of this type of assault is $1,000 and/or imprisonment of up to 180 days.[/color]

Well there you go, throw him in the clink for 180 and that will give him enough time and opportunity to to sort out his sexual orientation, inform the wife if he still has one and set up a play date with Barny Frank if need be.

[TexUs]

Hemlo, congrats, but this isn't Texas, this happened in DC.

But even the DC law, and this is why I was saying it would be tough to argue... The person had to fear the guy was going to injure him. Didn't look to me like he was in danger of getting injured.
That said, that behavior would be entirely acceptable for self-defense. If you move to make a physical move on someone, as long as you maintain you felt like you were in physical danger, you can sock him or shoot him. With the later, nobody would be able to press charges against you though...

I wish this would be getting more coverage than what it is. Fox had an article about it but there's no real coverage. I wish they'd press charges.
Asking someone a question is legal, for both sides. The **** bag didn't have a "right" to know who those kids were. Trying to intimidate them into forcing them to do something that's not legal is going to be frowned upon by any jury.

[37L1]

Originally Posted by TexUs

Hemlo, congrats, but this isn't Texas, this happened in DC.

But even the DC law, and this is why I was saying it would be tough to argue... The person had to fear the guy was going to injure him. Didn't look to me like he was in danger of getting injured.
That said, that behavior would be entirely acceptable for self-defense. If you move to make a physical move on someone, as long as you maintain you felt like you were in physical danger, you can sock him or shoot him. With the later, nobody would be able to press charges against you though...

I wish this would be getting more coverage than what it is. Fox had an article about it but there's no real coverage. I wish they'd press charges.
Asking someone a question is legal, for both sides. The **** bag didn't have a "right" to know who those kids were. Trying to intimidate them into forcing them to do something that's not legal is going to be frowned upon by any jury.

Did you read this part??????

“Injury” is defined as any physical injury, however slight, and includes an “offensive touching.”

I think he managed to accomplish that.

[LandShark]

Unlawful imprisonment would be another route to take.

(1) A person is guilty of unlawful imprisonment if he knowingly restrains another person.

(2) Unlawful imprisonment is a class C felony.

...and to the ignorant liberals here on this forum and everywhere else that spout off about the AZ law. READ THE ****ING BILL before you open your third point of contact.

If the feds would do their damn job like they are charged to do, AZ wouldn't have to pass redundant federal laws as state laws.

[SpiritOne]

Originally Posted by LandShark

Unlawful imprisonment would be another route to take.


...and to the ignorant liberals here on this forum and everywhere else that spout off about the AZ law. READ THE ****ING BILL before you open your third point of contact.

If the feds would do their damn job like they are charged to do, AZ wouldn't have to pass redundant federal laws as state laws.

there aren't any real liberals on this forum.

[helomech]

Originally Posted by TexUs

Hemlo, congrats, but this isn't Texas, this happened in DC.

But even the DC law, and this is why I was saying it would be tough to argue... The person had to fear the guy was going to injure him. Didn't look to me like he was in danger of getting injured.
That said, that behavior would be entirely acceptable for self-defense. If you move to make a physical move on someone, as long as you maintain you felt like you were in physical danger, you can sock him or shoot him. With the later, nobody would be able to press charges against you though...

I wish this would be getting more coverage than what it is. Fox had an article about it but there's no real coverage. I wish they'd press charges.
Asking someone a question is legal, for both sides. The **** bag didn't have a "right" to know who those kids were. Trying to intimidate them into forcing them to do something that's not legal is going to be frowned upon by any jury.

Willing to bet D.C. has a very similar law. I could look it up if I had time. I just happen to have the Texas penal code in my computer. You are not allowed to grab and hold people in a violent manner against their will in ANY state.

[TexUs]

Originally Posted by 37L1

Did you read this part??????

“Injury” is defined as any physical injury, however slight, and includes an “offensive touching.”

I think he managed to accomplish that.

No, I didn't see that part. I read it but not well enough.

I'd agree then. Glad it's like that.