Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Traditio wrote:
His intent was to move the reporter. That's apparently it.

It's actually illegal to move someone that doesn't want to be moved in a situation like this. His intent was a crime to begin with, and he should have known that.

The legal, and smart, way to handle that would have been to ask her to move, and when she refuses then you have the police remove her for you. There is a reason you see police escorting protesters and the like from political events, and not campaign managers.

Traditio wrote:

 Goliath wrote:
Well, he grabbed her hard enough to leave bruising on her arm. So it's less a case of "butt hurt" and more a case of "actually hurt"

Did you watch the video?

Again, I grant that she was bruised where he grabbed her. But so what?

Maybe she just bruises easily.

Again, watch the video. It's obvious that he was not intending to cause the female reporter harm. His intent was to move the reporter. That's apparently it.

At any rate, I don't consider minor bruising "actually hurt." What kind of doctor bills have you ever accrued for minor bruises?

As I said: she's just butt hurt.

So if you get injured more easily you aren't allowed to complain when someone injures you? Someone better tell the haemophiliacs and people with brittle bone disease!

 d-usa wrote:

Traditio wrote:
His intent was to move the reporter. That's apparently it.

It's actually illegal to move someone that doesn't want to be moved in a situation like this. His intent was a crime to begin with, and he should have known that.

The legal, and smart, way to handle that would have been to ask her to move, and when she refuses then you have the police remove her for you. There is a reason you see police escorting protesters and the like from political events, and not campaign managers.

Again, I agree with everything you are saying. It doesn't contradict what I've said.

I haven't claimed that the charge is illegitimate. I've claimed that the charge is trivial.

Traditio wrote:

 Goliath wrote:
Well, he grabbed her hard enough to leave bruising on her arm. So it's less a case of "butt hurt" and more a case of "actually hurt"

Did you watch the video?

Again, I grant that she was bruised where he grabbed her. But so what?

Maybe she just bruises easily.

Again, watch the video. It's obvious that he was not intending to cause the female reporter harm. His intent was to move the reporter. That's apparently it.

At any rate, I don't consider minor bruising "actually hurt." What kind of doctor bills have you ever accrued for minor bruises?

Bruised the bottom of my foot once, thought I had broken it. Went to the doctor, doctor told me I had a bruise on the bottom of my foot and to stay off my foot so it could heal. It was just a minor bruise and he just looked at it for a minute or two. But you know what, he turned around and charged me for it! I mean, it was just a little bruise.

Anyways, you really cannot say "he was in the wrong" and then turn around and say "but he shouldn't be punished for it." That is not how Law works. I am coming to realize that you may not have the strongest grasp on how our system works or how any system works.

A Town Called Malus wrote:So if you get injured more easily you aren't allowed to complain when someone injures you? Someone better tell the haemophiliacs and people with brittle bone disease!

1. I can only assume that the lady had neither.

2. Even in those cases, it seems to me that a civil suit is more suitable than a criminal charge.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dreadwinter wrote:Bruised the bottom of my foot once, thought I had broken it. Went to the doctor, doctor told me I had a bruise on the bottom of my foot and to stay off my foot so it could heal. It was just a minor bruise and he just looked at it for a minute or two. But you know what, he turned around and charged me for it! I mean, it was just a little bruise.

That's a rare occurrence.

Anyways, you really cannot say "he was in the wrong" and then turn around and say "but he shouldn't be punished for it." That is not how Law works. I am coming to realize that you may not have the strongest grasp on how our system works or how any system works.

Yes, I can. Unless you are of the opinion that every commission of a crime MUST be charged and punished, whether or not the victim decides to press charges (i.e., unless you are asserting that the State should always press charges when the victim declines to do so), then you can't claim that these two claims ("he was in the wrong" and "it's a trivial case which should not have merited police intervention") are contradictory.

Traditio wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:So if you get injured more easily you aren't allowed to complain when someone injures you? Someone better tell the haemophiliacs and people with brittle bone disease!

1. I can only assume that the lady had neither.

2. Even in those cases, it seems to me that a civil suit is more suitable than a criminal charge.

Violations of criminal laws result in criminal charges that get handled via the criminal justice system. That's kind of the point of these laws.

Trivial criminal charges usually result in trivial punishments.

Traditio wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:So if you get injured more easily you aren't allowed to complain when someone injures you? Someone better tell the haemophiliacs and people with brittle bone disease!

1. I can only assume that the lady had neither.

2. Even in those cases, it seems to me that a civil suit is more suitable than a criminal charge.

Why would a civil suit be more suitable? That makes absolutely no sense. Somebody has just attacked you, you need the police involved.

Traditio wrote:

Dreadwinter wrote:Bruised the bottom of my foot once, thought I had broken it. Went to the doctor, doctor told me I had a bruise on the bottom of my foot and to stay off my foot so it could heal. It was just a minor bruise and he just looked at it for a minute or two. But you know what, he turned around and charged me for it! I mean, it was just a little bruise.

That's a rare occurrence.

Actually, it is not. Bruising the bottom of your foot happens quite a bit. Most people never notice it because they just think their feet are sore.

Traditio wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:So if you get injured more easily you aren't allowed to complain when someone injures you? Someone better tell the haemophiliacs and people with brittle bone disease!

1. I can only assume that the lady had neither.

2. Even in those cases, it seems to me that a civil suit is more suitable than a criminal charge.

1) Probably not but still highlights the idiocy of such a viewpoint.

2) If someone grabs you and breaks your arm or causes internal bleeding which could require hospital treatment, you really don't think they should be criminally charged?

Edit: also, the idea that a victim has to press charges is an old myth. Their opinions can be taken into account if a DA so inclines, but there is a reason why it's "state vs accused" and not "victim vs accused".

Perhaps he should just have asked her politely to move out of the way, then there would be no question of "pressing charges" or complaints that she wasn't bruised enough to satisfy your personal criteria of what crimes ought to be prosecuted.

 d-usa wrote:
Edit: also, the idea that a victim has to press charges is an old myth. Their opinions can be taken into account if a DA so inclines, but there is a reason why it's "state vs accused" and not "victim vs accused".

Can confirm, at my last job I had a troubled person who was involved in a domestic disturbance. Said person took it to the cops who then took it to the DA. The DA questioned said person and afterwards said person decided they did not want to press charges and wanted to back out of all of it. DA responded with "lolnope" and continued doing his job.

A Town Called Malus wrote:1) Probably not but still highlights the idiocy of such a viewpoint.

2) If someone grabs you and breaks your arm or causes internal bleeding which could require hospital treatment, you really don't think they should be criminally charged?

It really depends on the concrete case. Let us assume that the woman actually had one of those conditions and that such a consequence actually resulted.

1. Our man has absolutely no way of knowing that.
2. He had no possible way of foreseeing that result.
3. He in no way intended that result.

The fact that the breaking of an arm or internal bleeding would have resulted would have been an accident.

Thus, more properly a civil, not a criminal matter.

Again, yes, technically, it's battery. But there was no intent to cause injury, even if injury resulted.

Here, as always, we should apply the "reasonable person" test. Would a reasonable person have considered the possibility of breaking someone's arm or causing internal bleeding simply by grabbing that person's arm? In this case, the answer is "no."

If we were talking about a really old lady, a very small child or an obviously very sick person, then I'd tell you a different story. But we're not.

Touching the arm was the crime, not the amount of damage caused.

Dreadwinter wrote:Can confirm, at my last job I had a troubled person who was involved in a domestic disturbance. Said person took it to the cops who then took it to the DA. The DA questioned said person and afterwards said person decided they did not want to press charges and wanted to back out of all of it. DA responded with "lolnope" and continued doing his job.

I'm not entirely sure, but I think it differs depending on:

1. The nature of the crime
2. The location in which the crime took place.

I think that domestic abuse cases actually are those in which the State has to press charges independently of the consent of the victim.

Simple battery, at least in some locations, is different. The police do in fact ask whether or not you wish to press charges. In fact, I know this latter from personal experience.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Touching the arm was the crime, not the amount of damage caused.

If you're not going to bother reading and understanding my postings, do feel free to overlook them and spend your time on something else.

Traditio wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:1) Probably not but still highlights the idiocy of such a viewpoint.

2) If someone grabs you and breaks your arm or causes internal bleeding which could require hospital treatment, you really don't think they should be criminally charged?

It really depends on the concrete case. Let us assume that the woman actually had one of those conditions and that such a consequence actually resulted.

1. Our man has absolutely no way of knowing that.
2. He had no possible way of foreseeing that result.
3. He in no way intended that result.

The fact that the breaking of an arm or internal bleeding would have resulted would have been an accident.

Thus, more properly a civil, not a criminal matter.

Again, yes, technically, it's battery. But there was no intent to cause injury, even if injury resulted.

Here, as always, we should apply the "reasonable person" test. Would a reasonable person have considered the possibility of breaking someone's arm or causing internal bleeding simply by grabbing that person's arm? In this case, the answer is "no."

If we were talking about a really old lady, a very small child or an obviously very sick person, then I'd tell you a different story. But we're not.

It would not have been an accident. It would have been something caused intentionally. An accident is when something outside of your control happens. Like say I am driving down the road and I start to have a heart attack and I lose control of my vehicle. That is an accident. Somebody intentionally laying their hands on another person is never an accident.

Regardless, the hypothetical medical conditions are irrelevant. He still intentionally laid hands on her and forcibly moved her. That is pretty much all you need for a criminal case.

We don't allow this sort of post on Dakka.

Reds8n

Traditio wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:1) Probably not but still highlights the idiocy of such a viewpoint.

2) If someone grabs you and breaks your arm or causes internal bleeding which could require hospital treatment, you really don't think they should be criminally charged?

It really depends on the concrete case. Let us assume that the woman actually had one of those conditions and that such a consequence actually resulted.

1. Our man has absolutely no way of knowing that.
2. He had no possible way of foreseeing that result.
3. He in no way intended that result.

The fact that the breaking of an arm or internal bleeding would have resulted would have been an accident.

Thus, more properly a civil, not a criminal matter.

Again, yes, technically, it's battery. But there was no intent to cause injury, even if injury resulted.

Here, as always, we should apply the "reasonable person" test. Would a reasonable person have considered the possibility of breaking someone's arm or causing internal bleeding simply by grabbing that person's arm? In this case, the answer is "no."

If we were talking about a really old lady, a very small child or an obviously very sick person, then I'd tell you a different story. But we're not.

Intending to cause injury isn't required to charge someone with causing injury. If it was then we wouldn't have laws covering accidental death.

It doesn't matter if he indented to harm her or not, the fact of the matter is that he did, no matter how minor.

EDIT: ninja'd several times over. I forgot how fast this thread moves!

Dreadwinter wrote:It would not have been an accident. It would have been something caused intentionally. An accident is when something outside of your control happens. Like say I am driving down the road and I start to have a heart attack and I lose control of my vehicle. That is an accident. Somebody intentionally laying their hands on another person is never an accident.

Regardless, the hypothetical medical conditions are irrelevant. He still intentionally laid hands on her and forcibly moved her. That is pretty much all you need for a criminal case.

You're conflating different things. At no point in time have I claimed that it would be an accident that the reporter grabbed the woman. I claimed that it would have been an accident that the reporter injured the woman.

As for the rest, I am going to give you the same reply I gave to d-usa:

If you don't want to read and understand my postings and reply accordingly, feel free to pass my postings over. I refuse to have a merely verbal disagreement with an opponent who insists solely on beating a rhetorical drum.

Traditio wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Touching the arm was the crime, not the amount of damage caused.

If you're not going to bother reading and understanding my postings, do feel free to overlook them and spend your time on something else.

I am reading your postings.

You keep on talking about how he had no way of knowing what kind of damage he could have caused, and that this should be taken into consideration because a reasonable person wouldn't think that they would be causing damage.

But the point is that touching someone was the crime, and it has nothing to do with what a reasonable person believes the potential damage to be.

Traditio wrote:

Dreadwinter wrote:It would not have been an accident. It would have been something caused intentionally. An accident is when something outside of your control happens. Like say I am driving down the road and I start to have a heart attack and I lose control of my vehicle. That is an accident. Somebody intentionally laying their hands on another person is never an accident.

Regardless, the hypothetical medical conditions are irrelevant. He still intentionally laid hands on her and forcibly moved her. That is pretty much all you need for a criminal case.

You're conflating different things. At no point in time have I claimed that it would be an accident that the reporter grabbed the woman. I claimed that it would have been an accident that the reporter injured the woman.

As for the rest, I am going to give you the same reply I gave to d-usa:

If you don't want to read and understand my postings and reply accordingly, feel free to pass my postings over. I refuse to have a merely verbal disagreement with an opponent who insists solely on beating a rhetorical drum.

He grabbed the woman which a reasonable person would know may cause injury. He chose to grab her, he gets charged.

His own stupidity in choosing to grab her without considering the potential for injury is not a defence.

A Town Called Malus wrote:Intending to cause injury isn't required to charge someone with causing injury. If it was then we wouldn't have laws covering accidental death.

I'm not a lawyer. I don't know that much black letter law. I do think, however, that the following are probably true:

1. Yes, accidental death can bring about criminal charges. However, it's not qua accidental. If I get drunk and accidentally run somebody over with my car, it's not simply the accident that gets me charged. It's the gross negligence that I displayed. The idea is that before I drank and got into my car, I should have thought to myself: "You know, if I drink and drive, I could have an accident. Maybe I shouldn't drink and drive."

I imagine that all of the cases that you're probably thinking of are just like that.

Again, think of manslaughter. What makes accidental death an aggravating circumstance in a crime is gross negligence.

In our case, there is no sense in which our man displayed gross negligence. Again, apply the "reasonable person" standard.

2. When gross negligence is not a thing, as far as I'm aware, it's, at best, a civil matter, no?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

A Town Called Malus wrote:He grabbed the woman which a reasonable person would know may cause injury.

"Injury" is such a vague, loaded term. What kind of injury would a reasonable person expect to cause simply by grabbing and moving someone in those circumstances?

He chose to grab her, he gets charged.

His own stupidity in choosing to grab her without considering the potential for injury is not a defence.

Again, this part of your posting simply doesn't merit a reply on my part; I've already addressed it ad nauseam. Anyone posting in this thread should see my previous replies. I'm not going to repeat myself further.

Edit:

Actually, feth it.

After two pages you just need to know better and move on.

 d-usa wrote:
Edit:

Actually, feth it.

After two pages you just need to know better and move on.

For the 100th time, and this is the dead LAST time I am going to say this:

My claim is not that the charge is illegitimate. I fully grant that, according to the letter of the law, a crime was committed and that the lady reporter in question was a victim of a battery.

So, all of you may cease and desist from mindless repeating: "BUT HE COMMITTED A CRIME!"

Yes. I am aware of this. I have said this. This point is not at issue. It is not in dispute. By repeating it over and over again, you are simply missing and ignoring my actual point, which is this:

Regardless of the criminality of the act, there was no need to file a report, press charges, etc. It's a trivial matter.

If you want to argue AGAINST me, you may NOT insist that a crime occurred. You must show me that it's not a trivial matter.

Furthermore, simply insisting that a crime has occurred is NOT evidence that the charge is non-trivial.

Jaywalking, anyone?
Possession of marijuana, anyone?

Traditio wrote:
I'm not going to repeat myself further.

That's probably for the best because no matter how many times you try to say what you're saying, you're still not going to be right.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

Traditio wrote:
I'm not going to repeat myself further.

That's probably for the best because no matter how many times you try to say what you're saying, you're still not going to be right.

Unless you have some kind of (non question-begging, non red-herring) argument against me, you must pardon me if I contemn your assertion with the same facility wherewith it was made.

No, no he doesn't need to and no I don't need to. Stop dismissing absolutely everyone who comments in opposition to you, it's hardly polite to say again and again 'you aren't worth my time', and don't use 'FTFY (Fixed That For You)' and alter other user's comments when you post, that is far from smiled upon

Traditio wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:1) Probably not but still highlights the idiocy of such a viewpoint.

2) If someone grabs you and breaks your arm or causes internal bleeding which could require hospital treatment, you really don't think they should be criminally charged?

It really depends on the concrete case. Let us assume that the woman actually had one of those conditions and that such a consequence actually resulted.

1. Our man has absolutely no way of knowing that.
2. He had no possible way of foreseeing that result.
3. He in no way intended that result.

The fact that the breaking of an arm or internal bleeding would have resulted would have been an accident.

Thus, more properly a civil, not a criminal matter.

Again, yes, technically, it's battery. But there was no intent to cause injury, even if injury resulted.

Here, as always, we should apply the "reasonable person" test. Would a reasonable person have considered the possibility of breaking someone's arm or causing internal bleeding simply by grabbing that person's arm? In this case, the answer is "no."

If we were talking about a really old lady, a very small child or an obviously very sick person, then I'd tell you a different story. But we're not.

Is your idea now that this woman is a haemophiliac and people don't have to consider the possibility that people they decide to grab hold of might be haeomphiliacs?

 motyak wrote:
No, no he doesn't need to and no I don't need to. Stop dismissing absolutely everyone who comments in opposition to you, it's hardly polite to say again and again 'you aren't worth my time', and don't use 'FTFY (Fixed That For You)' and alter other user's comments when you post, that is far from smiled upon

I'm not dismissing everyone who comments in opposition to me. What I am dismissing is the insistence on arguing against things that I haven't said.

And frankly, moderator, I find it strange that you criticize me for "dismissing" people when the post to which I replied itself was dismissive and impolite in an even worse way.

Fair point about the FTFY thing, but really, what difference does it make? I just as easily could have written out: "In point of fact, the commission of a crime doesn't necessarily entail the filing of charges. That may or may not result depending on a variety of factors, including, but not limited to, the consent of the victim to file charges."

If the person to which I responded with a FTFY took offense, I do apologize. None was intended.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:Is your idea now that this woman is a haemophiliac

I have no reason to think that the woman in question is a haemophiliac.

and people don't have to consider the possibility that people they decide to grab hold of might be haeomphiliacs?

Ordinarily? No. Why should they? How many haemophiliacs are there?

What's reasonable is to plan according to what's ordinarily or usually the case, or else, what is probable in any given set of circumstances.

I don't take an umbrella with me when the sun is shining and the weather report says that there's not a chance of rain.

Could it rain? Sure.

Is it likely? No.

It's one in 20,000 in the USA, according to the National Hemophilia Foundation.