Congressman Assaults Citizen

[Leftfield 3,417]

Same people that claim the vast majority of scientists were wrong on Covid are on here telling the lawyers they have no idea what the law is.

 

[Didba 5,537]

37 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

I'd argue that half the country feels otherwise. 

The half that tried to invalidate a lawful election. I like your thinking.

[I_M4_AU 9,045]

8 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Frankly, most assault by contacts aren’t prosecuted, but it was a clear violation of law.

Of course they aren’t. It would be a waste of time and money.  It may have been a clear violation to you, others don’t see it that way and can defend Higgin’s actions.  If the Kid wants to be a prick, he certainly has that right, he has already shown it.

[Didba 5,537]

36 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

And the defense should play the Lee Zeldin video correct?

Probably not, as it wouldn't be admissible.

[Didba 5,537]

37 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I would think not, but protecting her from a crazed kid who could have just stayed where he was to ask the question could be.

Nope. the law is very specific about when you can defend others.  This ain't it. Period.

[TexasTiger 14,523]

1 minute ago, I_M4_AU said:

Of course they aren’t. It would be a waste of time and money.  It may have been a clear violation to you, others don’t see it that way and can defend Higgin’s actions.  If the Kid wants to be a prick, he certainly has that right, he has already shown it.

There’s a great deal of prosecutorial discretion even when making a legal case is clear. It was assault. Any easy case to prove. Many are that aren’t prosecuted due to choices over where resources in an overburdened system are best spent.

[wdefromtx 3,717]

1 minute ago, Didba said:

Nope. the law is very specific about when you can defend others.  This ain't it. Period.

What’s the standard that has to be met? 

[Didba 5,537]

"defense of others requires the same elements as self-defense: the individual defended must be facing an unprovoked, imminent attack, and the defendant must use a reasonable degree of force with a reasonable belief that force is necessary to repel the attack."

@I_M4_AU @wdefromtx @AUFAN78

The elements of defense of others simply isn't met here. Reasonable belief is an objective reasonable prudent person standard. Imminent means within seconds of occurring. So like when someone starts swinging a punch but not when someone is walking up with a balled fist.

Edited May 20, 2023 by Didba

[AUFAN78 4,162]

9 minutes ago, Didba said:

The half that tried to invalidate a lawful election. I like your thinking.

I simply wish you were thinking. 

[AUFAN78 4,162]

9 minutes ago, Didba said:

Probably not, as it wouldn't be admissible.

Depends on the judge and whether they allow correct?

[I_M4_AU 9,045]

10 minutes ago, Didba said:

The half that tried to invalidate a lawful election. I like your thinking.

No, the half that believed the FBI really had something on Trump for three years.

[AUFAN78 4,162]

10 minutes ago, Didba said:

Nope. the law is specific about when you can defend others.  This ain't it. Period.

For clarity, those non-law enforcement individuals that aided in the defense of Lee Zeldin have been charged?

[icanthearyou 4,468]

2 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

No, the half that believed the FBI really had something on Trump for three years.

Many did not believe that.  For many, it was about Russian interference and, the obvious question of, why were the Russians so interested in having Trump as the American president.

[Didba 5,537]

5 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

I simply wish you were thinking. 

[wdefromtx 3,717]

6 minutes ago, Didba said:

"defense of others requires the same elements as self-defense: the individual defended must be facing an unprovoked, imminent attack, and the defendant must use a reasonable degree of force with a reasonable belief that force is necessary to repel the attack."

@I_M4_AU @wdefromtx @AUFAN78

The elements of defense of others simply isn't met here. Reasonable belief is an objective reasonable prudent person standard. Imminent means within seconds of occurring. So like when someone starts swinging a punch but not when someone is walking up with a balled fist.

So if someone is walking up waving a gun at me I have to wait until shots fired to take action? 

[Didba 5,537]

4 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Depends on the judge and whether they allow correct?

No, it depends on the rules of evidence and whether the Judge wants to get reversed on appeal for allowing a highly prejudicial, irrelevant video recording into evidence. Because allowing a video in that has no factual relevance to the case is certain to be reversed.

[AUFAN78 4,162]

1 minute ago, icanthearyou said:

Many did not believe that.  For many, it was about Russian interference and, the obvious question of, why were the Russians so interested in having Trump as the American president.

Consider what makes you think they do or did? How were you influenced to believe such information? Did you willingly accept or challenge?

[icanthearyou 4,468]

Just now, wdefromtx said:

So if someone is walking up waving a gun at me I have to wait until shots fired to take action? 

Dont get all scared.  They is just constitutionally carryin.  Show em your AR.  Theyll get the message.

[Didba 5,537]

6 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

No, the half that believed the FBI really had something on Trump for three years.

Good thing, I belong to neither group.

[I_M4_AU 9,045]

2 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

Many did not believe that.  For many, it was about Russian interference and, the obvious question of, why were the Russians so interested in having Trump as the American president.

I rest my case.

[wdefromtx 3,717]

1 minute ago, icanthearyou said:

Dont get all scared.  They is just constitutionally carryin.  Show em your AR.  Theyll get the message.

You going to buy me one? 

[AUFAN78 4,162]

2 minutes ago, Didba said:

Because allowing a video in that has no factual relevance to the case is certain to be reversed.

But that is not always the case is it?

[icanthearyou 4,468]

Just now, wdefromtx said:

You going to buy me one? 

Well know.  If you cant afford one then you cant have none.  You socialist.

[Didba 5,537]

3 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

So if someone is walking up waving a gun at me I have to wait until shots fired to take action? 

That has nothing to with the situation at hand but to answer your question, if someone points a gun at you then all the elements of self defense would be met except the last one, the reasonable prudent person portion.

[TexasTiger 14,523]

14 minutes ago, Didba said:

"defense of others requires the same elements as self-defense: the individual defended must be facing an unprovoked, imminent attack, and the defendant must use a reasonable degree of force with a reasonable belief that force is necessary to repel the attack."

@I_M4_AU @wdefromtx @AUFAN78

The elements of defense of others simply isn't met here. Reasonable belief is an objective reasonable prudent person standard. Imminent means within seconds of occurring. So like when someone starts swinging a punch but not when someone is walking up with a balled fist.

Certainly not an iPhone.