Congressman Assaults Citizen

[wdefromtx 3,716]

Just now, icanthearyou said:

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

I can afford one, but you want me to have one to take out so you should buy me one. 

[AUFAN78 4,162]

4 minutes ago, Didba said:

Good thing, I belong to neither group.

[Didba 5,537]

7 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

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

No clue. I don't know anything about the "Lee Zeldin" incident you refer to.  If the prosecutors think the people aiding in the defense can meet all the elements of self defense then they probably used their discretion not to charge them.

[Didba 5,537]

23 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

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.

 

Pretty astounding isn't it

[TexasTiger 14,523]

7 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? 

In this case the iPhone would have to transform into a gun before your hypothetical might become relevant.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

1 minute ago, wdefromtx said:

I can afford one, but you want me to have one to take out so you should buy me one. 

I dont wont you to have won.  I aint buying you won.  Stop being a begger.

[wdefromtx 3,716]

1 minute ago, TexasTiger said:

In this case the iPhone would have to transform into a gun before your hypothetical might become relevant.

I was speaking to his hypothetical. Try to keep up. 

[Didba 5,537]

4 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

But that is not always the case is it?

Yes. It is.

[AUFAN78 4,162]

5 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

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

Drunk?

[Didba 5,537]

4 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Elaborate?

[Didba 5,537]

5 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

I was speaking to his hypothetical. Try to keep up. 

My hypo?? What? I never stated a hypo with a gun?? I just answered a question about one. And used punching as an easy example. jfc

It was your hypo that brought up a gun. Come on, man, you drunk, already forgot your own hypo?

Edited May 20, 2023 by Didba

[TexasTiger 14,523]

5 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

I was speaking to his hypothetical. Try to keep up. 

Hard to keep up with all your irrational tangents.

[Didba 5,537]

Just now, TexasTiger said:

Hard to keep up with all your irrational tangents.

It was his hypo not mine lmao

[AUFAN78 4,162]

7 minutes ago, Didba said:

Pretty astounding isn't it

Sigh. SMDH

[Didba 5,537]

4 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Sigh. SMDH

I mean, are you guys not arguing with two lawyers about the law? Sigh. SMDH

Edited May 20, 2023 by Didba

[AUFAN78 4,162]

8 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

In this case the iPhone would have to transform into a gun before your hypothetical might become relevant.

From an LEO/security perspective that takes one to two seconds correct?

[Didba 5,537]

Alright, kids, I have to head out to a Partner's baby shower. Y'all play nice. Always fun to educate y'all on the law.

Edited May 20, 2023 by Didba

[AUFAN78 4,162]

10 minutes ago, Didba said:

Elaborate?

Somewhere between Pulp Fiction and Get Shorty.

[AUFAN78 4,162]

5 minutes ago, Didba said:

I mean, are you guys not arguing with two lawyers about the law?

I would say questioning not arguing. Your bias and blind acceptance has been noted. Surely you see that right?

[AUFAN78 4,162]

13 minutes ago, Didba said:

Alright, kids, I have to head out to a Partner's baby shower. Y'all play nice. Always fun to educate y'all on the law.

According to homer logic, it is a good time to leave as you were getting your a$$ handed to you. LOL. I mean who has things to do other than AUForum? 

Now obviously, I have much more respect than a drunken homer, so enjoy your event and best wishes to the family and their new baby.

[wdefromtx 3,716]

19 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.

Let’s see based on Lee Zeldin it is reasonable to assume that someone who is being rude, disrespectful towards the congressmen and after being asked to calm down and that they would answer any questions after they were speaking would possibly attack if they got to the podium. So Higgins isn’t provoking him…he’s the one being calm. The kid takes off running and he’s pacing him…he turns to the podium. So based on Zeldin it is reasonable for one to believe that an attack could be imminent. At this point all it takes is a second or two for him to get up there and take a swing. 
 

Now we get to the contact and force used to stop what he thinks is occurring. It was a reasonable level of force and correlates to the situation necessary. He  got him out of the area and then the police stepped in. 

There is plenty to reason that he could do harm given how close he was trying to get, especially when other protesters were keeping a normal distance from the podium,  his apparent strong dislike of them and history of a politician getting attacked. 
 

We can only go off what he said, his actions leading up to it and how the kid was acting. 
 

 

[wdefromtx 3,716]

37 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Hard to keep up with all your irrational tangents.

Hard to keep up with all the spinning you are doing to show malice on Higgins part all while saying this is just some kid trying to ask questions and is the victim here. You keep going back to his phone and you have no clue what or why he wanted to get up that close to Boebert. Hell, maybe he wanted a selfie but if this were a concert and he was trying to do this while someone was singing he would have been removed in the same fashion by security. 

[TexasTiger 14,523]

2 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Hard to keep up with all the spinning you are doing to show malice on Higgins part all while saying this is just some kid trying to ask questions and is the victim here. You keep going back to his phone and you have no clue what or why he wanted to get up that close to Boebert. Hell, maybe he wanted a selfie but if this were a concert and he was trying to do this while someone was singing he would have been removed in the same fashion by security. 

Well, we have quite a few clues. He was trying to ask questions while recording her, even after Higgins forcibly removed him Higgins gave no indication he believed the man was armed or needed to be arrested. You’re  the one going on wild speculation. 
 

Folks get that close to singers all the time at the edge of a stage. If they get on stage, that’s a problem. There was no stage. Journalists push to get in place to ask politicians questions all the time. This guy fancied himself some sort of internet journalist. Even while being accosted by Higgins he continued recording what he planned to report, which he did. Both right wing and left wing activists do this.

There were multiple congressmen doing a press function. Surely law enforcement was nearby. Had this guy persisted  to an unacceptable degree or distance they would have acted. Higgins jumped the gun. Not because he sensed danger. Had he truly sensed danger he would said that to the officers. 

[wdefromtx 3,716]

48 minutes ago, Didba said:

My hypo?? What? I never stated a hypo with a gun?? I just answered a question about one. And used punching as an easy example. jfc

It was your hypo that brought up a gun. Come on, man, you drunk, already forgot your own hypo?

Clearly reading comprehension evades you two. I asked you a hypothetical question with the gun example because of your hypothetical about walking up with a balled up fist versus taking a swing. 
 

You said walking up with a balled first is not reason for self defense. Hell, doesn’t that fall under the legal definition of assault…I believe so….so my question about guns is reasonable. 


 

 

[TexasTiger 14,523]

4 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Clearly reading comprehension evades you two. I asked you a hypothetical question with the gun example because of your hypothetical about walking up with a balled up fist versus taking a swing. 
 

You said walking up with a balled first is not reason for self defense. Hell, doesn’t that fall under the legal definition of assault…I believe so….so my question about guns is reasonable. 


 

 

Comprehension evades you, period. No qualifier needed.