Congressman Assaults Citizen

[wdefromtx 3,717]

4 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

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. 

How close were the other officers? We’re they close enough to make it there in time if needed? They have already stated they did not know why they did not have police there. He did tell the police he sensed danger, he maintains this stance now. Just because the police didn’t pursue this more after doesn’t mean he did anything wrong. If he would have been security I doubt people would be calling this assault or if it was capitol police. 

There was no stage like you said, so if this was a singer at ground level and he was being disorderly and tried to get up there it’s reasonable to remove them to make sure nothing bad happens right? 
 

Perhaps they should have had it roped off to signify a space to separate them from the crowd. But there was not much of a crowd and the folks near the podium were people associated with the speakers anyways. 
 

You hear Higgins trying to reason with him, then he thinks things mellowed out the he starts in again trying to get close. Higgins was calm while removing and trying to tell him to calm down. And took him right to the vicinity of the police and handed him off. 

 

[TexasTiger 14,523]

16 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

How close were the other officers? We’re they close enough to make it there in time if needed? They have already stated they did not know why they did not have police there. He did tell the police he sensed danger, he maintains this stance now. Just because the police didn’t pursue this more after doesn’t mean he did anything wrong. If he would have been security I doubt people would be calling this assault or if it was capitol police. 

There was no stage like you said, so if this was a singer at ground level and he was being disorderly and tried to get up there it’s reasonable to remove them to make sure nothing bad happens right? 
 

Perhaps they should have had it roped off to signify a space to separate them from the crowd. But there was not much of a crowd and the folks near the podium were people associated with the speakers anyways. 
 

You hear Higgins trying to reason with him, then he thinks things mellowed out the he starts in again trying to get close. Higgins was calm while removing and trying to tell him to calm down. And took him right to the vicinity of the police and handed him off. 

 

Higgins is an admitted liar and bad cop who uses excessive force and lies about it:

https://theind.com/articles/24002/

In his CYA post afterwards he lied and claimed the person he manhandled was having a mental health crisis. He’s a lying showboat. The kind of guy who shouldn’t have a badge.

[wdefromtx 3,717]

12 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Comprehension evades you, period. No qualifier needed.

For a couple of lawyers y’all sure seem to fail to realize this is not a slam dunk case you think it is.
 

For everything you try to say is the law and that he does not meet I have been able to state how he meets it.
 

There is just as much if not more evidence for his defense than evidence that he was just trying to get rid of him thus being assault. There’s the actions of Higgins leading up to things vs the kids, there’s the kid running and trying to get to the podium, then there’s the level of force used to remove him and how he took him near the police. Evidence looks more like that to me than he was being removed for asking tough questions. 
 

There is plenty to work with for a lawyer to convince a jury he did not commit assault. So it comes to which side can have a better case. 
 

Now the kid…maybe he should have been taken in for disorderly conduct. 

[TexasTiger 14,523]

2 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

For a couple of lawyers y’all sure seem to fail to realize this is not a slam dunk case you think it is.
 

For everything you try to say is the law and that he does not meet I have been able to state how he meets it.
 

There is just as much if not more evidence for his defense than evidence that he was just trying to get rid of him thus being assault. There’s the actions of Higgins leading up to things vs the kids, there’s the kid running and trying to get to the podium, then there’s the level of force used to remove him and how he took him near the police. Evidence looks more like that to me than he was being removed for asking tough questions. 
 

There is plenty to work with for a lawyer to convince a jury he did not commit assault. So it comes to which side can have a better case. 
 

Now the kid…maybe he should have been taken in for disorderly conduct. 

You seem at least as certain and you have little basis for it.

Cite the disorderly statute and make your case. I haven’t looked at but I suspect he hadn’t crossed that line yet, but as I indicated, with more time, who knows? I will say this for the guy— he seemed to be sufficiently under control to continue his recording and audio of what was happening to him without running any risk of violating the law as Higgins manhandled him. But how about this scent- Higgins grabs him initiating contact and he pushes Higgins back— self defense?

[wdefromtx 3,717]

12 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

You seem at least as certain and you have little basis for it.

Cite the disorderly statute and make your case. I haven’t looked at but I suspect he hadn’t crossed that line yet, but as I indicated, with more time, who knows? I will say this for the guy— he seemed to be sufficiently under control to continue his recording and audio of what was happening to him without running any risk of violating the law as Higgins manhandled him. But how about this scent- Higgins grabs him initiating contact and he pushes Higgins back— self defense?

To your last sentence question. 
 

If he’s pushing back because Higgins made contact only for the reason of him asking questions and not because of him thinking he’s a threat then yes he’s entitled to stand up for himself.
 

With how this happened and if Higgins would have started whaling on him he’d be entitled to defend himself. But Higgins used force reasonable. 
 

Regarding disorderly conduct:

(b) It is unlawful for a person to engage in loud, threatening, or abusive language, or disruptive conduct, with the intent and effect of impeding or disrupting the orderly conduct of a lawful public gathering, or of a congregation of people engaged in any religious service or in worship, a funeral, or similar proceeding.

This is exactly what he was doing and what Higgins was trying to de-escalate.

https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/22-1321

[TexasTiger 14,523]

2 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

To your last sentence question. 
 

If he’s pushing back because Higgins made contact only for the reason of him asking questions and not because of him thinking he’s a threat then yes he’s entitled to stand up for himself.
 

With how this happened and if Higgins would have started whaling on him he’d be entitled to defend himself. But Higgins used force reasonable. 
 

Regarding disorderly conduct:

(b) It is unlawful for a person to engage in loud, threatening, or abusive language, or disruptive conduct, with the intent and effect of impeding or disrupting the orderly conduct of a lawful public gathering, or of a congregation of people engaged in any religious service or in worship, a funeral, or similar proceeding.

This is exactly what he was doing and what Higgins was trying to de-escalate.

https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/22-1321

Disorderly conduct ordinances often have high burdens to over come at trial and on appeal due to first amendment considerations and the vagueness and subjectivity of a lot of those terms. And intent is especially challenging to prove.

[wdefromtx 3,717]

53 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Higgins is an admitted liar and bad cop who uses excessive force and lies about it:

https://theind.com/articles/24002/

In his CYA post afterwards he lied and claimed the person he manhandled was having a mental health crisis. He’s a lying showboat. The kind of guy who shouldn’t have a badge.

He should not have said he had a mental health crisis. 
 

His past does make one rethink what he says. But if we are bringing up peoples past we need to consider Burdett’s past being he accepted a plea deal for two felony charges. Both don’t exactly have a stellar record. 

[homersapien 12,307]

3 hours 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.

 

Not only that, but the same people who describe Jan. 6 as a peaceful political protest are insisting a kid trying to maneuver close with his phone in order to record a politician was a clear and present danger.

[TexasTiger 14,523]

9 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

He should not have said he had a mental health crisis. 
 

His past does make one rethink what he says. But if we are bringing up peoples past we need to consider Burdett’s past being he accepted a plea deal for two felony charges. Both don’t exactly have a stellar record. 

Two jerks meet. 🤣

[I_M4_AU 9,045]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Not only that, but the same people who describe Jan. 6 as a peaceful political protest are insisting a kid trying to maneuver close with his phone in order to record a politician was a clear and present danger.

I guess the kid should be happy Michael Byrd wasn’t on duty.

[wdefromtx 3,717]

Just now, TexasTiger said:

Two jerks meet. 🤣

We can agree on that. 

[Didba 5,537]

2 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

Somewhere between Pulp Fiction and Get Shorty.

[TexasTiger 14,523]

1 minute ago, wdefromtx said:

We can agree on that. 

Agreement!! 🍻🥳🍾

[Didba 5,537]

2 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

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

Bias, sure, but blind acceptance? Not so much.

[Didba 5,537]

2 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

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.

I appreciate the sentiment and the joke at Homer's expense but I hope you don't actually think I was getting my ass handed to me, lol.

[homersapien 12,307]

3 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

What’s the standard that has to be met? 

When the facts - as established by common sense observation of what happened -  are against you, argue the law.

The kid was obviously trying to get close to answer a question and record the response.

Hell, he wasn't holding a gun or a knife, he was holding a freakin' cell phone, with both hands.  Not to mention he was a puny kid.  Hell Boebert could have probably taken him down by herself if needed.

You guys are a hoot with your pearl-clutching arguments of what a clear and present danger this scrawny kid represented. 

 

Edited May 20, 2023 by homersapien

[Didba 5,537]

2 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

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. 
 

 

You know Zeldin does not hold any precedent in a court of law, right? No juror is gonna have Zeldin presented to them and mentioning Zeldin in trial would probably result in a mistrial.

So basing any analysis on Zeldin isn't worthwhile. 

I have already said several times, that no one really knows how a hypo like this would turn out because 12 jurors get to decide what a reasonable prudent person thinks in these situations. I think he could meet the elements for several things, I think he could have a shot at self defense, I think self defense could fail as well, I also think that the case would literally never be brought by either side.

[Didba 5,537]

2 hours 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. Not a hypo, just an example to try and better explain to you how the law works
 

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…No, probably not….so my question about guns is reasonable. Sure, and I answered it.

 

 

 

[wdefromtx 3,717]

1 minute ago, Didba said:

You know Zeldin does not hold any precedent in a court of law, right? No juror is gonna have Zeldin presented to them and mentioning Zeldin in trial would probably result in a mistrial.

So basing any analysis on Zeldin isn't worthwhile. 

I have already said several times, that no one really knows how a hypo like this would turn out because 12 jurors get to decide what a reasonable prudent person thinks in these situations. I think he could meet the elements for several things, I think he could have a shot at self defense, I think self defense could fail as well, I also think that the case would literally never be brought by either side.

When did I say Zeldin holds up in a court of law? 
 

However it is reasonable for him to say in court that one of the reasons he perceived this as a threat is what happened to Zeldin when he had someone  get close. I never said he’d present that case. 

[wdefromtx 3,717]

8 minutes ago, Didba said:

 

Balling your fist and walking towards someone…..

assault

 

Assault is generally defined as an intentional actthat puts another person in reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact. No physical injury is required, but the actor must have intended to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the victim and the victim must have thereby been put in immediate apprehension of such a contact.

• “Intention” in the context of assault, means that the act is not accidental, but motive is immaterial. 
  • It does not matter if the goal of the tortfeasor was merely to scare the victim or if the act was meant as a joke.
  • The tortfeasor need not have intended for the contact to be harmful or offensive, only to have intended the actual contact.
• “Reasonable apprehension” in the context of assault, refers to the victim’s reasonablebelief that the act will lead to imminent harmful or offensive contact.
  • The victim does not need to prove fear, only that they were aware that such a contact might occur. If the victim and the tortfeasor do not know each other, then the legal standard is what an ordinary reasonable person under the same circumstances as the victim would have believed.
  • If the victim and tortfeasor have special knowledge of each other, this special knowledge may be considered when determining whether the victim’s apprehension was reasonable.
• “Imminent” in the context of assault, means the threatened harmful or offensive contact must be certain or likely to occur very soon.
• “Harmful or offensive” in the context of assault, is an objective standard referring to touching that is likely to or capable o

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/assault

[Didba 5,537]

5 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

When did I say Zeldin holds up in a court of law? 
 

However it is reasonable for him to say in court that one of the reasons he perceived this as a threat is what happened to Zeldin when he had someone  get close. I never said he’d present that case. 

He wouldn't get to talk about Zeldin.

[homersapien 12,307]

3 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

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

Well, so much for the prospect of peaceful press conferences. 

[Didba 5,537]

3 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Balling your fist and walking towards someone…..

assault

 

Assault is generally defined as an intentional actthat puts another person in reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact. No physical injury is required, but the actor must have intended to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the victim and the victim must have thereby been put in immediate apprehension of such a contact.

• “Intention” in the context of assault, means that the act is not accidental, but motive is immaterial. 
  • It does not matter if the goal of the tortfeasor was merely to scare the victim or if the act was meant as a joke.
  • The tortfeasor need not have intended for the contact to be harmful or offensive, only to have intended the actual contact.
• “Reasonable apprehension” in the context of assault, refers to the victim’s reasonablebelief that the act will lead to imminent harmful or offensive contact.
  • The victim does not need to prove fear, only that they were aware that such a contact might occur. If the victim and the tortfeasor do not know each other, then the legal standard is what an ordinary reasonable person under the same circumstances as the victim would have believed.
  • If the victim and tortfeasor have special knowledge of each other, this special knowledge may be considered when determining whether the victim’s apprehension was reasonable.
• “Imminent” in the context of assault, means the threatened harmful or offensive contact must be certain or likely to occur very soon.
• “Harmful or offensive” in the context of assault, is an objective standard referring to touching that is likely to or capable o

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/assault

Yes, this doesn't help you. I know all of this.  There is precedent out there that just walking towards someone with a balled up fist down by their side is not assault. there has to be something more than that.

Edited May 20, 2023 by Didba

[wdefromtx 3,717]

Just now, Didba said:

Yes, this doesn't help you. I know all this.

So basically the law is just a bunch of useless words that you can wrangle the meaning of to fit what you want. Got it. 
 

I’d like to see you explain how the balled up fist and approaching someone does not fit what this says. 

[homersapien 12,307]

2 hours 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. 

You are either confused or deliberately being disingenuous.

No one is asserting Higgins acted with real malice above the obvious fact he clearly didn't want a kid asking pointed questions of Boebert while recording them.

The point is, he committed assault because of it.