Congressman Assaults Citizen

[wdefromtx 3,714]

4 minutes ago, Didba said:

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.

If I see someone walking up with their fist balled up and clock someone, then at a different time someone walking up to me in the same fashion and I grab them to stop them. Would it not be reasonable for me to assume imminent danger? 

[homersapien 12,305]

3 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.

It was logic when applied to you, because you were getting owned. It's totally irrelevant if applied to Didba because he isn't.

Understand?

 

[TexasTiger 14,521]

3 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

If I see someone walking up with their fist balled up and clock someone, then at a different time someone walking up to me in the same fashion and I grab them to stop them. Would it not be reasonable for me to assume imminent danger? 

Maybe not.

[wdefromtx 3,714]

Just now, TexasTiger said:

Maybe not.

Lol True, but you know the distinction I’m making. 

[homersapien 12,305]

11 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

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.

Thanks for confirming how much MAGAs respect the rule of law.

(As if there were any doubt.)

[wdefromtx 3,714]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

Thanks for confirming how much MAGAs respect the rule of law.

(As if there were any doubt.)

I didn’t know he was a MAGA.
 

I’m quoting the law as it is written only to hear “well, that doesn’t matter because we do it this way.” 

[homersapien 12,305]

2 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

I didn’t know he was a MAGA.
 

I’m quoting the law as it is written only to hear “well, that doesn’t matter because we do it this way.” 

Don't know you mean by "he" but I was referring to you:  "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."

And now your doubling down.

Edited May 20, 2023 by homersapien

[wdefromtx 3,714]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

Don't know you mean by "he" but I was referring to you.

Not sure why you would be referring to me. I’m the one citing the law stating how things line up with the law and apparently none of that matters because we interpret the laws and set precedence that is contradictory to the law or make such determinations so narrow that only one way works. 
 

If my line of work tried to interpret codes and regs like this lots of people would be dead. 
 

Find someone else to accuse of being a MAGA. 

[wdefromtx 3,714]

12 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Don't know you mean by "he" but I was referring to you:  "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."

And now your doubling down.

Did you not pick up on the sarcasm because I’m referring to how laws say one thing, are in writing, but don’t really mean what they say? 
 

The law says this, but……

[Didba 5,537]

14 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

If I see someone walking up with their fist balled up and clock someone, then at a different time someone walking up to me in the same fashion and I grab them to stop them. Would it not be reasonable for me to assume imminent danger? 

A balled fist held at waist level, walking at you while you are walking at them and nothing more won't trigger it. They aren't talking to you, haven't been looking at you, you don't know them. If there is anything more than that like yelling or raising the fist, quick movements, then boom assault triggered.  I wasn't clear when I gave you my example what I mean by balled fist.

When I gave that example I meant someone walking at and then by another person with a fist balled at their waist for any reason. Not looking at the other person, or yelling etc. Just that. Is not assault. That is my bad for not realizing there was a miscommunication in the actual example I gave.

Hypo1: Say A balls up there fist because they are thinking of something that made them mad earlier in the day, A happens to be walking at B and then by B while A balls his fists at waist level because of the thought. A has not assaulted B.

Hypo2: Same hypo but A becomes so enraged right after he passes B he yells out curse-words in anger and swings out wildly almost hitting B.  That's assault.

If we were not thinking of the same kind example then that's on me for not being clear. When I first gave you the example about the balled fist hypo1 was what I was thinking in my head.

Here are some old landmark citations about needing more than just words or actions without escalating conduct:

67 State v. Painter, 67 Mo. 84 (1877). (The court said: "If the defendant had gone and procured the gun for the express purpose of taking the life of Andrews (the prosecuting witness), but, after coming up to Andrews, made no demonstration towards the accomplishment of that purpose, he would not have been guilty.")

68 Hixson v. Slocum, 156 Ky. 487, 161 S. W. 522, 51 L. R. A. (N. S.) 838 (1913), W. 39. Mere preparation to commit a battery is not an assault. Some physical act, on the part of the defendant, which seems reasonably calculated to result in a battery, is necessary to constitute an assault." There must be an "offer to do violence," or "violence begun to be executed." In most cases the defendant's conduct involved abusive language, or threats, accompanied or followed by a physical act or the use of means reasonably calculated to inflict a battery.

[Didba 5,537]

31 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

I didn’t know he was a MAGA.
 

I’m quoting the law as it is written only to hear “well, that doesn’t matter because we do it this way.” 

You are quoting statutes that case law interprets. I have been reciting these hypos from caselaw explaining how the statutes apply. I never meant anything like: “well, that doesn’t matter because we do it this way.” I was speaking to case law.  I think there really has just been a huge misunderstanding. Courts create precedent all the time that change the way statutes are interpreted. Its not me.

Edited May 20, 2023 by Didba

[Didba 5,537]

23 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

 because the courts interpret the laws and set precedence that creates nuance to the law or make such determinations so narrow that only one way works.

Courts do this all the time, its not me just making this stuff up, man. I cannot believe my poorly drafted example from pages ago created all of this confusion.

Edited May 20, 2023 by Didba

[wdefromtx 3,714]

1 minute ago, Didba said:

You are quoting statutes that case law interprets. I have been reciting these hypos from caselaw explaining how the statutes apply. I never meant anything like: “well, that doesn’t matter because we do it this way.” I was speaking to case law.  I think there really has just been a huge misunderstanding.

I get there is case law and precedent and all that. My statement was probably a little bit dramatic…but to me…the law has a fairly wide area for interpretation. I have no experience in case law…or law…but I am used to interpreting codes and regulations and usually if you stray from them you better have a damn good reason. 
 

As to the balled up fist hypo…no we weren’t on the same page. I was visioning someone who’s made eye contact and maybe they haven’t said something but they sure look like bad news. Hence why I asked the gun question…..at that point I was like WTF does it take them. The gun question was legitimate and not meant to be obnoxious. 

[Didba 5,537]

13 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

I get there is case law and precedent and all that. My statement was probably a little bit dramatic…but to me…the law has a fairly wide area for interpretation. I have no experience in case law…or law…but I am used to interpreting codes and regulations and usually if you stray from them you better have a damn good reason. 
 

As to the balled up fist hypo…no we weren’t on the same page. I was visioning someone who’s made eye contact and maybe they haven’t said something but they sure look like bad news. Hence why I asked the gun question…..at that point I was like WTF does it take them. The gun question was legitimate and not meant to be obnoxious. 

Yeah, man that's really really my bad, when you are in law school you have to assume every hypo is a vacuum and nothing else occurs unless its stated. Law profs will actually chastise you for adding fact to their hypo while trying to figure out the answer to the hypo. Dr. So and So "Now, Mr. Smith your answer is adding facts to my hypo..."  Not that you should have known that, just to give a little reason why my example was so barebones, I should have known to give you more detail, that's on me.

to your first paragraph, courts can get pretty loose with the law in the right circumstance unlike how an electrician can be loosey goosey with following his codes

For example, courts interpret and change the law when facts/circumstances of first impression (meaning similar cases have never been heard so its a brand new issue) give rise to ambiguities that are not answered by the law. Later, those court created "precedent" eventually get codified, one of the ways we have uniform codes that derived itself from common (judge made) law across states. Because of this practice courts can stray pretty far from the law on cases of first impression.

 

Appreciate you understanding my mistake with the poorly drafted hypo. back in the day a judge once wrote this about contract formation but I have always felt it hold true to many things:

There can never be a meeting of the minds if the subject the minds wish to meet upon has not yet been decided.

Edited May 20, 2023 by Didba

[AUFAN78 4,162]

1 hour 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.

You are conflating multiple issues. Stop Mr. Simpleton.

[wdefromtx 3,714]

14 minutes ago, Didba said:

Courts do this all the time, its not me just making this stuff up, man. I cannot believe my poorly drafted example from pages ago created all of this confusion.

Some things get lost in text. 
 

And I think we are arguing even though we are really on the same page. It’s that in reality we might as well flip a coin as to it being assault. It boils down to which side you believe more. Without speaking for you I think you said something similar. 
 

If I was on a jury for this case I’d have a hard time saying this was assault based on both their actions. On one hand it seems like the kid was just being dumb. On the other There’s enough for me to reasonably assume that if I was Higgins maybe there was a threat. But if Higgins used more force than he did I’d definitely rule in favor of assault. That’s about an honest opinion I can give. They both were really in the wrong. 

[AUFAN78 4,162]

1 hour ago, Didba said:

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.

Of course not. Unlike homey, I would never say or remotely think something so asinine.

[AUFAN78 4,162]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

It was logic when applied to you, because you were getting owned. It's totally irrelevant if applied to Didba because he isn't.

Understand?

 

I understand you are drunk. Got it?

[wdefromtx 3,714]

8 minutes ago, Didba said:

Yeah, man that's really really my bad, when you are in law school you have to assume every hypo is a vacuum and nothing else occurs unless its stated. Law profs will actually chastise you for adding fact to their hypo while trying to figure out the answer to the hypo. Dr. So and So "Now, Mr. Smith your answer is adding facts to my hypo..."  Not that you should have known that, just to give a little reason why my example was so barebones, I should have known to give you more detail, that's on me.

to your first paragraph, courts can get pretty loose with the law in the right circumstance unlike how an electrician can be loosey goosey with following his codes

For example, courts interpret and change the law when facts/circumstances of first impression (meaning similar cases have never been heard so its a brand new issue) give rise to ambiguities that are not answered by the law. Later, those court created "precedent" eventually get codified, one of the ways we have uniform codes that derived itself from common (judge made) law across states. Because of this practice courts can stray pretty far from the law on cases of first impression.

 

Appreciate you understanding my mistake with the poorly drafted hypo. back in the day a judge once wrote this about contract formation but I have always felt it hold true to many things:

There can never be a meeting of the minds if the subject the minds wish to meet upon has not yet been decided.

I’m a structural engineer and have worked on many types of projects…was in oil and gas for a while and now oversee about 30 engineers doing structural work in the nuclear industry. We have to follow code, there are very few items that are written so there can be much interpretation. The codes are written because of previous failures or disasters. And they get updated as needed, and if a code is interpreted a certain way it will be adjusted to make sure that becomes code. I suppose there is too much case law to put into actual law…but decisions in law are based on previous decisions as to be consistent? 
 

 

[Didba 5,537]

5 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

I’m a structural engineer and have worked on many types of projects…was in oil and gas for a while and now oversee about 30 engineers doing structural work in the nuclear industry. We have to follow code, there are very few items that are written so there can be much interpretation. The codes are written because of previous failures or disasters. And they get updated as needed, and if a code is interpreted a certain way it will be adjusted to make sure that becomes code. I suppose there is too much case law to put into actual law…but decisions in law are based on previous decisions as to be consistent? 
 

 

yes sir, stare decisis, a Latin term that means “let the decision stand” or “to stand by things decided”—is a foundational concept in the American legal system. To put it simply, stare decisis holds that courts and judges should honor “precedent”—or the decisions, rulings, and opinions from prior cases. Respect for precedents gives the law consistency and makes interpretations of the law more predictable—and less seemingly random.

straight from the ABA, https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/publications/preview_home/understand-stare-decisis/

I love how they summarize english/american common law so well in one sentence.

[TexasTiger 14,521]

1 hour ago, wdefromtx said:

I’m a structural engineer and have worked on many types of projects…was in oil and gas for a while and now oversee about 30 engineers doing structural work in the nuclear industry. We have to follow code, there are very few items that are written so there can be much interpretation. The codes are written because of previous failures or disasters. And they get updated as needed, and if a code is interpreted a certain way it will be adjusted to make sure that becomes code. I suppose there is too much case law to put into actual law…but decisions in law are based on previous decisions as to be consistent? 
 

 

The “reasonable man” is a key character in the law. Appellate court decisions set precedent for lower courts in the same jurisdiction. What is reasonable based on a set of facts may be spelled out in a decision. It’s narrowly drawn to those facts. In human interaction the factual permutations are endless. Precedent sets principles to be applied. Folks can have competing arguments on how those principles apply to a distinct fact pattern— a “case of first impression.” Different jurisdictions don’t always agree on application of those principles. For example, states can have laws evolve a bit differently from other states. District Courts can disagree until a binding decision is made by the ruling Circuit court. Circuit courts can disagree until a decision by the Supreme Court. Even then, if a circuit determines a future case is sufficiently distinct on the facts, it may rule the Supreme Court decision didn’t address the fact pattern before it.

Hypotheticals are critical to illustrate how broadly or narrowly a decision should apply— what’s the reach of the principle being stated?

In 49 states our law is largely based on English common law— precedential court decisions, many of which were codified into written statutes, but interpretation is still often drawn on common law as well as court precedent. Louisiana law was originally based largely on French Napoleonic Code with Spanish influences— both civil law, not common law, countries.