Congressman Assaults Citizen

[Leftfield 3,417]

1 minute ago, wdefromtx said:

Assault would imply Higgins had intent to hurt him.....you can plainly see that he was just removing what he saw as a threat from the immediate area. 

No, I see that he was trying to remove an annoyance, not a threat.

[Didba 5,537]

15 hours ago, Leftfield said:

Evade...

....evade....

....evade...

...aaaand evade.

So, neither of you will answer? Outstanding. 

I’d love to depose these two in a lawsuit one day, man, lots of non-responsive answers. would be pretty eaaaasy. 
 

What’s nice is you can force them to answer in a depo. 

[wdefromtx 3,714]

3 minutes ago, Didba said:

It’s literally the definition of two separate torts. Assault and battery. Sorry you don’t like or understand the law. 

Would intent have to be present to be considered assault?

[Didba 5,537]

15 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

No the law does not disagree with me…

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.22.htm#:~:text=ASSAULT. (,including the person's spouse%3B or
 

ASSAULT. ( a) A person commits an offense if the person: (1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another, including the person's spouse; (2) intentionally or knowingly threatens another with imminent bodily injury, including the person's spouse; or.
 

 

That’s actually the criminal code. The dude committed the civil torts of assault and battery. 

[Didba 5,537]

15 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

Yours is dumb, mine legit and likely validates the point.

What a childish response. 

[Didba 5,537]

14 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

You know damn well your analogy sucked. I just reinforced it. And I've already told you I did not agree with how the congressman handled the situation. I think he should have summoned the police or security and had them handle.

Having said that, it did not look to me that it rose to the level of assault. He simply ushered him away from the podium and asked that he calm down. He, the bed-wetter, was most certainly in no danger.

His analogy only sucks because it exposes major flaws in your logic. 

[Didba 5,537]

14 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

He’s grasping at straws to make this assault. It’s assault to him because he would be scared and according to the law in LA that’s all that matters. He’s trying like hell to get you in a gotcha situation. Thankfully I live in a state that has assault spelt out where it’s not up to someone who gets their feelings hurt easily to say they are assaulted if some gives them a mean look. Because according to their law that’s all it takes. 

It’s assault and battery. My god man. You don’t know a thing about the law yet you pontificate it like you are a Harvard trained attorney. 

[Didba 5,537]

14 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Should be no surprise all the MAGA folks who claim not to be MAGA folks excuse violence.

Should be no surprise they don’t understand the law but act like experts 

[Leftfield 3,417]

6 minutes ago, Didba said:

That’s actually the criminal code. The dude committed the civil torts of assault and battery. 

I was incorrect then. I thought this could have been considered a criminal offense. 

[homersapien 12,305]

1 hour ago, wdefromtx said:

Answer this.......if Higgins was a cop and saw him run up around like this and remove him in the same manner would you be saying it was assault as well? Or would you be saying he was trying to stop a perceived threat? 

No. If the force used was similar, I would likely say the cop was doing his job as he saw it.  

What's your point?

 

Edited May 19, 2023 by homersapien

[I_M4_AU 9,043]

This video is telling, good for Rep Higgins.

 

Typical leftist protester, a perp and when caught is instantly the victim.

[arein0 1,109]

11 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

This video is telling, good for Rep Higgins.

 

Typical leftist protester, a perp and when caught is instantly the victim.

If you thought that was threatening, wait until you see what happened on Jan 6 🤯

[wdefromtx 3,714]

Just now, homersapien said:

No. If the force used was similar, I would likely say the cop was doing his job as he saw it.  

What's your point?

 

My point....is you are essentially saying that this is not assault only because it would have been the cops job. I think it is reasonable to assume that if there was an officer in the vicinity say near Higgins they would have intervened in similar fashion. As Higgins saw it he saw a threat, there were no cops around so he acted to remove him from the podium area when he saw him trying to run up to the people speaking. 

Dibda has already said that this is not criminal assault, I don't see this standing up as a civil tort as well. For this to be a civil tort assault and battery as I understand there needs to be intention to cause harm or apprehension. Reacting to someone running up on the group of speakers and the subsequently pushing them back out of the way to clear them of the area was not to harm the kid or make him scared. It was done as a defensive reaction. Maybe if he hurt him it could fall under negligence. In the heat of the moment one could say that the kid was the one that was committing assault by running up. Now I do not think he was going to attack them, but that is easy to say by watching a video. Higgins reacted to what he thought he saw happening and that is not illegal and the fact he is not a police officer makes no difference. 

If the kid was just running off at his mouth and Higgins did this then yes he would be in the wrong and it would be assault. But that is not what happened and I have always said that this kid's actions before that viral video is why this is not assault. Sure one could try to take Higgins to court in a criminal case or even a civil one, but once you see everything leading up to this I doubt a jury or judge would side against Higgins. 

If you still say this is assault then you are the one that is only looking at this from a partisan view. I suspect you and others only want to see the part where he is pushed back and ignore everything leading up to it. Yes the kid has a right to be annoying and yell at them, but once he started running up like he did nobody knew what exactly he was planning. That is the point that he no longer can claim to be the victim. If Higgins would have clocked him and had him on the ground whaling on him I would said that would be assault even if he thought the kid was a threat. 

This is jury instruction:

20:14 DEFENSE OF ANOTHER PERSON The defendant, (name), is not legally responsible to the plaintiff, (name), on (his) (her) claim of (assault) (battery) if the affirmative defense of defense of another person is proved. This defense is proved if you find all of the following: 1. The defendant reasonably believed (even if mistakenly) that the plaintiff was making or was about to make (a) (an) (harmful) (or) (offensive) contact with (name of third person); and 2. The defendant reasonably believed (even if mistakenly) that under the circumstances it was necessary for (him) (her) to intervene and use force to protect (name of third person); and 3. The defendant used no more force than a reasonable person would have used under the same or similar circumstances to protect (name of third person) from the actual or threatened contact by the plaintiff.

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Committees/Civil_Jury_Instructions_Committee/2020/Chapter 20.pdf

Just a little more about the civil tort. Now if he just got mad at the kid and did what he did I could see this being the case. 

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/assault-battery-civil-vs-criminal-cases.html

[Didba 5,537]

39 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

My point....is you are essentially saying that this is not assault only because it would have been the cops job. I think it is reasonable to assume that if there was an officer in the vicinity say near Higgins they would have intervened in similar fashion. As Higgins saw it he saw a threat, there were no cops around so he acted to remove him from the podium area when he saw him trying to run up to the people speaking. 

Dibda has already said that this is not criminal assault, I don't see this standing up as a civil tort as well. For this to be a civil tort assault and battery as I understand there needs to be intention to cause harm or apprehension. Reacting to someone running up on the group of speakers and the subsequently pushing them back out of the way to clear them of the area was not to harm the kid or make him scared. It was done as a defensive reaction. Maybe if he hurt him it could fall under negligence. In the heat of the moment one could say that the kid was the one that was committing assault by running up. Now I do not think he was going to attack them, but that is easy to say by watching a video. Higgins reacted to what he thought he saw happening and that is not illegal and the fact he is not a police officer makes no difference. 

If the kid was just running off at his mouth and Higgins did this then yes he would be in the wrong and it would be assault. But that is not what happened and I have always said that this kid's actions before that viral video is why this is not assault. Sure one could try to take Higgins to court in a criminal case or even a civil one, but once you see everything leading up to this I doubt a jury or judge would side against Higgins. 

If you still say this is assault then you are the one that is only looking at this from a partisan view. I suspect you and others only want to see the part where he is pushed back and ignore everything leading up to it. Yes the kid has a right to be annoying and yell at them, but once he started running up like he did nobody knew what exactly he was planning. That is the point that he no longer can claim to be the victim. If Higgins would have clocked him and had him on the ground whaling on him I would said that would be assault even if he thought the kid was a threat. 

This is jury instruction:

20:14 DEFENSE OF ANOTHER PERSON The defendant, (name), is not legally responsible to the plaintiff, (name), on (his) (her) claim of (assault) (battery) if the affirmative defense of defense of another person is proved. This defense is proved if you find all of the following: 1. The defendant reasonably believed (even if mistakenly) that the plaintiff was making or was about to make (a) (an) (harmful) (or) (offensive) contact with (name of third person); and 2. The defendant reasonably believed (even if mistakenly) that under the circumstances it was necessary for (him) (her) to intervene and use force to protect (name of third person); and 3. The defendant used no more force than a reasonable person would have used under the same or similar circumstances to protect (name of third person) from the actual or threatened contact by the plaintiff.

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Committees/Civil_Jury_Instructions_Committee/2020/Chapter 20.pdf

Just a little more about the civil tort. Now if he just got mad at the kid and did what he did I could see this being the case. 

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/assault-battery-civil-vs-criminal-cases.html

It’s a subjective standard. Hence, the mistakenly language. Another thing is assault is defined to be broadly interpreted. battery is also defined broadly because it also includes the words “offensive touching” which is included in the jury instruction you pulled.  

(nice job, btw, on pulling jury instructions, they are great for explaining the exact elements required to meet a tort or crime, you gained some major props even if you didn’t quite grasp all of the concepts in them. Which is okay. Assault and battery are very confusing. Especially the general intent aspect of it) 

here is a jury instruction on offensive touching:

“For a battery to occur, the touching must have been intended by the defendant, that is, not accidental, and it must have been against [name complainant]’s will. It does not matter whether the touching caused an injury.”

technically, there is not assault because it is a predicate offense for battery so when the battery is completed. Assault merges into battery. At the civil level, You cannot assault someone and also batter them. But I didn’t want to get into that technical stuff too much because it’s really besides the point.

But the point is, intent is satisfied as soon as the offensive contact occurs, specific intent isn’t required. So the congressman didn’t need to specifically intend to commit battery.

He just needed to intend to touch the protester. Which he then did. Satisfying intent. Offensive touching is satisfied if the protester subjectively finds the contact offensive. 

note - that even when the elements are all satisfied the congressman does have several defenses available, which I won’t get into because that a whole nother can of worms. suffice to say did he commit battery? yes, does he have a defense to battery? Probably.

anyways, my torts 1 lecture is over, y’all may return to y’all’s regularly scheduled bickering 

Edited May 19, 2023 by Didba

[TexasTiger 14,521]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

This video is telling, good for Rep Higgins.

 

Typical leftist protester, a perp and when caught is instantly the victim.

“Threatening.” 🙄 Threatening to ask an awkward question. Authoritarians always claim what they overreact to was a threat and their authoritarian fan boys lap it up.

[I_M4_AU 9,043]

9 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

“Threatening.” 🙄 Threatening to ask an awkward question. Authoritarians always claim what they overreact to was a threat and their authoritarian fan boys lap it up.

You didn’t see this guy avoid all the interference to get behind Boebert while she was speaking?  Higgins is a P.O.S.T. (Peace Officer’s Standards & Trained) certified and knew what he was doing.  He waited until the protesters overstepped his bounds and acted.

[TexasTiger 14,521]

38 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

You didn’t see this guy avoid all the interference to get behind Boebert while she was speaking?  Higgins is a P.O.S.T. (Peace Officer’s Standards & Trained) certified and knew what he was doing.  He waited until the protesters overstepped his bounds and acted.

If he was sufficiently threatening to be physically accosted, he’d have been arrested.

[I_M4_AU 9,043]

1 minute ago, TexasTiger said:

If he was sufficiently threatening to be physically accosted, he’d have been arrested.

Higgins didn’t let it get that far, he saved the young man from that, didn’t he?

[TexasTiger 14,521]

3 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Higgins didn’t let it get that far, he saved the young man from that, didn’t he?

He was either threatening or he wasn’t. Make up your mind. Did a precog tell Higgins he was going to threaten and Higgins headed it off? You’ll go to insane lengths to justify Republican misbehavior. Truly.

[I_M4_AU 9,043]

7 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

He was either threatening or he wasn’t. Make up your mind. Did a precog tell Higgins he was going to threaten and Higgins headed it off? You’ll go to insane lengths to justify Republican misbehavior. Truly.

We are talking in the moment here, it was Higgins assessment things were escalating and he took action.  If he did anything wrong all the Dems have to do is take several days to analyze what happened and decide on a wrong Higgins did and swore down and arrest him.  You know like they did Daniel Penny.

[TexasTiger 14,521]

5 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

We are talking in the moment here, it was Higgins assessment things were escalating and he took action.  If he did anything wrong all the Dems have to do is take several days to analyze what happened and decide on a wrong Higgins did and swore down and arrest him.  You know like they did Daniel Penny.

You tell me. What exactly was the threat in this case?

[AUFAN78 4,162]

5 hours ago, homersapien said:

Naw, surely just putting your hands on a cop and forcibly pushing him back 20 or 30 feet wouldn't be considered assault would it?

I swear, some of the arguments made on this forum....

More like some of the analogies made on this forum. Nuts.

[AUFAN78 4,162]

5 hours ago, homersapien said:

Starting to crawfish now that you've had a minute to think about it huh?   

What? Are you drunk?

[I_M4_AU 9,043]

2 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

You tell me. What exactly was the threat in this case?

The protester was addressed several times and yet insisted on bypassing several people to get closer to Boebert.  It showed he was aggressive in his behavior.  

[AUFAN78 4,162]

5 hours ago, homersapien said:

Oh, so now forcibly pushing someone backwards is "ushered".    

You don't even realize what a fool you are making of yourself, do you? 

Yep drunk.