Congressman Assaults Citizen

[AUFAN78 4,162]

5 hours ago, homersapien said:

78 certainly doesn't need your help in making a fool of himself.  And there's enough idiocy in his argument for both of you to share equally.

Likewise, Leftfield doesn't need to "try like hell" to get him - or you - in a "gotcha situation".  That just flows naturally from your posts. 

If anything, Leftfield is just pointing out the obvious.  It's just not obvious to you and 78 - for obvious reasons.

 

 

So you agree with the dumb analogy. Fine Mr. Obtuse II.

[AUFAN78 4,162]

4 hours ago, homersapien said:

Smart move.  You're getting owned.  Cut your losses and bolt.

Damn. Really drunk. I suggest a nap.

[AUFAN78 4,162]

4 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

Maybe he should have just let things play out, but how does he know he was not going to pull out a knife or something? He was obviously causing an issue and when he thought he had de-escalated things he comes bolting back. 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. 

 

Lee Zeldin comes to mind.

[wdefromtx 3,714]

38 minutes ago, Didba said:

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 

I understand the jury instructions on this, obviously not as well as you being a lawyer....and I also that know that this can be very subjective. Things like this are hard to prove one way or another because we do not know what the people involved were actually thinking at the moment. We do not know what the kid was thinking when he started to try to run around and get right up to the speaker at the podium. We do not know what Higgins was thinking when he made contact with him and pushed him away. He has made a statement and we can only go off what he says. So far his story adds up to what we see on video.

I pulled the instructions and posted the other link because I am not blindly saying it is not assault, while others are just trying to say it is assault with no real reasoning other than politics. 

As far as battery, I argue that even battery would be a stretch. From the same instructions with my notes:

20:5 ELEMENTS OF LIABILITY For the plaintiff, (name), to recover from the defendant, (name), on (his) (her) claim of battery, you must find that all of the following have been proved by a preponderance of the evidence:

1. The defendant’s act resulted in physical contact with the plaintiff (This would be met, he did make contact); and

2. The defendant intended to make harmful or offensive physical contact with the plaintiff (or another person) (or knew that [he] [she] would probably make such contact); and

(3. The contact was [harmful] [or] [offensive].) (Both harmful or offensive would be hard to prove, we can only go off of what he says and how the contact looked in the video. In my opinion there was no intent to harm......if he was trying to do harm he could have easily. Also, offensive can go different ways.....is the person being contacted just offended because they do not want to be touched or like how he did it or was the contact an offensive move meaning Higgins went of the offensive? Or was Higgins actions on the defensive? )

If you find that any one or more of these (number) statements has not been proved, then your verdict must be for the defendant.

On the other hand, if you find that all of these (number) statements have been proved, (then your verdict must be for the plaintiff) (then you must consider the defendant’s affirmative defense(s) of [insert any affirmative defense that would be a complete defense to plaintiff’s claim]). 

If you find that (this affirmative defense has) (any one or more of these affirmative defenses have) been proved by a preponderance of the evidence, then your verdict must be for the defendant. This to me says that even if he meant to cause harm or offensive as long as it was in defense it still is not battery? Again, that goes back to his words and actions and what a jury thinks right?

However, if you find that (this affirmative defense has not) (none of these affirmative defenses have) been proved, then your verdict must be for the plaintiff. 

[wdefromtx 3,714]

5 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Lee Zeldin comes to mind.

I will have to look him up.......

BTW, I first read this as Led Zeppelin. LOL

[arein0 1,109]

1 minute ago, wdefromtx said:

BTW, I first read this as Led Zeppelin. LOL

You weren't the only one 😅

[AUFAN78 4,162]

4 hours ago, Didba said:

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

Replacing a bed-wetter in the scenario with a cop was nuts. But apparently you either agree or have not read the entire thread. 

[TexasTiger 14,521]

32 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

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.  

Did he did he meet the legal definition of a threat justifying physical coercion? If so, explain.

[wdefromtx 3,714]

8 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Did he did he meet the legal definition of a threat justifying physical coercion? If so, explain.

Yes, when the kid was trying to go around everyone and run up to the podium. He acted defensively not knowing what the kid was going to do. That is when he became a threat or at a minimum a perceived threat in the moment. 

https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/threat-intimidation-guide-english-022322.pdf/view#:~:text=If someone communicates any statement,legal system%2C that's a threat.

If someone communicates any statement or indication of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action in an illegal manner, to include in a manner that manipulates the US legal system, that's a threat.

[wdefromtx 3,714]

1 hour 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.

Pot meet kettle by trying to make this kid out to be the victim of assault. 

[TexasTiger 14,521]

14 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Pot meet kettle by trying to make this kid out to be the victim of assault. 

I think the person was a jerk and if allowed to persist a bit more he would have posed no physical threat, but may crossed a line warrant law enforcement intervention. There’s zero reason to think he would have cause physical harm. He was filming and asking obnoxious questions as conservative activists also often do. 

[TexasTiger 14,521]

20 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Yes, when the kid was trying to go around everyone and run up to the podium. He acted defensively not knowing what the kid was going to do. That is when he became a threat or at a minimum a perceived threat in the moment. 

https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/threat-intimidation-guide-english-022322.pdf/view#:~:text=If someone communicates any statement,legal system%2C that's a threat.

If someone communicates any statement or indication of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action in an illegal manner, to include in a manner that manipulates the US legal system, that's a threat.

That definition wasn’t remotely met and you haven’t come close to articulating how it was.

[wdefromtx 3,714]

1 minute ago, TexasTiger said:

I think the person was a jerk and if allowed to persist a bit more he would have posed no physical threat, but may crossed a line warrant law enforcement intervention. There’s zero reason to think he would have cause physical harm. He was filming and asking obnoxious questions as conservative activists also often do. 

So you think he should have let him keep running and reach the podium and then just let it play out? 

[wdefromtx 3,714]

1 minute ago, TexasTiger said:

That definition wasn’t remotely met and you haven’t come close to articulating how it was.

Yes it was and yes I did. The moment he started to run to the podium....he became a possible threat. 

So if he was mouthing off at your wife or mom and then tried to run up like that you would not try to stop them?

[TexasTiger 14,521]

1 minute ago, wdefromtx said:

Yes it was and yes I did. The moment he started to run to the podium....he became a possible threat. 

So if he was mouthing off at your wife or mom and then tried to run up like that you would not try to stop them?

You’ve already said you’d let yours take care of herself.

[wdefromtx 3,714]

3 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

You’ve already said you’d let yours take care of herself.

Yes, if she was being removed for being a dumbass towards a congressman or anyone else for that matter. 
 

That is a totally totally different situation than someone running up that you do not know what they will do. 
 

So I ask that question again or you just going to evade? 

[TexasTiger 14,521]

11 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Yes, if she was being removed for being a dumbass towards a congressman or anyone else for that matter. 
 

That is a totally totally different situation than someone running up that you do not know what they will do. 
 

So I ask that question again or you just going to evade? 

He was being obnoxious and trying to get around the folks trying to block him. I’ve seen no video that anyone other than a total snowflake would think indicated he was running toward her in a physical manner. But if Higgins had pulled out a gun and killed him, you’d be claiming that was justified, too.

[wdefromtx 3,714]

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

He was being obnoxious and trying to get around the folks trying to block him. I’ve seen no video that anyone other than a total snowflake would think indicated he was running toward her in a physical manner. But if Higgins had pulled out a gun and killed him, you’d be claiming that was justified, too.

Because you are only believing what you want to believe based on your political beliefs. You ignore the facts match up with what he said. None of us were there and you are watching a video after the fact going in already concluding it’s Higgins fault. I’m sorta shocked that you are still going to such great length to justify this kids actions and claim him to be the victim. Then again it doesn’t surprise me. We’ve concluded it is not assault, maybe battery from what Dibda said but I’ve posted that these circumstances make that a stretch and I’d doubt a jury would convict him of battery. I heard a bunch of snowflakes in the videos though. 

As far as if he would have shot him….if you would have actually read what I said previously, I said if he would have hit him he would have stepped over the line. With that being said if he was a trump supporter you’d be saying he was the one that caused all this. 

 

Edited May 19, 2023 by wdefromtx

[TexasTiger 14,521]

6 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Because you are only believing what you want to believe based on your political beliefs. You ignore the facts match up with what he said. None of us were there and you are watching a video after the fact going in already concluding it’s Higgins fault. I’m sorta shocked that you are still going to such great length to justify this kids actions and claim him to be the victim. Then again it doesn’t surprise me. We’ve concluded it is not assault, maybe battery from what Dibda said but I’ve posted that these circumstances make that a stretch and I’d doubt a jury would convict him of battery. I heard a bunch of snowflakes in the videos though. 

As far as if he would have shot him….if you would have actually read what I said previously, I said if he would have hit him he would have stepped over the line. With that being said if he was a trump supporter you’d be saying he was the one that caused all this. 

 

I see the protester less as victim (he was an a**hole and unharmed) as I see Higgins as an over the top jerk who acted inappropriately. I ain’t just choosing sides.

[wdefromtx 3,714]

1 minute ago, TexasTiger said:

I see the protester less as victim (he was an a**hole and unharmed) as I see Higgins as an over the top jerk who acted inappropriately. I ain’t just choosing sides.

The argument though is you said it’s assault. Was he assaulted or not? 

[Didba 5,537]

2 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

 

(3. The contact was [harmful] [or] [offensive].) (Both harmful or offensive would be hard to prove, we can only go off of what he says and how the contact looked in the video. In my opinion there was no intent to harm......if he was trying to do harm he could have easily. Also, offensive can go different ways.....is the person being contacted just offended because they do not want to be touched or like how he did it or was the contact an offensive move meaning Higgins went of the offensive? Or was Higgins actions on the defensive? ) 

This is really hard to explain so I'll just drop a link from the Louisiana civil code:

https://www.ali.org/media/filer_public/92/f9/92f9fe82-bb3b-4654-83fb-b1dec73dd49e/intentional_torts_-_td_no_1_-_103_revised_-_july_8_2015.pdf

ignore the actual elements bc they are confusing but read the comment (a) and (b), pages 1-2 starting at line 11, and 4-6 starting at line 25. Don't read the illustrations unless you want to, they are just examples.

If you find that (this affirmative defense has) (any one or more of these affirmative defenses have) been proved by a preponderance of the evidence, then your verdict must be for the defendant. This to me says that even if he meant to cause harm or offensive as long as it was in defense it still is not battery? Again, that goes back to his words and actions and what a jury thinks right?

So Jury instructions are weird in that you have pulled one meant for lawyers to go to other areas of the instructions that define affirmative defenses (which is just a category of defenses not exclusive to battery, all torts/other legal claims have them) and insert the one's that fit with the tort/facts. for example, not here but generically, one such affirmative defense to insert or battery would be consent. "yeah, please slap me"  would be consent to the slap and as such battery would fail, unless the person went outside the scope of the consent by like punching.

 

Here's quick answers in italics/underlined. look inside your quoted comment.

Edited May 19, 2023 by Didba

[TexasTiger 14,521]

6 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

The argument though is you said it’s assault. Was he assaulted or not? 

Definitely 

[wdefromtx 3,714]

1 minute ago, TexasTiger said:

Definitely 

Lol…ok. 

[TexasTiger 14,521]

5 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Lol…ok. 

Simple Assault in Texas. May not be in DC. All Texas requires is unwanted contact. Misdemeanor.

[wdefromtx 3,714]

2 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Simple Assault. Misdemeanor.

On the kid? We’ve established it’s not assault by Higgins in this thread.