Congressman Assaults Citizen

[TexasTiger 14,521]

3 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

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

“Established.”

https://criminallawdc.com/dc-assault-lawyer/common-charges/

“Injury simply means that at a bare minimum, there was an attempt to commit an unwanted touching of another person.”

[wdefromtx 3,714]

2 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

“Established.”

https://criminallawdc.com/dc-assault-lawyer/common-charges/

“Injury simply means that at a bare minimum, there was an attempt to commit an unwanted touching of another person.”

So you are saying that the kid made an attempt at unwanted touching at Boebert? That’s what we’ve been saying why Higgins stepped in. 

[TexasTiger 14,521]

Just now, wdefromtx said:

So you are saying that the kid made an attempt at unwanted touching at Boebert? That’s what we’ve been saying why Higgins stepped in. 

I’ve seen no evidence he attempted to touch her.

[wdefromtx 3,714]

24 minutes ago, Didba said:

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

Based on all this…the battery bar is set pretty low. 

[wdefromtx 3,714]

4 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

I’ve seen no evidence he attempted to touch her.

Because you would be willing to let someone charge your wife or mom and find out…we know that. My guess is if he was wearing a trump shirt and not a Bernie shirt you’d want to make sure you were in the way of him. Not that you’d admit that……

[TexasTiger 14,521]

4 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Based on all this…the battery bar is set pretty low. 

Indeed it is.

[wdefromtx 3,714]

4 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Indeed it is.

Yeah which points back to the kid being a snowflake and feeling offended and his dignity challenged. Which comes full circle with this thread. 

[TexasTiger 14,521]

1 minute ago, wdefromtx said:

Because you would be willing to let someone charge your wife or mom and find out…we know that. My guess is if he was wearing a trump shirt and not a Bernie shirt you’d want to make sure you were in the way of him. Not that you’d admit that……

He was a jerk trying to ask an embarrassing question. No evidence he was violent. None. He wanted to record and embarrass. Armed with…a phone. He evaded those trying to push him away because he believed he had a right to be there. Which he did. Had that never happened he wouldn’t have ran around them. He was clearly trying to position himself with his camera. Allowed to continue, he may have been sufficiently disruptive to eventually warrant removal by actual law enforcement, but that didn’t happen. He was questioned by law enforcement on his complaint and released. If they thought he was threatening a congresswoman do you think he’d have been released? Think he’d still be uncharged? Higgins released his CYA statement and you gobble up like the most partisan of partisans. The first amendment allows for a lot of jerkiness. You’re totally speculating in the extreme because of politics and assume everyone is as hopelessly tribal as you are.

[TexasTiger 14,521]

4 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Yeah which points back to the kid being a snowflake and feeling offended and his dignity challenged. Which comes full circle with this thread. 

There can be…gasp…two snowflakes in a confrontation. Sucks when one’s a Congressman showing his authoritarian, police state tendencies. 

[TexasTiger 14,521]

I would feel my family far more threatened by this guy than a dweeb with an iPhone. Can I take him out?

[homersapien 12,305]

Meanwhile. MTG is ranting about a big dangerous black man threatening her by simply raising his voice (and being a big dangerous black man).

The hypocrisy of MAGAs is breathtaking.

 

 

Edited May 20, 2023 by homersapien

[homersapien 12,305]

16 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

Damn. Really drunk. I suggest a nap.

Yeah and when I wake up I'll be sober, while you'll be an idiot for the rest of your life.  

[homersapien 12,305]

15 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

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

So, if the kid lost his footing and fell backwards, does that suddenly become assault?

[homersapien 12,305]

16 hours 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.

Does projecting one's phone up with both hands indicate an intention to inflict pain or injury?

Oh, I get it.  The phone could have been "weaponized", huh?

[homersapien 12,305]

16 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

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

So, I take it you approve of the congressman's behavior?

[wdefromtx 3,714]

13 minutes ago, homersapien said:

So, I take it you approve of the congressman's behavior?

In the absence of police being there to remove him when he was running up to the podium…..yes I do. You already indicated you would be fine if it was the police that did it so I don’t see your issue with it. The kid was the problem in this instance. 

[wdefromtx 3,714]

The whataboutism is getting strong in here!🤣

[Leftfield 3,417]

28 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

In the absence of police being there to remove him when he was running up to the podium…..yes I do. You already indicated you would be fine if it was the police that did it so I don’t see your issue with it. The kid was the problem in this instance. 

You've cited "running up to the podium" in numerous posts now, and you're being completely dishonest about it. Kid was moving to an open spot, going around tangentially to the podium. He may have spiraled in a bit, but he was not walking straight for the podium. Once he got to an open spot he didn't even have a chance, as Higgins was right there and started pushing him away. It's complete BS to suggest Higgins started pushing him due to the kid moving toward the podium, because Higgins had already walked clear across from where he had been blocking him before, and as soon as the kid stopped he was on him. 

You're dancing in circles trying to make Higgins' actions justified, and you've been intellectually dishonest to do it (it was never agreed this was not assault, as you indicated in one of your earlier posts). You continue to try to demean the kid's "manhood", as well as anyone else who claims it was assault, yet think nothing of claiming Higgins and the others felt threatened, even though the kid was much smaller and was holding his phone in the air with both hands pretty much the entire time. 

And while you say we can't look at the what happened without considering what the kid was doing beforehand, you may want to look into Higgins' history.

[wdefromtx 3,714]

2 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

You've cited "running up to the podium" in numerous posts now, and you're being completely dishonest about it. Kid was moving to an open spot, going around tangentially to the podium. He may have spiraled in a bit, but he was not walking straight for the podium. Once he got to an open spot he didn't even have a chance, as Higgins was right there and started pushing him away. It's complete BS to suggest Higgins started pushing him due to the kid moving toward the podium, because Higgins had already walked clear across from where he had been blocking him before, and as soon as the kid stopped he was on him. 

You're dancing in circles trying to make Higgins' actions justified, and you've been intellectually dishonest to do it (it was never agreed this was not assault, as you indicated in one of your earlier posts). You continue to try to demean the kid's "manhood", as well as anyone else who claims it was assault, yet think nothing of claiming Higgins and the others felt threatened, even though the kid was much smaller and was holding his phone in the air with both hands pretty much the entire time. 

And while you say we can't look at the what happened without considering what the kid was doing beforehand, you may want to look into Higgins' history.

He was running around the backside and tried to turn to head up to the podium. Higgins came around when he took off running and it wasn’t until he turned towards the podium that he blocked him and pushed him back. Nevermind the fact the only people that close to the podium were other congressmen and people associated. Other onlookers kept a proper distance. 
 

And yes it was stated in this thread that this is not criminal assault. Maybe he has a claim for civil battery, but that’s a stretch. Had he just kept his distance even if he was being annoying none of this would have happened and if it did Higgins would have been in the wrong. 
 

 

[homersapien 12,305]

1 hour ago, wdefromtx said:

In the absence of police being there to remove him when he was running up to the podium…..yes I do. You already indicated you would be fine if it was the police that did it so I don’t see your issue with it. The kid was the problem in this instance. 

Well I would be fine if the policeman was acting in good faith, since that's his job. 

(Having said that, I was referring solely to the actual physical response - forcibly pushing the kid away.) We have to give LEO's a little latitude in acting on their judgement.  Much more than civilians.)

Of course their latitude of using force is not unlimited. Police have been convicted for using excessive force, as history demonstrates.

More importantly, I seriously doubt a policeman - as a trained professional - would have reacted the way the politician did in the first place, because he would have recognized the kid's behavior as normal in the situation and not representing a direct or immediate threat. And it's highly unlikely a cop would have starting forcibly pushing the kid. More likely he would have simply asked the kid to step back.

But like it or not, when a civilian takes on the role of LEO, he subjects himself to the legal consequences of his behavior. We should not tolerate civilians acting as vigilantes.

Does that help you in "seeing my issue"?

 

Edited May 20, 2023 by homersapien

[TexasTiger 14,521]

5 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

He was running around the backside and tried to turn to head up to the podium. Higgins came around when he took off running and it wasn’t until he turned towards the podium that he blocked him and pushed him back. Nevermind the fact the only people that close to the podium were other congressmen and people associated. Other onlookers kept a proper distance. 
 

And yes it was stated in this thread that this is not criminal assault. Maybe he has a claim for civil battery, but that’s a stretch. Had he just kept his distance even if he was being annoying none of this would have happened and if it did Higgins would have been in the wrong. 
 

 

“Stated”. All sorts of crap gets stated in threads. It was a misdemeanor criminal simple assault.

[Leftfield 3,417]

2 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

He was running around the backside and tried to turn to head up to the podium.

No, he tried to get to an open spot. 

2 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Higgins came around when he took off running and it wasn’t until he turned towards the podium that he blocked him and pushed him back.

Garbage. Higgins was in motion the entire time. He grabbed the kid as soon as he got to him. Kid was stopping and had both hands on his cell phone.

 

4 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Nevermind the fact the only people that close to the podium were other congressmen and people associated. Other onlookers kept a proper distance. 

What is a proper distance? How close can one be to legally be annoying?

 

4 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

And yes it was stated in this thread that this is not criminal assault. Maybe he has a claim for civil battery, but that’s a stretch.

You did not make the distinction on criminal assault, or if you did, I missed it.

 

[wdefromtx 3,714]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

Well I would be fine if the policeman was acting in good faith, since that's his job. 

(Having said that, I was referring solely to the actual physical response - forcibly pushing the kid away.) We have to give LEO's a little latitude in acting on their judgement.  Much more than civilians. 

Of course their latitude of using force is not unlimited. Police have been convicted for using excessive force, as history demonstrates.

More importantly, I seriously doubt a policeman - as a trained professional - would have reacted the way the politician did in the first place, because he would have recognized the kid's behavior as normal in the situation and not representing a direct or immediate threat.

But like it or not, when a civilian takes on the role of LEO, he subjects himself to the legal consequences of his behavior. We should not tolerate civilians acting as vigilantes.

Does that help you in "seeing my issue"?

 

You whole argument is predicated on you thinking he did this in bad faith. Why? Because he doesn’t share the same views as you? 
 

He was perfectly within his rights to do what he did and acted on his training as a peace officer. 
 

If what he did is so bad I guess we will see him end up in court and lose right? 

[wdefromtx 3,714]

5 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

No, he tried to get to an open spot. 

Garbage. Higgins was in motion the entire time. He grabbed the kid as soon as he got to him. Kid was stopping and had both hands on his cell phone.

 

What is a proper distance? How close can one be to legally be annoying?

 

You did not make the distinction on criminal assault, or if you did, I missed it.

 

Dibda did and said you were incorrect thinking it was. 
 

Yes the open spot was to be up at the podium. He already had an open spot back with everyone else. 

[AUFAN78 4,162]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Yeah and when I wake up I'll be sober, while you'll be an idiot for the rest of your life.  

Apparently you are still drunk. And of course clueless.