Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: mn-bush-man
And those of you who think you can attack a person (and instigate a near riot) because someone tosses a cup at you without suffering the ramifications of the law, both criminal and civil, are ignorant

Ignorant of the law? I don't know where you live, but around here it's ASSAULT to throw anything at anyone.

780 posted on 11/20/2004 11:18:20 AM PST by Smogger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 762 | View Replies ]


To: Smogger
Ignorant of the law? I don't know where you live, but around here it's ASSAULT to throw anything at anyone.

And I believe the chief of police in MI has said as much also.

783 posted on 11/20/2004 11:20:26 AM PST by jennyjenny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 780 | View Replies ]

To: Smogger

If you could see my face, you would know it's blue right now. That's how many times I've said it -- the beer guy was wrong and should be punished accordingly. I've NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER said he wasn't wrong or that he shouldn't be punished.

BUT, Artest was more wrong to leave the court, run into the stands, and to take matters into his own hands instead of allowing those in authority deal with beer guy. Force against another is only justified when it is used in self defense -- and then only to the extent necessary to stop the potential harm -- not any greater.

And just a technicality, but there likely was not an assault committed by beer guy. Assault is the fear of imminent harm. Battery is the suffering of the harm. Because Artest never saw beer guy wind up and throw the cup, there was no assault. Rather, beer guy battered Artest when he hit him with the cup. The terms are mixed up regularly.


844 posted on 11/20/2004 3:03:36 PM PST by mn-bush-man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 780 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson