Breakdown In Civil Order

[TomC]

I'm inclined to believe Neely did do the things the witnesses said based on his record however I'm not one of those assholes who think Its the American way to believe people are guilty before proven innocent.

I'm uninclined to go back through the thread and find a list of people who referred to Penny as a murderer. Or a violent psycho.

But don't kid yourself. Guilty until proven innocent isn't just an American thing, it's right here on this forum.

What I'm seeing here, is "Get Whitey". Not the first time I've seen it. Won't be the last I expect.
Tom

 

[Gospel]

I'm inclined to believe Neely did do the things the witnesses said based on his record however I'm not one of those assholes who think Its the American way to believe people are guilty before proven innocent.

I'm uninclined to go back through the thread and find a list of people who referred to Penny as a murderer. Or a violent psycho.

But don't kid yourself. Guilty until proven innocent isn't just an American thing, it's right here on this forum.

What I'm seeing here, is "Get Whitey". Not the first time I've seen it. Won't be the last I expect.
Tom

Please quote the get whitey part. Because I don't see it. What I do see is people propping up their bias.

 

[bilby]

Or you're taking an exceptionally broad and squishy view of the words "unlawful" and "violence".

The law has a very broad, and not squishy at all definition of "unlawful violence".

If you don't like the fact that pretty much any deliberate contact with another person without that person's consent can constitute "unlawful violence", take it up with the legislature or the courts.

If you're blissfully unaware that you have been regularly breaking the law for most of your life, then you are just like most other people in that regard. But popularity of an erroneous legal opinion isn't evidence for its being correct.

What you, I, or anyone else thinks of as "violence" is rendered moot by the word "unlawful", which immediately declares that the definition of "violence" under discussion is that enshrined by the law. There's nothing at all "squishy" about the law; It's been explicitly written to be as clear and unequivocal as possible.

Yes, that's a pedantic position. But the whole legal system is founded on such pedantry.

 

[TomC]

The law has a very broad, and not squishy at all definition of "unlawful violence".

Maybe in Australia, but not here.

Straight arming someone who tries to cut into a queue might be "unlawful violence" where you live, but it's not around here.
Tom

 

[Emily Lake]

If you're blissfully unaware that you have been regularly breaking the law for most of your life, then you are just like most other people in that regard.

Can you provide an example of a way that you think I've been regularly breaking the law for most of my life while being unaware of doing so?

 

[bilby]

The law has a very broad, and not squishy at all definition of "unlawful violence".

Maybe in Australia, but not here.

Straight arming someone who tries to cut into a queue might be "unlawful violence" where you live, but it's not around here.
Tom

Aren't you in California?

I think you'll find that California Penal Code §242 disagrees sharply with your opinion on this issue.

 

[bilby]

If you're blissfully unaware that you have been regularly breaking the law for most of your life, then you are just like most other people in that regard.

Can you provide an example of a way that you think I've been regularly breaking the law for most of my life while being unaware of doing so?

I sincerely doubt that you never touch anyone without their explicit permission.

Of course, I may be mistaken; You could be a housebound recluse. But if nkt, it's vanishingly unlikely that you haven't been regularly breaking the law for most of your life.

The law, famously, is an ass. And a pedantic ass at that. Blameless people break the law constantly.

 

[TomC]

The law has a very broad, and not squishy at all definition of "unlawful violence".

Maybe in Australia, but not here.

Straight arming someone who tries to cut into a queue might be "unlawful violence" where you live, but it's not around here.
Tom

Aren't you in California?

I think you'll find that California Penal Code §242 disagrees sharply with your opinion on this issue.

Oh my goodness no. Never even visited. I've seen most of America, but haven't crossed the Rocky Mountains.

Let's ask @TSwizzle, an actual resident of California. I live in Indiana, which is like a different planet.
Tom

 

[Emily Lake]

If you're blissfully unaware that you have been regularly breaking the law for most of your life, then you are just like most other people in that regard.

Can you provide an example of a way that you think I've been regularly breaking the law for most of my life while being unaware of doing so?

I sincerely doubt that you never touch anyone without their explicit permission.

Of course, I may be mistaken; You could be a housebound recluse. But if nkt, it's vanishingly unlikely that you haven't been regularly breaking the law for most of your life.

The law, famously, is an ass. And a pedantic ass at that. Blameless people break the law constantly.

That's not how unlawful violence is defined. It's not even how assault is defined.

https://www.lawinsider.com/dictiona...eans any assault,defense or defense of others.

Unlawful violence means any assault or battery, or stalking as prohibited in Section 646.9 of the Penal Code, but shall not include lawful acts of self-defense or defense of others.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/assault

assault​

Assault is generally defined as an intentional act that puts another person in reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact. No physical injury is required, but the actor must have intended to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the victim and the victim must have thereby been put in immediate apprehension of such a contact.

There is a variant of assault in the context of sexual assault.
https://www.justice.gov/ovw/sexual-...sault” means,victim lacks capacity to consent.

What Is Sexual Assault?​

The term “sexual assault” means any nonconsensual sexual act proscribed by Federal, tribal, or State law, including when the victim lacks capacity to consent.

I can assure you that I have done none of those things whatsoever since I was about 5. Not even while being "blissfully unaware". I am also quite confident that most people don't engage in any unlawful violence either.

 

[bilby]

The law has a very broad, and not squishy at all definition of "unlawful violence".

Maybe in Australia, but not here.

Straight arming someone who tries to cut into a queue might be "unlawful violence" where you live, but it's not around here.
Tom

Aren't you in California?

I think you'll find that California Penal Code §242 disagrees sharply with your opinion on this issue.

Oh my goodness no. Never even visited. I've seen most of America, but haven't crossed the Rocky Mountains.

Let's ask @TSwizzle, an actual resident of California. I live in Indiana, which is like a different planet.
Tom

Then the law that applies to you would be Indiana Code Section 35-45-2 et seq.

 

[bilby]

That's not how unlawful violence is defined.

Sure it is

It's not even how assault is defined.

No it isn't. It's how battery is defined.

 

[TomC]

the law that applies to you would be Indiana Code Section 35-45-2 et seq.

You really don't understand the USA.
Tom

 

[bilby]

the law that applies to you would be Indiana Code Section 35-45-2 et seq.

You really don't understand the USA.
Tom

Maybe not. But I can read, and I understand the law.

If you imagine that "not enforced" is synonymous with "not illegal", then you're flat out wrong no matter what country you inhabit.

 

[Emily Lake]

That's not how unlawful violence is defined.

Sure it is

It's not even how assault is defined.

No it isn't. It's how battery is defined.

Let me get this straight - you're saying that you know US legal terms better than US lawyers do? And that your opinion, as someone who is NOT an American, is right because you say so... in direct contradiction to the definitions that I actually provided, based on what the actual fucking definition in the fucking US are?

I mean, seriously, you're contradicting the legal definitions that I provided based on... your personal belief?

Really, bro?

 

[Emily Lake]

the law that applies to you would be Indiana Code Section 35-45-2 et seq.

You really don't understand the USA.
Tom

Maybe not. But I can read, and I understand the law.

If you imagine that "not enforced" is synonymous with "not illegal", then you're flat out wrong no matter what country you inhabit.

It's not illegal to make physical contact with someone unintentionally, or with benign intent, in a way that does not cause harm or that would not cause offense to a reasonable person.

 

[ZiprHead]

The guy was obviously mentally ill and wanted food and water. Instead of getting him help, an asshole comes up from being him and chokes him to death. And the fake christians all over the country are supporting the murderer.

Derec. Who is more dangerous? The guy that punches an old woman or the guy that unnecessarily kills a mentally ill person?

Are you seriously taking the side of the aggressor over the side of the defender?

Yes, I am. I see it as no differant than Derek Chauvin.

 

[TomC]

The guy was obviously mentally ill and wanted food and water. Instead of getting him help, an asshole comes up from being him and chokes him to death. And the fake christians all over the country are supporting the murderer.

Derec. Who is more dangerous? The guy that punches an old woman or the guy that unnecessarily kills a mentally ill person?

Are you seriously taking the side of the aggressor over the side of the defender?

Yes, I am. I see it as no differant than Derek Chauvin.

So yes.
You're OK with violence and criminal activity.

As long as it's divided by race.
Tom

 

[bilby]

Let me get this straight - you're saying that you know US legal terms better than US lawyers do?

No, I very definitely didn't say anything of the kind.

 

[bilby]

in direct contradiction to the definitions that I actually provided

Not in contradiction to them at all - you posted definitions which exactly match my claim, but only defined assault, which we are not currently discussing; Something you probably missed when you laser focused on the irrelevant "assault" part of the phrase "assault and battery".

There are two kinds of violence in law: Assault, which is verbal; And Battery, which is physical. As the two are typically covered by a single "Assault and battery" statute, it's very common for non-lawyers to simply refer to all unlawful violence as "assault", but that's technically wrong (and technicalities are the lifeblood of law).

 

[bilby]

the law that applies to you would be Indiana Code Section 35-45-2 et seq.

You really don't understand the USA.
Tom

Maybe not. But I can read, and I understand the law.

If you imagine that "not enforced" is synonymous with "not illegal", then you're flat out wrong no matter what country you inhabit.

It's not illegal to make physical contact with someone unintentionally, or with benign intent, in a way that does not cause harm or that would not cause offense to a reasonable person.

That depends on your jurisdiction. But it's irrelevant anyway; If you make intentional contact with someone, you are guilty of battery, (even in Indiana).

And most people do that fairly frequently, without even being particularly aware of having done so.

It's an ancient quirk of English law, that is replicated in pretty much every jurisdiction that had English law as its basis - including as far as I am aware, all fifty of the United States of America. Certainly it's present in the codes I cited for California and Indiana.