Shelby Shoup, a Gillum intern, arrested for assaulting FSU College Republicans

[ronburgundy]

It is ridiculous that throwing milk (chocolate or not) on someone is battery.

Well, start a campaign to special case throwing milk on someone as battery, but it is simply a consequence of the definition the of the crime. It likely would not result in jail time, and would be very minor, but someone should be able to press charges for having food thrown at them, and it isn't something that should legally be tolerated.

I see a number of legal definiitons that specify that criminal battery, even at the lowest level requires at least the intent and possibility of causing physical harm, unless it is specifically sexual battery. That would not apply to throwing few drops of a non-dangerous liquid on someone.

If it is battery, then it is only in the same technical sense that squirting a person with a squirt gun is "battery".
It's extremely unlikely anyone would get convicted of battery for that, and she will likely get charged with something like "disorderly conduct" and/or destruction of property (his clothes).

 

[skepticalbip]

Yeah, I have a standing policy that if someone tells me they aren't vaccinating their kids, I'll punch them in the face. I don't think this is an unreasonable response.

Would you try to reason with them about it first? Or just resort to your fists?

You can change minds with reason. You can't change minds with your fists.

A punch in the face can stop an argument, but it can't win one.

Agreed, but I'm curious how much time he's spent in jail for assault and how many lawsuits he's had placed against him.

Agreed. I doubt he has ever implemented his "standing policy". It sounds like it could just be internet braggadocio and posturing. Such a "standing policy" generally ends up with visits to the graybar hotel to isolate them from civil society.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Perhaps we can propose an amendment to International Punch A Nazi Day to allow for the punching of parents with unvaccinated kids if there aren't any Nazis around you.

I don't want any Nazis to go unpunched, of course, but if there isn't a Nazi within arm's reach of you and you don't feel that punching one is worth going any distance out of your way, a list of backup groups to punch in their place might be warranted.

 

[skepticalbip]

Perhaps we can propose an amendment to International Punch A Nazi Day to allow for the punching of parents with unvaccinated kids if there aren't any Nazis around you.

I don't want any Nazis to go unpunched, of course, but if there isn't a Nazi within arm's reach of you and you don't feel that punching one is worth going any distance out of your way, a list of backup groups to punch in their place might be warranted.

Well we do have a bit more severe precedent so, by that precedent, the punch a Nazi in the face day would be nothing. James Hodgkinson made his list of "Nazis" and then used them for target practice.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Perhaps we can propose an amendment to International Punch A Nazi Day to allow for the punching of parents with unvaccinated kids if there aren't any Nazis around you.

I don't want any Nazis to go unpunched, of course, but if there isn't a Nazi within arm's reach of you and you don't feel that punching one is worth going any distance out of your way, a list of backup groups to punch in their place might be warranted.

Well we do have a bit more severe precedent so, by that precedent, the punch a Nazi in the face day would be nothing. James Hodgkinson made his list of "Nazis" and then used them for target practice.

Well then, James Hodgkinson can wander off somewhere and go fuck himself. He doesn't get to culturally appropriate Punch A Nazi Day - that's our thing.

 

[Jarhyn]

Agreed, but I'm curious how much time he's spent in jail for assault and how many lawsuits he's had placed against him.

Agreed. I doubt he has ever implemented his "standing policy". It sounds like it could just be internet braggadocio and posturing. Such a "standing policy" generally ends up with visits to the graybar hotel to isolate them from civil society.

Mostly, this is because I don't know, nor have I known in the last 5 years since I decided that I would take this policy, anyone who is both a parent and a psychotic child-abusing fuckhead, at least not in person. I've run into a few people who hold that view and DO NOT have children, but they are shockingly rare, and it's not a topic most people talk about publicly. Some day, I may get a chance to either implement my policy or decide I'm a little bitch who can't stand up for what he believes in, but I suspect that by the time I run into that scenario, the world will have mostly moved on from that insanity, and we won't allow this kind of child abuse by anyone.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

Agreed, but I'm curious how much time he's spent in jail for assault and how many lawsuits he's had placed against him.

Agreed. I doubt he has ever implemented his "standing policy". It sounds like it could just be internet braggadocio and posturing. Such a "standing policy" generally ends up with visits to the graybar hotel to isolate them from civil society.

Could be. Hard to tell with Internet personalities. Sure, we see people who claim to be astronauts and experts at whatever, but usually they reveal their true selves by their lack of facts. Still, someone who advocates violence is not only violating the rules of the forum, but should be considered dangerous.

 

[J842P]

It is ridiculous that throwing milk (chocolate or not) on someone is battery.

Well, start a campaign to special case throwing milk on someone as battery, but it is simply a consequence of the definition the of the crime. It likely would not result in jail time, and would be very minor, but someone should be able to press charges for having food thrown at them, and it isn't something that should legally be tolerated.

I see a number of legal definiitons that specify that criminal battery, even at the lowest level requires at least the intent and possibility of causing physical harm, unless it is specifically sexual battery. That would not apply to throwing few drops of a non-dangerous liquid on someone.

If it is battery, then it is only in the same technical sense that squirting a person with a squirt gun is "battery".
It's extremely unlikely anyone would get convicted of battery for that, and she will likely get charged with something like "disorderly conduct" and/or destruction of property (his clothes).

In all I see it requires causing "physical harm or offensive contact".

So, throwing piss on someone doesn't cause physical harm, but it could certainly be considered battery.

I know I've seen cases where throwing food was charged as simple battery.

There are various degrees to all these common-law crimes, not to mention regional differences in definitions.

 

[ZiprHead]

It is ridiculous that throwing milk (chocolate or not) on someone is battery.

Well, start a campaign to special case throwing milk on someone as battery, but it is simply a consequence of the definition the of the crime. It likely would not result in jail time, and would be very minor, but someone should be able to press charges for having food thrown at them, and it isn't something that should legally be tolerated.

I see a number of legal definiitons that specify that criminal battery, even at the lowest level requires at least the intent and possibility of causing physical harm, unless it is specifically sexual battery. That would not apply to throwing few drops of a non-dangerous liquid on someone.

If it is battery, then it is only in the same technical sense that squirting a person with a squirt gun is "battery".
It's extremely unlikely anyone would get convicted of battery for that, and she will likely get charged with something like "disorderly conduct" and/or destruction of property (his clothes).

What if the guy she through the milk on was lactose intolerant?