F*CK THE POLICE!!!

C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
bearkat42 said:
I think I remember telling you that she wouldn't.
Click to expand...
At the very very very Minimum and this is being charitable. She should of been arrested for Disorderly conduct.

Now the real solution to all of this is Get the fucking police out of our schools. They violate our childrens rights on a daily basis.

As to after the cops were called, He should of
-called for backup
-Cleared the classroom
-came in with overwhelming show of force and tried to talk her out of her stupid decision to be a little bitch
 
bearkat42

bearkat42

Well-Known Member
ChesusRice said:
At the very very very Minimum and this is being charitable. She should of been arrested for Disorderly conduct.

Now the real solution to all of this is Get the fucking police out of our schools. They violate our childrens rights on a daily basis.

As to after the cops were called, He should of
-called for backup
-Cleared the classroom
-came in with overwhelming show of force and tried to talk her out of her stupid decision to be a little bitch
Click to expand...
No
 
Corso312

Corso312

Well-Known Member
ChesusRice said:
At the very very very Minimum and this is being charitable. She should of been arrested for Disorderly conduct.

Now the real solution to all of this is Get the fucking police out of our schools. They violate our childrens rights on a daily basis.

As to after the cops were called, He should of
-called for backup
-Cleared the classroom
-came in with overwhelming show of force and tried to talk her out of her stupid decision to be a little bitch
Click to expand...




Lol what???
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
ChesusRice said:
He got fired for excessive force. As he should of been.
She didn't get arrested or charged with resisting arrest and battery of a police officer as She should of been
Click to expand...
It wasn't battery, said this before, don't know why you insist on calling it such. Would you like me to post the legal definition of battery AGAIN?
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Ok, here we go again. I wish I could read it to you but you'll have to sound it out:

From: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/battery

Legal definition of battery, the top line of which reads:

"Elements
The following elements must be proven to establish a case for battery: (1) an act by a defendant; (2) an intent to cause harmful or offensive contact on the part of the defendant; and (3) harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiff."

Its the third element that loses your case for battery. Nobody involved with the case claimed the cop was hurt. Not the cop, not the officials -- no one says the girl harmed the cop.

You are obtuse and hard headed to continue to talk about battery.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
ChesusRice said:
I agree.
He got fired for it.
She still threw punches at him and disobeyed a lawful order.
Click to expand...

Sometimes people that are forcibly held to others will respond with justifiable defensive force.

The girl was a captive. If she weren't forced to be somewhere she obviously didn't have any interest in being, this would not have happened.

You gloss over and ignore the idea that a system which arises from forcibly placing people in situations they'd prefer not to be in, there will be unintended consequences....like rebellion. Justifiable rebellion.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
ChesusRice said:
At the very very very Minimum and this is being charitable. She should of been arrested for Disorderly conduct.

Now the real solution to all of this is Get the fucking police out of our schools. They violate our childrens rights on a daily basis.

As to after the cops were called, He should of
-called for backup
-Cleared the classroom
-came in with overwhelming show of force and tried to talk her out of her stupid decision to be a little bitch
Click to expand...
When does he bring her the ice cream and say pretty please?
 
C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Ok, here we go again. I wish I could read it to you but you'll have to sound it out:

From: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/battery

Legal definition of battery, the top line of which reads:

"Elements
The following elements must be proven to establish a case for battery: (1) an act by a defendant; (2) an intent to cause harmful or offensive contact on the part of the defendant; and (3) harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiff."

Its the third element that loses your case for battery. Nobody involved with the case claimed the cop was hurt. Not the cop, not the officials -- no one says the girl harmed the cop.

You are obtuse and hard headed to continue to talk about battery.
Click to expand...
Put the whole. Definition up.
No injuries need to result
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
ChesusRice said:
Put the whole. Definition up.
No injuries need to result
Click to expand...
Its pretty long. The link is pretty easy to access. Just put the pointer on the link and right click your mouse. But Ok, I'll post it if it makes you happy. Getting back to why you are wrong about a battery charge ... nobody claimed the cop was harmed (aka hurt). I said nothing about injury, you said that. I said you are obtuse and hard headed. Do you want me to post the definition of obtuse as well?

Battery
At common law, an intentional unpermitted act causing harmful or offensive contact with the "person" of another.

Battery is concerned with the right to have one's body left alone by others.

Battery is both a tort and a crime. Its essential element, harmful or offensive contact, is the same in both areas of the law. The main distinction betweenthe two categories lies in the penalty imposed. A defendant sued for a tort is civilly liable to the plaintiff for damages. The punishment for criminal battery isa fine, imprisonment, or both. Usually battery is prosecuted as a crime only in cases involving serious harm to the victim.

Elements
The following elements must be proven to establish a case for battery: (1) an act by a defendant; (2) an intent to cause harmful or offensive contact on thepart of the defendant; and (3) harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiff.

The Act The act must result in one of two forms of contact. Causing any physical harm or injury to the victim—such as a cut, a burn, or a bullet wound—could constitute battery, but actual injury is not required. Even though there is no apparent bruise following harmful contact, the defendant can still be guiltyof battery; occurrence of a physical illness subsequent to the contact may also be actionable. The second type of contact that may constitute batterycauses no actual physical harm but is, instead, offensive or insulting to the victim. Examples include spitting in someone's face or offensively touchingsomeone against his or her will.

Touching the person of someone is defined as including not only contacts with the body, but also with anything closely connected with the body, such asclothing or an item carried in the person's hand. For example, a battery may be committed by intentionally knocking a hat off someone's head or knockinga glass out of some-one's hand.

Intent Although the contact must be intended, there is no requirement that the defendant intend to harm or injure the victim. In Tort Law, the intent mustbe either specific intent—the contact was specifically intended—or general intent—the defendant was substantially certain that the act would cause thecontact. The intent element is satisfied in Criminal Law when the act is done with an intent to injure or with criminal negligence—failure to use care toavoid criminal consequences. The intent for criminal law is also present when the defendant's conduct is unlawful even though it does not amount tocriminal negligence.

Intent is not negated if the aim of the contact was a joke. As with all torts, however, consent is a defense. Under certain circumstances consent to abattery is assumed. A person who walks in a crowded area impliedly consents to a degree of contact that is inevitable and reasonable. Consent may alsobe assumed if the parties had a prior relationship unless the victim gave the defendant a previous warning.

There is no requirement that the plaintiff be aware of a battery at the time it is committed. The gist of the action is the lack of consent to contact. It is nodefense that the victim was sleeping or unconscious at the time.

Harmful or Offensive Conduct It is not necessary for the defendant's wrongful act to result in direct contact with the victim. It is sufficient if the act setsin motion a force that results in the contact. A defendant who whipped a horse on which a plaintiff was riding, causing the plaintiff to fall and be injured, wasfound guilty of battery. Provided all other elements of the offense are present, the offense may also be committed by causing the victim to harm himself. Adefendant who fails to act when he or she has a duty to do so is guilty—as where a nurse fails to warn a blind patient that he is headed toward an openwindow, causing him to fall and injure himself.
 
C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Its pretty long. The link is pretty easy to access. Just put the pointer on the link and right click your mouse. But Ok, I'll post it if it makes you happy. Getting back to why you are wrong about a battery charge ... nobody claimed the cop was harmed (aka hurt). I said nothing about injury, you said that. I said you are obtuse and hard headed. Do you want me to post the definition of obtuse as well?

Battery
At common law, an intentional unpermitted act causing harmful or offensive contact with the "person" of another.

Battery is concerned with the right to have one's body left alone by others.

Battery is both a tort and a crime. Its essential element, harmful or offensive contact, is the same in both areas of the law. The main distinction betweenthe two categories lies in the penalty imposed. A defendant sued for a tort is civilly liable to the plaintiff for damages. The punishment for criminal battery isa fine, imprisonment, or both. Usually battery is prosecuted as a crime only in cases involving serious harm to the victim.

Elements
The following elements must be proven to establish a case for battery: (1) an act by a defendant; (2) an intent to cause harmful or offensive contact on thepart of the defendant; and (3) harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiff.

The Act The act must result in one of two forms of contact. Causing any physical harm or injury to the victim—such as a cut, a burn, or a bullet wound—could constitute battery, but actual injury is not required. Even though there is no apparent bruise following harmful contact, the defendant can still be guiltyof battery; occurrence of a physical illness subsequent to the contact may also be actionable. The second type of contact that may constitute batterycauses no actual physical harm but is, instead, offensive or insulting to the victim. Examples include spitting in someone's face or offensively touchingsomeone against his or her will.

Touching the person of someone is defined as including not only contacts with the body, but also with anything closely connected with the body, such asclothing or an item carried in the person's hand. For example, a battery may be committed by intentionally knocking a hat off someone's head or knockinga glass out of some-one's hand.

Intent Although the contact must be intended, there is no requirement that the defendant intend to harm or injure the victim. In Tort Law, the intent mustbe either specific intent—the contact was specifically intended—or general intent—the defendant was substantially certain that the act would cause thecontact. The intent element is satisfied in Criminal Law when the act is done with an intent to injure or with criminal negligence—failure to use care toavoid criminal consequences. The intent for criminal law is also present when the defendant's conduct is unlawful even though it does not amount tocriminal negligence.

Intent is not negated if the aim of the contact was a joke. As with all torts, however, consent is a defense. Under certain circumstances consent to abattery is assumed. A person who walks in a crowded area impliedly consents to a degree of contact that is inevitable and reasonable. Consent may alsobe assumed if the parties had a prior relationship unless the victim gave the defendant a previous warning.

There is no requirement that the plaintiff be aware of a battery at the time it is committed. The gist of the action is the lack of consent to contact. It is nodefense that the victim was sleeping or unconscious at the time.

Harmful or Offensive Conduct It is not necessary for the defendant's wrongful act to result in direct contact with the victim. It is sufficient if the act setsin motion a force that results in the contact. A defendant who whipped a horse on which a plaintiff was riding, causing the plaintiff to fall and be injured, wasfound guilty of battery. Provided all other elements of the offense are present, the offense may also be committed by causing the victim to harm himself. Adefendant who fails to act when he or she has a duty to do so is guilty—as where a nurse fails to warn a blind patient that he is headed toward an openwindow, causing him to fall and injure himself.
Click to expand...
Apology accepted
 
OddBall1st

OddBall1st

Well-Known Member
Give it up guy, enough is enough.
Rrog said:
So her little arm flew upwards as she was being flung to the floor... And that was her assault on him??

Let's not be quite so profoundly stupid on a Monday AM, ok?
Click to expand...

She can hit a cop all she wants, the best you can do is bring her home to mommy or dad.

..Why that`s a dead issue and no excuse..........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top