New World Order
See other New World Order Articles
Title: Angry student steals MAGA hat, demands anchor baby victim be punished
Source:
Campus Reform
URL Source: https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=9868
Published: Sep 28, 2017
Author: Anthony Gockowski
Post Date: 2017-09-28 22:43:41 by Hondo68
Keywords: Filipino president, Nicaraguan anchor baby, MAGA?
Views: 18903
Comments: 106
Images of a student who stole a peer's MAGA hat at the University of California, Riverside. A Trump-supporting student at the University of California, Riverside had his MAGA hat stolen by a peer who demanded that administrators refuse to allow him to continue to wear it. A video of the incident obtained by Campus Reform shows an enraged female student taking the hat to the school’s Student Life Department as Matthew Vitale fruitlessly attempts to explain to the young woman that the hat is his property. "Your f***ing freedom of speech is genocide, homeboy." “So this guy thought it would be a good idea to go into a conference wearing this f***ing hat,” the student who stole the hat states. “Look at the kind of sh*t he’s wearing, You know what this represents? This represents genocide—genocide of a bunch of people.” Vitale then tries to explain that “you do not get to take other people’s property that is legally theirs in this country,” to which the unidentified thief replies, “man, f*** your laws.” “Do you have any f***ing conscience?” she goes on to ask, questioning why Vitale would dare to wear a MAGA hat on campus and telling him that his “f***ing freedom of speech is genocide, homeboy.” “I swear to God I could burn this sh*t. I swear to God I could burn this sh*t,” she continues as several staffers look on. “Are you people not going to do anything? She is stealing my property,” Vitale pleads, though the altercation went on for several more minutes. “We will need to return his property to him, but we can talk about…” one university employee begins to explain before being abruptly cut off by the student thief. “How about we talk about not letting him wear this sh*t on campus?” the thief retorts, while Vitale later tells a growing presence of administrators that “the fact that you people haven’t gotten this back for me is sad and wrong.” [RELATED: Female student attacked for wearing Trump hat on campus] “That’s full of sh*t, because you all are just going to, like, mediate this and make it so like we’re all ok here, freedom of speech, whatever. How about we think about what’s actually going on in this country?” the thief subsequently responds to requests from administrators to “calm down.” The altercation continued for several minutes until the hat was relinquished to an administrator who then returned it to Vitale, though not before his fellow student got in the last word. “F*** your f***ing freedom of speech, boy. F***it. F*** it because your freedom of speech is literally killing a lot of people out there. That’s what it is, because you’re out there wearing hats like these that promote laws and legislations that literally kill and murder in the masses people of color,” she stated, before the two eventually walked off with separate mediators. Campus Reform reached out to the university and Vitale for comment on the matter, and is currently awaiting responses. Poster Comment: He has a Filipino president, and is half Nicaraguan? Strange globalist Trumpkin. The SJW sow was wrong to steal the anchor babies hat. 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 106.
#1. To: hondo68 (#0)
I really liked his persistence and how he stayed on message. She was well drilled and had obviously rehearsed her SJW lines. The office people were totally useless. "We're neutral." Dumb bitch. You're neutral when people steal property? This is why they need more real cops on campuses, to deal with this kind of lawless behavior.
She took the hat. He should have popped her one in the face and took his hat back. Give the cunt a black eye or two.
Then he goes to jail, gets booted from college, and she wins. This way he wins and exposes her idiocy and how to deal with that situation.
If someone takes your hat you have a right to get it back. I would have certainly got my hat back. If the cunt resisted she would have been popped one and I would have taken my hat back. That isn't a suspend able offense it is self defense. I'm not for going around hitting women or girls. But if they did that it would be an exception because you would surely be popping a liberal.
I would have certainly got my hat back. If the cunt resisted she would have been popped one and I would have taken my hat back. That isn't a suspend able offense it is self defense. It's defense of property. Criminal Law, Fourth Edition, Wayne R. LaFave, Hornbook Series, Student Edition, est Publishing, 1986, 563-65, § 10.7(c), Crime Prevention and Termination, footnotes omitted The privilege to use force to prevent the commission of a crime about to be committed, or to prevent the consummation of a crime already underway, overlaps somewhat with two other privileges already discussed: (1) the privilege of the defense of property (in the case of a crime against property, like burglary and larceny), and (2) the privilege of self-defense or defense of another (in the case of a crime against the person, like murder, mayhem, assault and battery). On the other hand, there are crimes which do not involve a threat of harm to property or to bodily security (e.g., treason, perjury, statutory rape), so that the justification, if any, for the use of force must come solely under the defense of crime prevention, which is not limited to police officers or those aiding them. One who reasonably believes that a felony, or a misdemeanor amounting to a breach of the peace, is being committed, or is about to be committed, in his presence may use reasonable force to terminate or prevent it. Thus moderate force may justifiably be used in such cases. But, as with self-defense, the law has jelled somewhat on the reasonableness of using deadly force in crime prevention. Originally, the law was that deadly force was justifiable to prevent or terminate a felony, but was not justifiable to prevent or terminate a misdemeanor. This rule made some sense in the days when the relatively few felonies were all punishable by death anyway; but with the expansion of the felony concept to many new types of conduct, and the lowering of the penalties for many felonies, it will not do today. It is a felony to file a false income tax return; but one is not justified in shooting the filer on his way to the mailbox, even though the filing cannot otherwise be prevented. The modern rule limits the right to use deadly force to "dangerous" felonies (those felonies of the type which involve a substantial risk of death or serious bodily harm) or, as it is sometimes said, to "atrocious" felonies involving "violence or surprise." Thus it is not justifiable to kill to prevent grand larceny or adultery, though these crimes cannot otherwise be prevented. It ought not to be justifiable to shoot to kill to prevent some modern statutory forms of burglary not involving the house, such as "burglary" of a hen house or telephone booth. As to the dangerous (atrocious) felonies (e.g., murder, voluntary manslaughter, mayhem, kidnaping, arson, burglary of a dwelling, robbery, forcible sodomy, forcible rape), one is, of course, not justified in killing except when it reasonably appears necessary to kill to prevent the commission, or bring about the termination of the felony. When neither self-defense or defense of property would justify resort to deadly force, there is good reason to limit the termination-of felony aspect of this rule to instances in which the force was "being used to repel foree." And the commission of the felony must appear to be imminent, rather than in the more distant future, to justify the use of such force. There is a question, as to the dangerous felonies, whether the justification for killing should depend upon the type of felony involved, or whether it should depend on the risk encountered in the particular felony involved. Thus arson is a type of felony which generally involves a substantial risk of death or serious bodily harm; but in a particular case of arson there may be no such risk because of the arsonist's careful planning. If one kills to prevent this particular arson, is he justified because it is justifiable to kill to prevent arson, or is he not justified because this particular arson did not involve a substantial risk of death or serious bodily harm? Doubtless, the matter is generally treated in the former fashion, but it would seem that the latter method is more just. In order to have the benefit of the defense of crime prevention, it is necessary that the actor act with the purpose (motive) of crime prevention. Thus he is not justified in shooting to death his enemy, though he later discovers, to his agreeable surprise, that the enemy was on the point of committing, or was in the process of committing, a dangerous felony.
This and other books in the Hornbook series are classics in law school and they do get cited in court opinions, including Supreme Court cases. However, state laws can entirely alter criminal law as applied in that state. So quoting this Hornbook is not the final word on anything, especially state criminal law on assaults.
A police officer here in Ohio told me touching someone is assault. Or maybe it was a lawyer. It may be the latter.
Assault occurs with a threat, and does not require touching. Classicly, assault occurs when I draw my fisted hand back, and battery occurs when I make contact. Battery is offensive touching.
And you know factually the statutes of Ohio and California on these crimes? I certainly wouldn't take it as legal advice.
I certainly wouldn't take it as legal advice. Do you know of any exception in the United States? http://www.kinseylaw.com/clientserv2/civillitigationserv/assaultbattery/assaultbattery.html CALIFORNIA An assault is a demonstration of an unlawful intent by one person to inflict immediate injury on the person of another then present. [Lowry v. Standard Oil Co. (1944) 63 Cal App 2d 1, 146 P2d 57] A civil action for assault is based on an invasion of the right of a person to live without being put in fear of personal harm. [Thing v. La Chusa (1989) 48 Cal 3d 644, 257 Cal Rptr 865, 771 P2d 814] However, the Restatement Second, torts provides that a defendant is liable for assault if: (1) he or she acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the plaintiff or a third person, or an imminent apprehension of such contact, and (2) the plaintiff is put in such imminent apprehension as a result. [Restatement 2d, Torts §21] The apprehension necessary for an actionable assault requires that the plaintiff believe that the defendant's act may result in imminent contact unless it is prevented by the plaintiff's self-defensive action or by his or her flight or by the intervention of some outside force. The plaintiff must actually be aware of the imminent contact, but the plaintiff need not experience fright at the prospect of the threatened contact. To make a defendant liable for an assault, the defendant must have intended to inflict a harmful or offensive contact on the plaintiff or to have put him or her in apprehension of such contact. Once that intent is formed and the defendant puts the plaintiff in apprehension of the threatened contact, the defendant is liable, even if he or she subsequently terminates the attempt to inflict harm or that attempt is frustrated for some other reason. The Penal Code definition of assault requires that the defendant have a present ability to commit a violent injury on the person of another. [Pen. Code §240] However, one civil case has held that the present ability to injure is not necessary for an actionable assault. [Lowry v. Standard Oil Co. (1944) 63 Cal App 2d 1, 146 P2d 57(pointing of unloaded gun at another in threatening manner constitutes assault unless it is known by plaintiff that gun is in fact unloaded)] Elements Of Battery A battery is a violation of an individual's interest in freedom from intentional unlawful, harmful, or offensive unconsented contacts with his or her person. To establish a claim for battery a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant intentionally subjected him or her to a harmful or offensive touching which actually and proximately caused plaintiff to suffer injury. The defendant must intend to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the plaintiff or a third person, or an imminent apprehension of such contact. However, intent is the gist of an action for battery only where the battery was committed in the performance of an act not otherwise unlawful. If the cause of action is an alleged battery committed in the performance of an unlawful or wrongful act, the intent of the defendant to injure is immaterial. Moreover, where the defendant is guilty of gross or culpable negligence, this may supply the element of intent, so as to create a liability for an unintentional injury which is the natural proximate consequence of the defendant's conduct. If the defendant forms the intent to cause the apprehension of the threatened contact, as in an assault, and actual contact results, he or she still is liable for battery, even though the resulting contact was unintended. The doctrine of transferred intent applies to causes of action for battery. Thus, where a defendant intends to cause a harmful or offensive contact with a third party, but instead causes that contact with the plaintiff, he or she is liable to the plaintiff for battery just as though he or she intended to cause the contact with the plaintiff. - - - - - - - - - - OHIO http://statelaws.findlaw.com/ohio-law/ohio-assault-and-battery-laws.html Ohio assault laws include the offenses of both “assault” and “battery.” Causing or attempting to cause harm to another person or to an unborn child is an assault in Ohio. To commit "battery" is to intentionally or negligently cause offensive physical contact or bodily harm. The crime of assault is broken down into two separate degrees: "simple" and "aggravated." Simple and neglient assault are misdemeanor crimes. Aggravated assault is a felony depending upon who is the victim. [snip] In the Ohio case of Pepin-McCaffrey, basically the hubby allegedly kicked the dog and wifey punched him in the nether regions. Cops came and arrested wifey. Her claimed defense of defense of property was disallowed at the trial court. The appeals court reversed. The dog was property. She had the available defense of defense of property. Where he kicks the dog (property), defense of property must be considered when she punches him in the balls. http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/7/2010/2010-ohio-617.pdf State v. Pepin-McCaffrey, 186 Ohio App. 3d 548, 2010-Ohio-617 At pp. 9-10: {¶ 44} This construction of the evidence further supports appellant’s defense-of- property claim, which the court seemed to have preemptively dismissed outright based upon its construction of the recording before even giving appellant a chance to present her case. Although this discussion seems more pertinent to a manifest-weight-of-the-evidence analysis, it is also relevant to ascertaining the entire effect of the trial court’s contested statements. {¶ 45} Considering the court’s misconstruction of the recording, the court’s premature adjudication of her defense as incredible and even unpresentable, and the court’s sustaining of an objection made on a wholly erroneous ground, we are compelled to sustain this assignment of error. Based upon the totality of the aforementioned circumstances, we hereby reverse and remand for a new trial.
Hey, nolu, I already know assault and battery are illegal in Cali. What I don't know is if it is legal to use violence for a property owner to recover his property. I don't think so. And probably not in any other state either. And some marital ball-punching of a dogkicker spouse is a very tenuous precedent to cite in a case of recovering a $5 cap from someone who grabbed it and wouldn't give it back. I think you're giving some very lousy advice but IANAL.
And some marital ball-punching of a dogkicker spouse is a very tenuous precedent to cite in a case of recovering a $5 cap from someone who grabbed it and wouldn't give it back. I think you're giving some very lousy advice but IANAL. The subject is using reasonable force after someone removes a hat from someone's head while they are wearing it. It was in this context that you noted at #11 that they would not have to touch the wearer "if they grabbed it by the bill of the cap." In this same context, you added at your #12, "Well, good luck with the cops if you assault someone who has taken your MAGA cap." If you grab my hat by the bill and do not touch me, I can still use whatever force is reasonable to take it from you. If you resist, I can use force to overcome your resistance. The law in California and Ohio provide that I may commit what would otherwise be assault and battery upon the the transgressor, and as long as I use reasonable force, it is protected by the right to defend property. I do not have to just watch someone walk away with my property. Any property, whether it is my hat or anything else. I cited the law and provided a case. The right to defend property is the law in California and Ohio. I challenged you to identify any state that is an exception. *** C R I C K E T S ***. As long as you cannot cite a single jurisdiction in the United States where the right to defense of property does not apply and protect the use of reasonable force to stop your property from being absconded with, I will conclude that you are giving a very lousy legal opinion. I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night. As for citing some marital ball punching of a dog kicker being a tenous precedent to cite, it seems that an internationally recognized expert on the law of self-defense chose it for the Continuing Legal Education seminar he taught in May 2017 in Ohio. Lawyers have to keep up with their CLE. Law of Self Defense LEVEL 2B Class Delaware OH CLE Syllabus 17105 v.170524 Uploaded by Law of Self Defense on May 24, 2017 Seminar Leader Andrew F. Branca is in his 3rd decade of practicing law (MA BBO#: 557995). He has written several published books on the law of self-defense, including the currently available “The Law of Self Defense, 3rd Edition,” (ISBN: 978-1-943809-14-1). He is an internationally recognized expert on the law of self-defense, and has been quoted in this context by the Wall Street Journal, the Chicago Tribune, the Washington Post, and many other mainstream media, including nationally syndicated broadcast media and foreign press. Page 2, [...] "State v. Pepin-McCaffrey, 929 N.E.2d 476 (OH Ct. App. 2010)"
I cited the law and provided a case. The right to defend property is the law in California and Ohio. I challenged you to identify any state that is an exception. *** C R I C K E T S ***. I don't believe you proved any such thing. Nor have you cited any clear cases where prosecutors brought a case against someone committing violence to recover stolen property and the courts struck down such convictions or summarily dismissed any charges against the person committing violence to recover property. I maintain my position and will not be distracted by your attempts to pretend that property recovery is some variety of legalized assault. Cite these cases where you are entitled to vigilante action including violence to recover your stolen property. Cite the statutes that declare this. Cite the court cases where the vigilante property owner prevailed. Property recovery is not self-defense.
My statements and your comments were made in the context of a hat taken directly from someone's head. This discussion is about someone taking a hat a head. You said it could be taken without touching the other person if grabbed by the bill. And your responses at #11 and #12: [#12] Well, good luck with the cops if you assault someone who has taken your MAGA cap. The law is crystal clear that you cannot take my personal property off my head and leave without my having the right to use any reasonable force to stop you and take back my property. The discussion was about a hat taken right off the head. It was not about a case of recovery at a later date. You can cite neither a case nor a law that approaches what you claim, that I must let the culprit walk away with my hat. I may use whatever force is reasonable to regain possession of my hat. The case citation you criticized is being taught in CLE, 2017, on the topic of, "Ohio Appellate Case Law on Use-of-Force Justification." Saying you don't believe your lying eyes is not a persuasive argument. Use of force justification, you mess with my property, I mess with you, it's justified. It does not matter whether you kick my dog or steal my hat. The only problem area you will find is if the owner uses unreasonable force.
Ah. Well, having mistaken me for someone who actually cares about this issue deeply, I'll continue. Or we could agree to disagree since I could care less to begin with and probably won't believe anything you say if you can't find specific cases where someone was charged for retrieving stolen property and acquitted after using violent force by 1) punching, 2) stabbing, 3) shooting. But you can't find such a case. Because there aren't any, I think. But I can't prove that either, any more than you can prove exoneration of a defendant in such a case. Of course, I could always point to one rather well-known case of recovering stolen property. Wiki: O. J. Simpson, Las Vegas robbery I don't think it helps your argument. It also doesn't clinch my argument in this case of a $5 MAGA cap.
Wiki: O. J. Simpson, Las Vegas robbery You could, but that would be dumb. That was armed robbery of property that did not belong to Simpson, and multiple other felonies. A more appropriate famous case would the that of Bernhard Goetz, the so-called subway vigilante. "The case was defended by Barry Slotnick and Mark M. Baker. Slotnick argued that Goetz's actions fell within the New York State's self-defense statute. Under Section 35.15, 'A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person ... unless ... He reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit [one of certain enumerated predicate offenses, including robbery].'" You seem to forget that, in the O.J. armed robbery case, collectibles dealer Thomas Riccio secretly audio recorded the pre-robbery (conspiracy) meeting, and the robbery itself. O.J.'s crew did not just take O.J. 's alleged property, but they scooped up everything, including numerous baseballs signed by Pete Rose and Duke Snider, about 50 lithographs of Joe Montana, and even Bruce Fromong's cell phone. It was armed robbery on audio tape, and the tape was admitted as evidence at trial. O.J. and crew were on hotel surveillance tape carrying the stuff down the hall. From your source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson [...] Simpson and his co-defendant were found guilty of all charges on October 3, 2008. Nobody involved removed Simpson's property from his person, or anywhere else. They were collectibles dealers who had purchased the stuff. The Simpson armed robbery in no way resembles a case of defense of property. Your legal theory would lead to absurd results, something that is a usual indicator of an absurdly wrong legal theory. Indistinguishable cases which would accord with your idea that if one removes something from your person without touching you, you cannot use force to regain your property. ONE: A pickpocket removes your wallet from your pocket. He never touches your person but you detect the theft and.... you must watch him walk away. TWO: Granny is walking down the street with her purse. A yute does not touch her person but grabs the purse strap and removes it from granny's possession, and proceeds to run away. Granny must just say goodbye to her purse? Granny is too old to engage the yute in combat, but it just so happens that she has three grandson's right nearby. Two play linebacker and the other is a cornerback. They see what transpires and take off in pursuit of the yute. The cornerback looks like Darrell Green tracking down Tony Dorsett. He tackles the yute and brings him down face first onto the pavement. The two linebackers catch up. The yute resists and tries to escape. The cornerback stopped him. Now the linebacker bops him and drops him. It is all caught on videotape. They hold the yute and call the cops. Who do the cops arrest? If you take property off Granny's person, even without touching Granny, if reasonable, Granny or others assisting Granny have the right to stop you, bop you, or drop you, depending upon what force you make necessary. As for your ridiculous questions: If in resisting the man's effort to retrieve his $5 MAGA cap, robbed from his person, the woman resists with force, all reasonable force may be used. If she pulls a knife, a threat of deadly force, it would be reasonable to use deadly force in reply. What one may do in response to robbery is not related to the value of the stolen property. It could be a $5 cap or a $5M cap. There is no case of receiving stolen property anywhere in the discussion. There is a case of theft or robbery. The only such cases where you will find a conviction is where the thieving yute is the defendant. If not the defendant, he is the decedent. They do not charge the good citizen for resisting robbery, mugging or carjacking. Even the good citizen who assists somebody else subjected to unarmed carjacking, and intervenes by confronting the carjacker at gunpoint, and shooting and killing the carjacker when he charges at him, is found justified and not charged criminally. Posted 2:46 pm, May 2, 2015 [excerpt] "Subject gets out of the truck, goes over and pulls the lady out of the silver Mercedes, starts to get in the car, she's screaming for help,” said Captain Ned Jackson of the Orem Police Department. The suspect attempted to carjack the woman in a Mercedes at about 11:18 a.m., and that's when a shopper, so far only identified as a 31-year-old male, confronted the suspect. “Our citizen goes up at gun point, has him get out of the car, the guy gets out of the car,” Jackson said. "The suspect lunged and tried to get the gun from him, so at that point he's trying to protect himself and shoots the gentleman." Police said the shopper, who had a concealed carry permit, was threatened and fired his weapon. The suspect, who police have not yet identified, suffered a single gunshot wound and was transported to Utah Valley Hospital, where he died from his injuries. Police say the man had several felony warrants. Officers are actively searching for the other two suspects involved in the original incident. Officials with the Orem Police Department said the man who fired the gun is not facing charges at this point because it appears his use of deadly force was justified. Yute, attempting to steal car left runnng, shot dead by owner. http://abc7chicago.com/teen-suspect-fatally-shot-by-off-duty-cfd-lieutenant-identified/2332764/ Tuesday, August 22, 2017 CHICAGO (WLS) -- A 17-year-old boy who police said tried to steal the vehicle of an off-duty Chicago Fire Department lieutenant was shot and killed Monday morning on the city's West Side. He was identified to the Cook County Medical Examiner's Office as Charles K. Macklin, authorities said. A 45-year-old man, who fire officials confirmed is an off-duty CFD lieutenant, left his vehicle running in the 1400-block of north Lockwood Avenue in Chicago's North Austin neighborhood, police said. Around 9:30 a.m., police said Macklin got into the vehicle. The lieutenant fired shots at the teen in an attempt to stop the suspect from running him over, police said. Macklin sustained a gunshot wound to the chest and was transported to West Suburban Medical Center, where he was pronounced dead at 9:33 a.m. An autopsy is scheduled for Tuesday. The lieutenant has a valid concealed-carry license and firearm owners' identification card, police said. Robber goes into store to commit robbery armed with BB gun. Owner shoots him four times inside store with a .38 and thief runs out of store, unarmed. Owner grabbed a second loaded gun, went outside, and shot thief in the back. County attorney: "Shortly after this incident I had the opportunity to review the video tape of the armed robbery, witness statements, and officer’s reports. Nothing in that evidence would support charges of any kind against Mr. Preble." http://www.kansas.com/news/article1118945.html By Tim Potter When the robber came into Uncle Ken’s coin shop, wearing a scarf over his face and pointing what looked like a handgun at Ken Preble, the shop owner had a right to defend himself. Video cameras in Preble’s Independence shop that January day caught some of the bloody struggle that followed. When Preble pulled out a .38-caliber handgun, the robber came at him, and the two went to the floor and scuffled. Shots rang out. A bullet shattered a bone in Preble’s forearm, and the man suspected of robbing him took four wounds, by his defense attorney’s count, to his temple, chest, abdomen, thigh. As the wounded robber left the shop – clutching about $2,800 but no longer armed with a BB gun that Preble thought was a 9mm handgun – the robber blurted out something: “You killed me, Ken.” But what happened next turned Preble from victim to criminal, Wichita defense attorney Mark Schoenhofer argues. Schoenhofer is defending the man suspected of robbing the store, Adam J. Anderson. The case illustrates how disputes can arise over claims of self-defense. Schoenhofer contends that Preble grabbed another loaded handgun, followed the robber out of the store and shot him in the back as he was fleeing. Schoenhofer said the investigation found that Preble fired again outside his business, and Schoenhofer said he deduced that the last shot is what left the robber with a fifth wound, to his back. Preble had no legal justification for firing that last shot because he was no longer threatened once the robber was fleeing, Schoenhofer said. Schoenhofer said Preble should face a charge himself, aggravated battery at the least. With that last shot, Schoenhofer said, Preble “stepped over the line.” Schoenhofer said Montgomery County Attorney Larry Markle told him that Preble would not be charged and told him he thought Preble was in “imminent fear” when he continued to fire. Preble declined to comment. Markle gave this statement by e-mail but otherwise declined to comment: “Shortly after this incident I had the opportunity to review the video tape of the armed robbery, witness statements, and officer’s reports. Nothing in that evidence would support charges of any kind against Mr. Preble. Since that initial review, additional evidence has been submitted by law enforcement, hearings have been held, and the defense has had time to submit any additional evidence they felt was relevant to my charging decision. At this time there remains no evidence that would support charges against Mr. Preble.” [snip] Robber enters store with paintball gun and announces robbery. Customer with concealed carry license blows his shit away. Stopped him and dropped him. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-chicago-concealed-carry-20151101-story.html Dawn Rhodes and Rosemary Regina Sobol Police say charges are unlikely against a licensed concealed-carry gun owner who shot and killed a robbery suspect after he threatened a worker with what turned out to be a paint gun in Gage Park on the Southwest Side over the weekend. "The Chicago Police Department is wrapping up its investigation and charges do not appear likely," the department said in a statement. Police say Reginald Gildersleeve, 55, walked into the Agencia Mexicana at 2701 W. 51st St. around 7 p.m. Saturday. A customer was making a financial transaction with a worker at the store, which also serves as a currency exchange, when Gildersleeve, wearing a mask, announced a robbery and pulled out a gun, according to Anthony Guglielmi, a spokesman for Chicago police. Gildersleeve and the customer "got into some kind of confrontation" and the customer pulled a gun and fired, hitting Gildersleeve several times, Guglielmi said. At least two workers were inside at the time, a 55-year-old woman and a 17-year-old girl, but no one else was hit. Several law enforcement sources said Gildersleeve had been holding a toy gun, and one source said it was a paintball gun. Gildersleeve had a lengthy arrest history, including at least one for robbery, and was out on bond from an unrelated incident from Oct. 23, according to police. He lived about three blocks from the store. Police referred the case to the Cook County state's attorney's office to "determine if there's any reason to charge" the 44-year-old customer, who had a concealed carry permit and a firearm owner's identification card, Guglielmi said. Police also reviewed video surveillance.
You're comparing attempted armed robberies to a girl taking some nerd's cheap hat and refusing to return it. Apparently you think that you're in the clear if you pull a gun and shoot some little kid who is trying to take even a Tic-Tac from you. I would not agree.
No, you compared an armed robbery, the O.J. case in Las Vegas, to an unarmed robbery, a hat snatching. I cited hypothetical examples of unarmed perps who did not touch their victim. A purse snatcher is grab and go. He grabs the strap and wrenches it away from a resisting Granny. A purse snatcher is indistinguishable from a hat snatcher. A pickpocket tries to rob you without you even knowing it. And robbery is robbery, whether you rob one dollar or a million. The value of the hat is immaterial to having committed the crime and opening up the perp to the use of reasonable force to reclaim the property, including deadly force. One cited real carjacker pulled a shopper from her car. He was confronted by an armed good citizen. He was not armed and lunged to take his gun. He was shot dead. Another cited carjacker entered an unoccupied running car. The owner, a Chicago Fire Department Lieutenant shot his ass dead. He threatened to use the car as a weapon, if you consider that armed. In a store robbery case, the perp pointed what looked like a handgun at the owner. The owner pulled a real gun. They tussled in the store and the perp was shot multiple times. The unarmed perp ran out the door to escape. The owner grabbed another gun, went outside, and shot the fleeing perp in the back, ending his escape. In the second store shooting, the perp was armed with a paint gun, and made believe it was a deadly weapon, threatenikng a worker. A customer pulled out a real gun and blew his shit away. Only one perp was armed at all, and that was with a paintball gun. In the Bernhard Goetz case, nobody touched Goetz or actually took any of his property. Goetz was the only one armed. He shot the four yutes in what was found to be justifiable self defense. At this point the story becomes uncertain. According to Goetz's subsequent confession, he pauses, goes over to a youth sitting in the two-seater by the conductor's cab at the end of the car, looks at him, and says, "You seem to be [doing] all right; here's another... and fires a fifth shot that empties his five-shot Smith & Wesson .38 revolver. The bullet enters Darrell Cabey's body on his left side, traverses the back, and severs his spinal cord. There are other interpretations of these events, particularly an argument that Goetz hit Cabey on the fourth rather than the fifth shot, but in the early days after the shooting these alternative accounts are not widely disseminated. Someone pulls the emergency brake and the train screeches to a halt. The passengers flee the car, but two women remain, immobilized by fear. Goetz says some soothing words to the fearful women, and then a conductor approaches and asks him whether he is a cop. The gunman replies, "They tried to rip me off." He refuses to hand over his gun and quietly walks to the front of the car, enters the platform between cars, patiently unfastens the safety chain, jumps to the tracks below, and disappears into the dark of the subway tunnel. Three young black kids lie bleeding on the floor of the train; Darrell Cabey sits wounded and paralyzed in the end seat. A mythical figure is born—an unlikely avenger for the fear that both unites and levels all urban dwellers in the United States. If the four kids had mugged a passenger, newspaper reporters would have sighed in boredom. There are, on the average, 38 crimes a day on the New York subways. If a police officer had intervened and shot four kids who were hassling a rider for money, protests of racism and police brutality would have been the call of the day. This was different. A common man had emerged from the shadows of fear. He shot back when others only fantasize their responses to shakedowns on the New York subways. George P. Fletcher, A Crime of Self Defense, Bernhard Goetz and the Law on Trial, University of Chicago Press, 1988, pp. 1-2. Goetz was found guilty of criminal possession of a weapon, and not guilty on other charges such as attempted murder. When I say that, quote me. When four yutes had neither touched Bernhard Goetz, nor had they taken anything, but he felt intimidated, he shot all four of them in justifiable self defense. In the Goetz case, the yutes had not taken anything of the value of a MAGA hat or a Tic Tac. Explain that in your theory of self defense and reasonable force. When the wrongdoer assaults someone and takes their hat, taunts them with it, and will not return it, and goes to leave with it, the owner can use such reasonable force necessary to retrieve his hat. Victims of hat snatching, purse snatching, mugging or carjacking can use whatever reasonable force is necessary to overcome the perp. Good luck with your pressing charges against any user of reasonable force to thwart your attempted purse snatching from Granny who is protected by her three grandsons, one wide receiver and two linebackers. They can stop you, bop you, or drop you, depending upon what force you choose to make reasonable.
Well, you can think that if you want. I think it is bad advice to give out but I can't say I care deeply.
There are no replies to Comment # 106. End Trace Mode for Comment # 106.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: Tooconservative (#1)
#3. To: A K A Stone (#2)
She took the hat. He should have popped her one in the face and took his hat back. Give the cunt a black eye or two.
#4. To: Tooconservative (#3)
#17. To: A K A Stone, Tooconservative (#4)
If someone takes your hat you have a right to get it back.
(c) Crime Prevention and Termination.
#18. To: nolu chan (#17)
Criminal Law, Fourth Edition, Wayne R. LaFave, Hornbook Series
#20. To: Tooconservative (#18)
#24. To: A K A Stone, Tooconservative (#20)
A police officer here in Ohio told me touching someone is assault.
#26. To: nolu chan (#24)
(Edited)
Assault occurs with a threat, and does not require touching. Classicly, assault occurs when I draw my fisted hand back, and battery occurs when I make contact.
#31. To: Tooconservative (#26)
And you know factually the statutes of Ohio and California on these crimes?
Elements Of Assault
Definition of Assault
{¶ 43} We must also point out that the trial court misconstrued the recording as a bar to her defense. Besides the fact that the lack of a defense should not be prematurely judged, the court’s reliance on the recording as some piece of ultimate evidence that would bar the presentation of a defense is misplaced. Notably, after listening to the tape, McCaffrey testified that he said, “I didn’t kick the dog,” then he got punched in the groin, and then he said, “That’s enough of that.” However, one could more easily construe McCaffrey’s statement as “I didn’t kick the dog. This is kicking the dog.” (Emphasis added.) It is at this point that one can hear a noise sounding like some kind of strike.
#36. To: nolu chan (#31)
CALIFORNIA Elements Of Assault
In the Ohio case of Pepin-McCaffrey...
#55. To: Tooconservative (#36)
Hey, nolu, I already know assault and battery are illegal in Cali. What I don't know is if it is legal to use violence for a property owner to recover his property. I don't think so. And probably not in any other state either.
Block 2: Ohio Appellate Case Law on Use-of-Force Justification (12:05PM to 1:05PM)
#57. To: nolu chan (#55)
The law in California and Ohio provide that I may commit what would otherwise be assault and battery upon the the transgressor, and as long as I use reasonable force, it is protected by the right to defend property. I do not have to just watch someone walk away with my property. Any property, whether it is my hat or anything else.
#58. To: Tooconservative (#57)
I don't believe you proved any such thing. Nor have you cited any clear cases where prosecutors brought a case against someone committing violence to recover stolen property and the courts struck down such convictions or summarily dismissed any charges against the person committing violence to recover property.
[A K A Stone #9] Actually if someone took my hat. They would have to touch my head to do that. That is assault
[#11] Not if they grabbed it by the bill of the cap.
#59. To: nolu chan, A K A Stone (#58)
The only problem area you will find is if the owner uses unreasonable force.
#103. To: Tooconservative, A K A Stone (#59)
Of course, I could always point to one rather well-known case of recovering stolen property.
Simpson was charged with multiple felony counts, including criminal conspiracy, kidnapping, assault, robbery, and using a deadly weapon.
Or we could agree to disagree since I could care less to begin with and probably won't believe anything you say if you can't find specific cases where someone was charged for retrieving stolen property and acquitted after using violent force by 1) punching, 2) stabbing, 3) shooting.
Suspect dead after man with concealed carry permit intervenes in alleged carjacking in Orem
by Tiffany DeMasters, Mark Green and Robert Boyd
Updated at 09:23PM, May 2, 2015 Teen attempted carjacking suspect fatally shot by off-duty CFD lieutenant identified
The right to self-defense: Lawyer says robbery victim ‘stepped over the line’
Wichita Eagle
July 13, 2013 3:42 PM Cops: Charges not expected against licensed gun holder who killed suspected robber
Chicago Tribune
November 2, 2015
#104. To: nolu chan (#103)
#105. To: Tooconservative, A K A Stone (#104)
You're comparing attempted armed robberies to a girl taking some nerd's cheap hat and refusing to return it.
December 22, 1984, the Saturday before Christmas, about 1:00 P.M., Bernhard Goetz leaves his apartment at 55 West 14th Street and walks to the subway station at the corner of Seventh Avenue and 14th Street. He enters a car on the number 2 line, the IRT express running downtown, and sits down close to four black youths. The youths, seeming drifters on the landscape of the city, are noisy and boisterous, and the 15 to 20 other passengers have moved to the other end of the car. Goetz is white, 37 years old, slightly built, and dressed in dungarees and a windbreaker. Something about his appearance beckons. One of the four, Troy Canty, lying nearly prone on the long bench next to the door, asks Goetz as he enters, "How are ya?" Canty and possibly a second youth, Barry Allen, then approach Goetz, and Canty asks him for five dollars. Goetz asks him what he wants. Canty repeats: "Give me five dollars." Suddenly, the moving car resounds with gunshots, one aimed at each of the young blacks.
Apparently you think that you're in the clear if you pull a gun and shoot some little kid who is trying to take even a Tic-Tac from you.
[Tooconservative #12] Well, good luck with the cops if you assault someone who has taken your MAGA cap.
#106. To: nolu chan (#105)
Victims of hat snatching, purse snatching, mugging or carjacking can use whatever reasonable force is necessary to overcome the perp.
Replies to Comment # 106.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]