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: 15256
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 # 31.
#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.
#36. To: nolu chan (#31)
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.
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.
Replies to Comment # 31. CALIFORNIA Elements Of Assault
In the Ohio case of Pepin-McCaffrey...
End Trace Mode for Comment # 31.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]