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.

If someone takes your hat you have a right to get it back.

You don't assault someone over taking a ball cap. You're almost certainly the loser. Even more so if a man assaults a woman over taking his cap.

Her surest path to victory by getting him expelled and becoming the brave Latina who stood up to some white supremacist and then got assaulted for it would be for him to lose his cool and assault her.

No, he handled it perfectly. Lots of others leaving comments on the video at YouTube agree with you but this kid handled it perfectly. And he has that video to post to show others how to deal with these SJW idiots.

You don't get to commit assault on a woman because she grabbed your $5 cap and won't give it back for a bit. You'll never win with the cops.

If someone ever takes your cap (property crime or they can just say they were teasing you) and you assault them, you'll be the one in jail.

Actually if someone took my hat. They would have to touch my head to do that. That is assault. I would swiftly nail whoever it was and get my hat back. You don't know if they are taking your hat or it is part of a broader attack.

I used to box and can still throw a mean punch.

I'm 6'2 and in shape. They would regret it.

and won't give it back for a bit

The person male or female wouldn't have had a chance to dangle it ant tease me. They would already be on the ground. You don't just go up touching peoples head.

Actually if someone took my hat. They would have to touch my head to do that.

Not if they grabbed it by the bill of the cap.

The person male or female wouldn't have had a chance to dangle it ant tease me. They would already be on the ground. You don't just go up touching peoples head.

Well, good luck with the cops if you assault someone who has taken your MAGA cap.

You don't get to commit assault on a woman because she grabbed your $5 cap

She assaulted him first. Take a cops hat, and see what you're charged with after you get beaten to a pulp!

Not if they grabbed it by the bill of the cap.

If they grabbed it by the bill of the cap it would still be rubbing my head and pulling my hair.

Good luck getting a conviction if there is just one Donald Trump supporter on the jury.

Good luck getting a conviction if there is just one Donald Trump supporter on the jury.

Good luck with all that.

I asked an officer for help after a man hit me in the mouth while waiting in line for the porta potties. I went and asked an officer to help me someone just hit me in the mouth and I had witnesses. He said "I'm busy". Truth was he was talking to some girls. I went away for a couple of minutes wanting to find another officer. I didn't see any others so I approached him again. I said please officer someone just hit me in the mouth and they are going to get away. He said I was drunk and arrested me. I wasn't. I went to court and defended myself and won. Against a cop.

I can make sure there is a Donald Trump supporter on the jury.

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.

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

(c) Crime Prevention and Termination.

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.

Criminal Law, Fourth Edition, Wayne R. LaFave, Hornbook Series

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.

You don't get to commit assault on a woman because she grabbed your $5 cap

Looks like a bull dyke. Are you sure she doesn't consider herself a he?

A police officer here in Ohio told me touching someone is assault. Or maybe it was a lawyer. It may be the latter.

And, even if that is still true in Ohio, that doesn't mean that it is the law in California where this incident occurred. In addition, the campus itself will have their own policies and may be unaccountable in any court due to the ridiculous deference that courts and legislatures give them to make up their own rules and run their own kangaroo courts.

But if you want to beat up someone who touches you or takes your cap, have at it. I don't care that much.

But if you want to beat up someone who touches you or takes your cap, have at it. I don't care that much.

Are you saying that if you happened to walk by A K A Stone beating up a woman, you would nonchalantly continue to walk by? You wouldn't intervene in anyway?

A police officer here in Ohio told me touching someone is assault.

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.

Are you saying that if you happened to walk by A K A Stone beating up a woman, you would nonchalantly continue to walk by? You wouldn't intervene in anyway?

Hard to say in a hypothetical. Generically, I would say I would try to yell something or to distract a man hitting a woman or try to get between them or something.

But then, I don't see myself as some roving white knight.

I'd likely be more aggressive if a helpless elderly person or child was violently assaulted in front of me.

Instead of chickenshit haranguing me on a hypothetical, why don't you just tell us what you would do if a man started hitting a woman down in Belize.

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.

And you know factually the statutes of Ohio and California on these crimes?

I certainly wouldn't take it as legal advice.

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.

Can you cite a single state where the law does not recognize the right to defend property?

https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/3400/3476.html

3476. Right to Defend Real or Personal Property

The owner [or possessor] of (real/ [or] personal) property may use reasonable force to protect that property from imminent harm. [A person may also use reasonable force to protect the property of a (family member/guest/master/servant/ward) from immediate harm.] Reasonable force means the amount of force that a reasonable person in the same situation would believe is necessary to protect the property from imminent harm.

When deciding whether the defendant used reasonable force, consider all the circumstances as they were known to and appeared to the defendant and consider what a reasonable person in a similar situation with similar knowledge would have believed. If the defendant’s beliefs were reasonable, the danger does not need to have actually existed. The People have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant used more force than was reasonable to protect property from imminent harm. If the People have not met this burden, you must find the defendant not guilty of .

New January 2006; Revised April 2008

http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/civil-code/civ-sect-50.html

California Code, Civil Code - CIV § 50

Any necessary force may be used to protect from wrongful injury the person or property of oneself, or of a spouse, child, parent, or other relative, or member of one's family, or of a ward, servant, master, or guest.

http://www.kinseylaw.com/clientserv2/civillitigationserv/assaultbattery/assaultbattery.html

Defense Of Property: Any necessary force may be used to protect from wrongful injury the property of oneself, or of a wife, husband, child, parent, or other relative, or member of one's family, or of a ward, servant, master, or guest. [Civ. Code §50] The property one is entitled to protect includes property that is in one's rightful possession.

... why don't you just tell us what you would do if a man started hitting a woman down in Belize.

I would intervene, irrespective of the situation. I am still strong and able and can handle myself formidably if required; I am diametrically opposed to yourself in such a situation.

3476. Right to Defend Real or Personal Property

Meh.

In this case, the property had already been taken from its owner. The statute does not address a citizen attempting to recover stolen property from a perp, even an obviously guilty perp.

Why don't you find some CA statute that tells us that a victim of theft has a right to physically assault the thief to recover his property? I don't think you'll find one. That veers into vigilante law. I don't think you can find such a statute. Not that I am trying to beggar you into spending your day searching for such statutes.

I would intervene, irrespective of the situation. I am still strong and able and can handle myself formidably if required; I am diametrically opposed to yourself in such a situation.

Well, good for you, Dudley DoRight. You should qualify for the Belize Medal of Honor.

And you know factually the statutes of Ohio and California on these crimes?

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

Elements Of Assault

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

Definition of Assault

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:

{¶ 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.

{¶ 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.

In this case, the property had already been taken from its owner. The statute does not address a citizen attempting to recover stolen property from a perp, even an obviously guilty perp.

Why don't you find some CA statute that tells us that a victim of theft has a right to physically assault the thief to recover his property? I don't think you'll find one. That veers into vigilante law. I don't think you can find such a statute. Not that I am trying to beggar you into spending your day searching for such statutes.

Nice try to change the topic of the discussion. Fail.

[A K A Stone #9] Actually if someone took my hat. They would have to touch my head to do that. That is assault

This discussion is about someone taking a hat off Stone's head.

And your responses at #11 and #12:

[#11] Not if they grabbed it by the bill of the cap.

[#12] Well, good luck with the cops if you assault someone who has taken your MAGA cap.

If someone takes the MAGA cap off Stone's head, what this discussion is about, Stone does not go to jail for defending his property. Not in Ohio. Not in California.

Violence is not something that you can casually stroll by while whistling "Dixie" ignoring a situation that is occurring right in front of you.

There may be a moral duty to intervene, but there is no legal duty.

CALIFORNIA Elements Of Assault

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.

In the Ohio case of Pepin-McCaffrey...

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.

There may be a moral duty to intervene, but there is no legal duty.

Some jurisdictions do have the so-called Good Samaritan laws. Generally I understand them to require passersby to report violent crimes or a person in danger to the police. I don't know of any that require passersby to intervene physically and risk their own safety.

I think you entirely miss the point. Violence is not something that you can casually stroll by while whistling "Dixie"...

Sure I could. Well, if I could whistle. And if I didn't hate "Dixie" as a really crappy 19th century ditty.

Lack of personal intervention is a chronic problem in America. Obviously you side with the couch potatoes.

Do you have a spare leotard and cape to loan me? I promise to try harder. I'm sure you can UPS or FedEx them to me internationally.

Do you have a spare leotard and cape to loan me? I promise to try harder. I'm sure you can UPS or FedEx them to me internationally.

Why do you need to mask yourself as a super-hero?

Irrespective of what you "understand" you would allow a man to beat a woman in publick. Don't you find yourself as a immoral hypocrite?

I do, yes. LOL

Why do you need to mask yourself as a super-hero?

They're a bunch of vigilante types not authorized to enforce the law. Some, like Batman, are outlaw vigilantes wanted by the poice themselves for their vigilante actions.

Hence, I need a leotard and cape. If you have a spare.

I do, yes. LOL

I find it strange that you laff at your own retort. You are not quite right on this discussion. Have you ever sought professional psychiatric consulting as boris pursues?

... not authorized to enforce the law

Are you out of your phucking mind?

Even the police or military may not enforce law. It takes the citizenry to perform that feat. That takes courage and capability to work through common sense not some official mumbo-jumbo.

I would intervene, irrespective of the situation. I am still strong and able and can handle myself formidably if required; I am diametrically opposed to yourself in such a situation.

How would you intervene? The assailant would have been hit in a second or less. I'd pick up my hat in about 2 seconds. Then I'd be on my way. Would you try to take my hat or beat me up or what?

Oh my I just typed f a g I f o r n I a without the spaces and it android auto corrected to California.

Would you try to take my hat or beat me up or what?

Nobody wants your Gary Johnson hat!

Id just pop the person as a reflex to being attacked in a split second. It would be so quick that I may not know the assailants sex until they hit the ground. Besides how am I supposed to know what gender the bull dyke identifies as.

You are a reactive son-of-a bitch unwilling to survey the situation and negotiate an outcome.

Oh my I just typed f a g I f o r n I a without the spaces and it android auto corrected to California.

On my computer, the autocorrect in Firefox offers 'California', the same exact thing!

These are spellcheck hate crimes! Let's sue. nolu can represent us in court.

You have a serious problem.

You can walk past a murder in progress and there is no legal duty to intervene.

That is a fact.