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.

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.

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.

There are Good Samaritan laws. You misunderstand what they do. They protect the Good Samaritan if he tries to give aid to someone. It protects him from liability for damages where his good faith effort to do help results in harm. There is no requirement to be a Good Samaritan, or report anything.

There is no law in the United States that requires one to report a crime.

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.

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,

Block 2: Ohio Appellate Case Law on Use-of-Force Justification (12:05PM to 1:05PM)

[...]

"State v. Pepin-McCaffrey, 929 N.E.2d 476 (OH Ct. App. 2010)"

Wiki: Duty to rescue

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 ***.

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.

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.

My statements and your comments were made in the context of a hat taken directly from someone's head.

[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 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:

[#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.

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.

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.

• Is it reasonable for a man to punch a woman to retrieve his $5 MAGA cap?
• Is it reasonable for a man to stab a woman to retrieve his $5 MAGA cap?
• Is it reasonable for a man to shoot a woman to retrieve his $5 MAGA cap?

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.

Getting caught up in the causes of others can be deadly.

Life is filled with risks. That is where you are wrong, in this case with the below remark:

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.

What makes you think that the person receiving the punch doesn't pull out a gun on you?

Punching women, pulling guns, all for some crappy cap.

You really do want to Make America Great Again, one cap at a time.

I thought you were the white knights, vowing to defend any woman being assaulted. Well, unless she takes your cap and then you intend to punch her yourself. Over a cap.

Chivalry may not be dead but it's gotten kinda weird.

There are Good Samaritan laws. You misunderstand what they do.

They protect the Good Samaritan if he tries to give aid to someone. It protects him from liability for damages where his good faith effort to do help results in harm. There is no requirement to be a Good Samaritan, or report anything.

There MAY be requirements in SOME towns in New England:

When a bull dyke assaults you you fight back.

Is it just me, but are bull dykes THE most unhappy, vile, violent pseudo-human beings on earth? And yes -- they are only too happy to challenge men physical controntations, knowing full well that they are shielded by the time-honored "no-hitting-girls" rule. If they attack, they deserve to have their teef knocked out like any other aggressor.

Life is filled with risks...

What makes you think that the person receiving the punch doesn't pull out a gun on you?

So you want it BOTH ways, eh Buck?

You have THREE choices in life:

Preemptively or actively avoid the confrontation.

Run away.

Defend yourself.

When a bull dyke assaults you you fight back.

So now you've turned your cap-grabber into a vicious bull dyke so you can justify assaulting a woman?

You're that hard-up for MAGA caps?

I would intervene.

How about if Stone was assaulting a rabid bull dyke? Well, assuming she wasn't kicking his ass...

And your whiteknighting, is it just for a "young girl"? How about an average woman? An old lady? Caitlyn Jenner or some other tranny?

I do not advocate violence as Stone does.

Unlike Tooconservative, I wouldn't just stroll on by watching Stone pelt a young girl. I would intervene.

You'd intervene in a beef regardless of what had transpired in the FIRST place? Just because some chick is involved? But...but...what about those crazy nuts you'd alluded to who might have a gun??

Good luck with that whole scenario and White Knight thang.

I thought you were the white knights, vowing to defend any woman being assaulted.

You do know what a "white knight" means nowadays?

How about if Stone was assaulting a rabid bull dyke? Well, assuming she wasn't kicking his ass...

And your whiteknighting, is it just for a "young girl"? How about an average woman? An old lady? Caitlyn Jenner or some other tranny?

Lol x2...

Buck: ("It wouldn't matter. Violence needs to be quelled so that solutions can be found.")

So, your solution to violence is to leap in (regardless of who may be right), and escalating MORE violence to end the violence. Aren't you then risking a melee??

Kinda Seinfeldian/Costanzian.

Being in a publick venue is important to note that heightened awareness is required by all participants. Being ready for a physical fight is silly and denies the purpose of being out and about in publick, wouldn't you say?

You do know what a "white knight" means nowadays?

I thought I did. Has it changed? I would say it means:

1. a rescuer, typically of a damsel in distress
2. an investor who comes to the aid of a distressed company with needed funds to maintain liquidity
3. a man who promotes for gender equality but jumps in to rescue a woman as soon as equality isn't working

I suppose now you'll tell me that it can also involve strap-on objects and intimate electrical devices. If so, I probably prefer to remain ignorant.

You do know what a "white knight" means nowadays?

Stop demonstrating yo' "privilege," crackah.

Being in a publick venue is important to note that heightened awareness is required by all participants.

I fully agree.

Being ready for a physical fight is silly and denies the purpose of being out and about in publick, wouldn't you say?

I would say, readiness in anticipation of a possible physical confrontation or violence -- in a public venue in which the usual suspects emit their hate-vibe -- is merely preemptive wisdom and an instinctive necessity. You more than most ought to understand that.

Stone doesn't get "it." He is totally out of the mainstream. He is out on the cusp of the moon.

Don't deny his valid point just because you don't happen to like him or cops in general.

Don't deny his valid point just because you don't happen to like him or cops in general.

I am afraid that I will not validate anything this retired school crossing guard suggests. "It" is just too weird. Remember ... "it" had his nose up yukon's ass.

Hasn't it been 4-5 years since yukko's been anywhere near this forum or LP?

The phucker needed continuous annoying as it was a disgrace to human dignity and personal responsibilities in any publick setting.

Objective posts based on news articles is why I "pop on by" any chit-chat forum. My purpose for viewing or comments is not about trolls such as yukon or GrandIsland. I think you have your thinking cap screwed on backwards.

People can get just as drawn in by hate as by love. Both are very powerful influences.

I ensured that bum always had a new visitor on LP. I countered everything he said as I had an opportunity. This is true even when I was banned tyme after tyme; I probably had over 50 monickers on LP and only one was used at anytyme.

The phucker needed continuous annoying as it was a disgrace to human dignity and personal responsibilities in any publick setting.

IOW, you acted like ANTIFA and Black LIES Matters, once Trump was elected. Typical liberal behavior... acted like an asshole because your AGENDA was in danger.

Thanks for clarifying.

I was always a little disappointed at Goldi for not being smart enough to see through your bullshit. I'm equally as disappointed at Stone for allowing a filthy LIBERAL like you the venue for your intolerant trouble causing AGENDA... just because you have a few good Libertarian qualities.

Go fuck yourself, loser. You are sucker off the teat of society and you know it.

lol

sucking the teat off taxpayers.

My pension(s) are fully funded by employee contributions. It's only when the state STEALS from the pension fund to balance liberal budgets, is when tax funds are used to keep the retirees monthly payments solvent.

NYS retirement system has never been stolen from (even though Cuck Fuomo has tried several times to pay for his socialist AGENDA)... so NYS is able to payout retirees SOLEY on employee contributions and investments in Mutual funds.

Now, the state I live in now has stolen from the states retirement fund and it's currently IN THE RED paying out its retirees... but I'm not in the states retirement, I'm in a COUNTY retirement... and that has never been stolen from and as healthy as NYS (but smaller).

So shut your lips about the "government teet". I did not work in that shithole libtarded cesspool called KOOKIFONIA. My pension didn't need tax dollars to assure member payout.

Of course, I could always point to one rather well-known case of recovering stolen property.

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 was charged with multiple felony counts, including criminal conspiracy, kidnapping, assault, robbery, and using a deadly weapon.

[...]

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:

• Is it reasonable for a man to punch a woman to retrieve his $5 MAGA cap?
• Is it reasonable for a man to stab a woman to retrieve his $5 MAGA cap?
• Is it reasonable for a man to shoot a woman to retrieve his $5 MAGA cap?

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.

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.

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.

http://fox13now.com/2015/05/02/man-with-conceal-carry-permit-shoots-suspected-carjacker-in-orem-police-say/

Suspect dead after man with concealed carry permit intervenes in alleged carjacking in Orem

Posted 2:46 pm, May 2, 2015
by Tiffany DeMasters, Mark Green and Robert Boyd
Updated at 09:23PM, 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/

Teen attempted carjacking suspect fatally shot by off-duty CFD lieutenant identified

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

The right to self-defense: Lawyer says robbery victim ‘stepped over the line’

By Tim Potter
Wichita Eagle
July 13, 2013 3:42 PM

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

Cops: Charges not expected against licensed gun holder who killed suspected robber

Dawn Rhodes and Rosemary Regina Sobol
Chicago Tribune
November 2, 2015

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.

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.

You're comparing attempted armed robberies to a girl taking some nerd's cheap hat and refusing to return it.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Victims of hat snatching, purse snatching, mugging or carjacking can use whatever reasonable force is necessary to overcome the perp.

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.