It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UC student who stole 'MAGA' hat in viral video could face felony charges

page: 2
44
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa


The fact that she hates this country, is here illegally? Strap her to a mule, smack it on the ass and send her ass back to Mexico!


Who cares what a guy who supposedly trains the militia has to say? Right Comrade?





posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 05:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

While I enjoy watching the freedom-hating Marxist getting what she deserves, I think it would have been punishment enough to have her keep the video up as to illustrate her hatred.

Pushing criminal charges makes this racist bitch a victim, which the Marxists excel at.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 05:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: introvert


I am not aware of the minutia of the details of the assault. It is possible in removing the hat, she ripped out some of his hair too. THat could be construed as fitting the charge. However, it would be up to the justice system to make that judgement.

As for my personal opinion, I don't agree. This seems closer to a misdemeanor to me. But, the fact that he is pressing charges does make me feel better that at least her behavior will be judged in a court (unless a settlement is done with the university, with them covering her tab).


Fair enough. I do not find it reasonable at all.

It's just a hat, but I understand the underlying premise. Though, I'd hate to be this pansy that is going to press charges over a hat.
edit on 6-10-2017 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 05:34 PM
link   
If it doesn't get thrown out of court I would love to see her in front of a judge saying " f### your laws and F### your constitution".

Let us see if she will stick to her ideas there.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 05:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Krakatoa
Touching a person does not constitute assault.

But is does constitute battery.

Battery describes force or violence used against another person. A prosecutor must show that the defendant willfully made contact with another person

source
edit on 6-10-2017 by Vector99 because: (no reason given)


+4 more 
posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 05:38 PM
link   
Snowflake?

In the UK you look at someone the wrong way and can get arrested and charged with assault.

Feminist say you can RAPE women just by looking at them.

Which are uber lame trends by the way.

But dude goes and turns their logic around on them and oh boy here comes the we dish it out but not take it police.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

Is this any different then the girl stealing a Trump hat?,notice a conservative has the brains to know it was not an assault,problem with this country too many liberals,they don't understand the law



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 05:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: introvert
Removing a hat from someone's head is assault?

Damn, and I thought the liberals were the snowflakes.

I can see it as being a theft, but assault?


Legally, it can be argued as assault. She did physically touch hm in the process, and done with malice of thought.


Ok. And you find that to be reasonable? Over a hat?

Like I said, a simple theft charge would be reasonable, but assault seems a bit extreme.


The assault is her ripping the hat from his head as I understand it. And, since when is the law always "reasonable"?



Was he hurt in the process? Did she strike him or did she simply take the hat off of his head?

And I did not ask you if the law was reasonable. I asked if you thought it was reasonable for someone to be charged with assault for taking someone's hat off their head.



Aggravated Assault

An aggravated assault, punishable in all states as a felony, is committed when a defendant intends to do more than merely frighten the victim. Common types of aggravated assaults are those accompanied by an intent to kill, rob, or rape. An assault with a dangerous weapon is aggravated if there is an intent to cause serious harm. Pointing an unloaded gun at a victim to frighten the individual is not considered an aggravated assault.


legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

quit defending this common pig monster. She intended to rob him, and she physically and without consent interfered with his person and personal property.


further:

If the person trying to take the property refuses to give the item up after the owner has laid hands on it, the thief is deemed to have committed an assault.

edit on 6/10/2017 by badw0lf because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss


In the UK you look at someone the wrong way and can get arrested and charged with assault.


Hahaha. Good one!


No really... extremely good one. I needed a good laugh!



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Hazardous1408


originally posted by: PhoenixOD
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I cant seem to get the link for common assault to work. Im very tired, been up all night.

Try typing "UK common assault examples" into google.


What is Common Assault?

Under Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act the offence will be committed when a person either assaults another person or commits a battery.

A battery is classified as the application of unlawful force. This could be anything from a push or slap.

An assault is when the one person makes the other fear that immediate force will be used against them. This could be anything from shaking a fist or running a finger across a throat. No force needs to be applied in order for it to be an assault.

Will there be a prison sentence?

Common assault carries a maximum penalty of six months in prison and/or a fine.

If someone is being charged for the first time it is unlikely that they will go to prison with a fine the usual outcome. If the offender has previous convictions or if they were proven to have had a particular motivation for the attack, specifically if it is racially motivated this could however lead to a prison sentence.

Actual Bodily Harm (ABH)

What is Actual Bodily Harm?

Assault causing actual bodily harm (ABH) is a criminal offence which is governed by Section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act.

In this case the assault or battery needs to cause harm to the person’s body. The harm is not necessarily serious but it would need to be more than a shove which would remain common assault. Harm such as bruises, scratches and bite marks is sufficient.

What needs to be remembered when dealing with ABH is that there only needs to be intention to apply unlawful force not the intention to cause actual bodily harm. If someone pushes another he will have intended to apply unlawful force. If the person who was pushed then bangs his head this will be charged under Section 47 even if the defendant did not intend the victim to hurt their head.
Will there be a prison sentence?

ABH carries a maximum sentence of five years.

As with common assault, if someone is being charged for the first time it is unlikely that they will go to prison with a fine the usual outcome. Again, if the offender has previous convictions or if they were proven to have had a particular motivation for the attack, specifically if it is racially motivated this could however lead to a prison sentence.



-IIB


edit on 6-10-2017 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 05:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

If Found Guilty , I Hope he gets the Death Penalty . Enough of these Asshats Disrespecting the COMMANDER In Chief !



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: badw0lf



quit defending this common pig monster. She intended to rob him, and she physically and without consent interfered with his person and personal property.


I'm not defending her. I have only said I think a felony charge is a bit too much over a hat.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 06:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
I'm not defending her. I have only said I think a felony charge is a bit too much over a hat.

Oh noes! A California felony! Frak...you might get a fine and a couple months of enforced good behavior...I mean probation. $hit, you may even need to spend a whole night in a county bunk!

Seriously, California has about the dumbest criminal classification system around.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I can’t speak for Avon & Somerset... where that law apparently applies...

But try and press charges for what you bolded in London and you’ll be laughed out of court.

www.cps.gov.uk...

Knock yourself out.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 06:06 PM
link   
With a criminal record, she won't be able to buy a gun or vote.




posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 06:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

I wonder if it will be labeled a hate crime?

www.shouselaw.com...

For instance;




A woman threatens violence against her neighbors, a homosexual male couple. The woman may be charged under California's criminal threats law . . . and she may face several additional years in prison if the prosecutor can prove that she made the threats because of the couple's sexual orientation.


She was very racist. That is what makes me think this was a hate crime.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 06:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
With a criminal record, she won't be able to buy a gun or vote.



Don't hold your breath. Almost as easy to get wobblers expunged as it is to get them, in California. Once it gets expunged, unless she is going into some deep government work, or does something really, really bad, it will be as if it never occurred in the first place.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 06:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

not at the state level in california but at the federal level it is indeed assault even if you just merely touched the person, you will go to prison for a year and be fined for this type of assault.
the ruling in lander vs united states says assault is:"merely by putting another in apprehension of harm whether or not the actor actually intends to inflict, or is capable of inflicting that harm."
edit on 6-10-2017 by namehere because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-10-2017 by namehere because: (no reason given)

supreme.justia.com...
www.justice.gov...
edit on 6-10-2017 by namehere because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 06:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
With a criminal record, she won't be able to buy a gun or vote.



I was thinking that to.

I think that’s as ridiculous as calling a MAGA hat genocide sympathising.

What’s your thoughts on nonviolent felons losing their gun rights, DB?
Not a gotcha question either, just an honest query.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 06:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hazardous1408

originally posted by: DBCowboy
With a criminal record, she won't be able to buy a gun or vote.



I was thinking that to.

I think that’s as ridiculous as calling a MAGA hat genocide sympathising.

What’s your thoughts on nonviolent felons losing their gun rights, DB?
Not a gotcha question either, just an honest query.


If people have served their time, then I don't see an issue. It's a life-time punishment for something they've already paid for.




top topics



 
44
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join