It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 09:05 AM
Legal lesson for everyone to tuck away and remember for now and the future. Assault and Battery are actually separate, but many times misunderstood on many levels because of ignorance.

An assault charge does not have to constitute even touching the other person, it can actually be verbal intent, or the threat of an assault, like "I'm going to kill you, or crush your head".

Pretty good explanation of Assault here.

At Common Law, an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.

An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm. It is both a crime and a tort and, therefore, may result in either criminal or civil liability. Generally, the common law definition is the same in criminal and Tort Law.

There is, however, an additional Criminal Law category of assault consisting of an attempted but unsuccessful Battery. Statutory definitions of assault in the various jurisdictions throughout the United States are not substantially different from the common-law definition.

Battery is when the individual actually touches the other person, which she did, so this constitutes "Assault and Battery", which can be argued as a felony in many states, including California.

Battery Def

At common law, an intentional unpermitted act causing harmful or offensive contact with the "person" of another. Battery is concerned with the right to have one's body left alone by others. Battery is both a tort and a crime. Its essential element, harmful or offensive contact, is the same in both areas of the law.

The main distinction between the two categories lies in the penalty imposed. A defendant sued for a tort is civilly liable to the plaintiff for damages. The punishment for criminal battery is a fine, imprisonment, or both. Usually battery is prosecuted as a crime only in cases involving serious harm to the victim.

The fact that she did this give the victim the right to pursue a civil lawsuit as well, and in California she may lose too.

So in conclusion,

"Assault" is even if the person is not touched they have the right to charge a person with a crime, if the circumstances and intent are present.

"Battery" when the perpetrator touches the other person in any way shape or form during an unwarranted attack, on the victim. It doesn't even have to a heavy blow, but like in the video she physically removed the hat from him.

So this is why they may be able to charge her with Assault and Battery in this case.

edit on 7-10-2017 by Realtruth because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 09:10 AM
a reply to: Realtruth

The fact that she did this give the victim the right to pursue a civil lawsuit as well, and in California she may lose too.

Mental anguish.

Multi million dollar law suits.

posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 09:27 AM

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

The California Penal Code defines assault as an "unlawful attempt" to cause a "violent injury on the person of another" -- assault is often described as an attempt to commit a battery.

Robbery in the second degree. Not a felony.

Phage, you need to be the prosecutor in this case. Justice will not be served unless you step in and share your legal knowledge with them.

While I honestly don't give a rats ass about this loud mouth bit of trash who hates America, people like her need to realize that doing things like that might end up with them getting hurt really bad, or even killed. And while she is stupid, ugly and profoundly ignorant, she still has a right to live, if only to sustain her organs until a suitable doner needs them.

posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 10:52 AM
snow flakes trigger people say ?
naa all i see are flakes fo all types triggered .
All This over a women stealing a hate and becoming the but or every ones joke .
Charge her dont charge her she already got what she wanted attation .
This is just giving her more she now has surpassed 15 mints of fame .
Man if i know 20 years agaio all i needed to do was grab some ones hat yelling what every stupid crap I could think of to get this much attation I could have been a multi millionaire by now .
Does matter to her if its all you or all them shes getting something from every one

posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 11:10 AM
a reply to: Realtruth

Back in February I filed a defamation, false light, and invasion of privacy suit against two major media corporations in Federal court.

For some reason the judge added verbal assault to the list. I'm guessing I described it but just didn't articulate it directly as being labeled such, and they construe it as such.

Case is still ongoing, probably will for years...

posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 11:13 AM
This is why liberals and by association Democrats get a bad name.

Another snowflake. Maybe she should join the other snowflakes boycotting the NFL games?

posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 11:36 AM
a reply to: Realtruth

Thanks RealTruth, I was about to point out that assault has nothing to do with physical contact. If the victim simply feels he or she is threatened with physical violence as a result of threatening actions then that is assault.

posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 11:37 AM
The woman who stole the hat committed a racially motivated hate crime though. It's a form of terrorism to intimidate political opponents.

Imagine if it was a white guy that did this to a black guy, people would cry hate crime. So therefore this is too.

posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 11:39 AM
Taking the hat in combination with the threats and racial slurs makes this the equivalent of hanging a noose in a tree or burning a cross to terrorize the target.

Think about it.

posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 12:12 PM
a reply to: Krakatoa

As soon as she took that hat of him the issue stopped being a free speech issue and became a criminal issue.
Play stupid games and you win stupid prizes...Genocide re-#ingdiculous.

posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 01:46 PM

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?

Try snatching a Police officers hat off his head and give him the same argument. #derp

But crying about the words on someone elses hat? I don't know what gets more snowflake than that..

posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 02:01 PM
A large reason why Trump even won the presidency is because of the fact everyone knows HILLARY CLINTON is the genocidal one.

That hat represents genocide because its a slogan of a white president? We can debate Trumps racism, but the fact of the matter is he ONLY became racist after 2016. Personally I am from New York, Trump has never been labeled racist before then.

Hillary Clinton though? I couldn't say she's racist, because she obviously hates everyone equally and in it for herself. We can talk about her corruption, the Clinton foundation, ect. But lets talk about some stuff not to many people mention about her.

How she was responsible for launching the intervention in Libya as the Secretary of State under Obama. How she allowed a US diplomat and its staff to be brutally executed in Benghazi during the height of civil disorder and repeated requests for evacuation or more security. She ALLOWED these US citizens to die!


Lets talk about the 1,000's of sortie and bombing campaigns she personally ordered in conjunction with the secretary of defense at the time, Leon Panetta, in Libya, Egypt and Afghanistan. 10,000's of innocent civilians dead! Talk about genocide!? Women and children among those dead. And none of this is conspiracy. But we were choosing between the lesser of two evils during the election, right? Granted, Trump is a moron, but I don't think he has racist intent. The attempt to paint Trump as another evil just made Hillary Clinton seem not seem all that bad. They could've put a monkey from the jungle in to run against Trump and probably would've had a better chance than they did with Clinton. We haven't forgotten how she stole millions from the Haiti relief the Clinton foundation was in charge of. We aren't blind when she lists the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of Norway, and top banking institutions as her personal donors.

posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 02:29 PM
Ridiculous. As a man I would be embarrassed to lay such a charge. But then I would have slapped her upside the head, so...

And you guys wanting her charged with a felony for such a mild nothing is ridiculous too. Hell if the penalty was death by guillotine you'd probably be in a state of rapture.

posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 02:42 PM

originally posted by: DeathSlayer
a reply to: introvert

It is at least two charges not one:

1. assault

2. Theft

If he files charges and has a witness then she will lose in a court of law.

No witness necessary. The stupid SJW had her friends record her snatching it and she posted it on her facebook.

She is an idiot flaunting her stupidity and is getting face smacked by reality.

posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 03:55 PM

originally posted by: greydaze
Oh sweet Jesus,and they call "Liberals" triggered snowflakes"Heh,heh,smfh..
Imagine if it were a BLM hat,or whatever they were wearing being taken.I'm sure there would be a different view from some of our RW mems here.

Actually the Left Wing members would be calling for the persons arrest for Discrimination and Deprivation of Civil Rights.
The college employees would have had them arrested.

posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 04:42 PM
a reply to: IanMoone2

California law trumps common law.

An assault is an unlawful attempt, coupled with a present ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another.

At best, the charge would be second degree robbery, which is a felony. I don't think it would stick, however. I think he got his hat back.

edit on 10/7/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 06:02 PM

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: IanMoone2

California law trumps common law.

An assault is an unlawful attempt, coupled with a present ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another.

At best, the charge would be second degree robbery, which is a felony. I don't think it would stick, however. I think he got his hat back.

A great breakdown on how the laws of Assault and Battery are applied in Cali. Cali's laws in this are actually more strict that common law, so it's bad for the perp.

She willfully committed Assault and battery in California, under the 240 and 242 here is the way it typically works.

California assault law, Penal Code 240, defines an assault—also known as a “simple assault”—as an attempt to commit a violent injury on someone else.

1 For a defendant to be convicted in a criminal jury trial of California assault under PC 240, all of the following must be true:

The defendant did something that was likely to result in the use of force against someone else;
The defendant did so willfully;

The defendant was aware of facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe that this act would directly and probably result in force being applied to the other person; and

When the defendant acted, s/he had the ability to apply force to the other person.2

Explaination of Assault and Battery by California Legal team.

“The easiest way to explain the difference between assault and battery is this: an assault doesn't necessarily involve any actual physical contact , whereas a battery does. Put another way, an assault is like an ‘attempted battery,' and a battery is like a ‘completed assault.'”

What it can get people if they commit the act?

. Penalties for Penal Code 240 PC Assault PC 240 assault is a California misdemeanor. The potential penalties include: Misdemeanor (summary) probation ; Up to six (6) months in county jail; and/or A fine of up to one thousand dollars ($1,000).16


4.1. PC 242 California battery/battery causing serious bodily injury As we discussed above, the California crime of battery, Penal Code 242 PC, differs from an assault in that it requires that the defendant actually use force or violence against someone else.25

But note that—as is the case with California assault—you can be guilty of battery in California even if you did not actually inflict an injury on the supposed victim.

All that matters is that you succeeded in touching him/her in a harmful or offensive manner.26 Battery is a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up to two thousand dollars ($2,000) and/or a county jail sentence of up to six (6) months.27

But if you actually inflict a serious injury on the victim, then you will face the tougher penalties that go along with battery causing serious bodily injury, Penal Code 242(d) PC.

This offense is a wobbler in California law, which means it may be charged as either a misdemeanor or a felony.28 If it is charged as a California felony, battery causing serious bodily injury can lead to two (2), three (3), or four (4) years in prison.29

Since this case has become viral, and if the victim claims some kind of serious mental injury that is diagnosed as so the perp could be looking at jail time and a felony.

edit on 7-10-2017 by Realtruth because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 06:05 PM
a reply to: Realtruth

An assault is an unlawful attempt, coupled with a present ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another.

Second degree robbery, at most. And unlikely.

posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 06:33 PM
'mass genocide, peopow are getting kiwd'

How did she get into college talking like that?
edit on 7-10-2017 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 06:48 PM
Why didn't they just take their hat back?

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in