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

a reply to: 00018GE

I think he got it back.

I could be wrong.

originally posted by: introvert
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.

The girl is just an idiot. Make her do community service for 2 years in an area with the demographic she hates so much. And make her write the contents of the 1st amendment on a blackboard 100 times. That's a decent punishment.

Special Treatment.

The hat proves you're an entitled asshole.

That's the most entitled reaction possible, to sue or press charges on them, this is almost so un-newsworthy, I cannot even fathom this situation has yet to happen before this. I would estimate 'hat debacles' to be in the hundreds, if not thousand+ cases at this point. Why is this one special? Is it really the first?

If someone is allowed to wear a swastika, and someone else removes that from their person, is it reasonable for the person with the swastika to sue them? etc? I would say so. The difference is the swastika is being veiled for patriotism.

"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president" -Theodore Roosevelt

originally posted by: DisinfoEqualsTerrorism
Special Treatment.

The hat proves you're an entitled asshole.

If someone is allowed to wear a swastika, and someone else removes that from their person, is it reasonable for the person with the swastika to sue them? etc? I would say so. The difference is the swastika is being veiled for patriotism.

Take it off these guys...



www.viralnova.com...



I don't think it would end well with real Nazis.

a reply to: FlyingFox

Take it off these guys...

They aren't wearing hats.
Neither are these guys. Well, some of them are.

originally posted by: Phage
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.

codes.findlaw.com...

Second degree robbery, at most. And unlikely.

The assault would be her threatening bodily injury. I had that happen to me once, a guy made a comment to a girl i was with at the bar. I proceeded to ask him if he wanted to step outside and at that point he swung and missed. Bouncers ejected him. About 30 min later the police where there and arrested me for assault. Because he said i threatened to beat his a.. . It was true i did and had to go to court to answer charges. Judge dismissed it do to lack of evidence and testimony from others how he threatened others.

Now for thisif there is video of the contact and video of threats she could be tried,however i doubt jail time would be involved unless she has history of assault. Likely judge would give her community service though there is the issue of theft as well. But ill say this i dont think its worth anyone time to pursue this,especially the court but if he persues it they will. I think an easir route would be through the college by him getting a restraining order and force them to make sure she cant violate it by informing campus police

a reply to: dragonridr

The assault would be her threatening bodily injury.

Did I miss that in the video?

About 30 min later the police where there and arrested me for assault. Because he said i threatened to beat his a..

In California? Because the law doesn't seem to include threats as assault.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: dragonridr

The assault would be her threatening bodily injury.

Did I miss that in the video?

About 30 min later the police where there and arrested me for assault. Because he said i threatened to beat his a..

In California?

Miami south beach spent 6 hrs in a holding cell.

a reply to: dragonridr


Florida:

(1) An “assault” is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.

codes.findlaw.com...

California:

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

codes.findlaw.com...

See the difference?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: dragonridr


Florida:

(1) An “assault” is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.

codes.findlaw.com...

California:

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

codes.findlaw.com...

See the difference?

I see maybe i could have saved 5 grand for a lawyer. In california but i find it unlikely they dont have a law to deal with threats of bodily injury.

Just looked and apparently its up to the judge.
Penal Code 422 PC is a wobbler, which means that prosecutors may file it as either a misdemeanor or a felony. If you are convicted of the misdemeanor, you face up to one year in a county jail. If you are convicted of the felony, you face up to four years in the California state prison.3 Using a dangerous or deadly weapon increases your sentence by one year.

my opinion on this is that is a warning to others as much as a punishment to the perpetrator :

actions have consequences

deal with it

a reply to: dragonridr

I can see why you didn't quote it.

(a) Any person who willfully threatens to commit a crime which will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, with the specific intent that the statement, made verbally, in writing, or by means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out, which, on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made, is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to convey to the person threatened, a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat, and thereby causes that person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her own safety or for his or her immediate family’s safety, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison.

Did I miss that part of the video?

a reply to: ignorant_ape

Most humans learn that at some point.

originally posted by: DisinfoEqualsTerrorism
Special Treatment.

The hat proves you're an entitled asshole.

That's the most entitled reaction possible, to sue or press charges on them, this is almost so un-newsworthy, I cannot even fathom this situation has yet to happen before this. I would estimate 'hat debacles' to be in the hundreds, if not thousand+ cases at this point. Why is this one special? Is it really the first?

If someone is allowed to wear a swastika, and someone else removes that from their person, is it reasonable for the person with the swastika to sue them? etc? I would say so. The difference is the swastika is being veiled for patriotism.

"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president" -Theodore Roosevelt

Very bad analogy. He was not wearing a swastika, he was wearing a hat that said make America great again. She however told him to " take your first amendment and @*%&$# " Don't try to turn this around and make this guy the bad guy for simply expressing himself. She is the one who was acting like a Nazi, not him.

a reply to: openminded2011

Correction. She was acting like a dick.
And she took his hat.

But I think he got it back.

a reply to: dragonridr

The wobbler statute would be extremely hard to argue in this case, unless the victim had a complete nervous breakdown from the situation.

Bodily harm must take place, in some form, like physical or mental. I would wager she may get a high misdemeanor, and/or possibly petty larsony for her actions. A breach of peace charge will most likely happen, which most times is reduced to a civil infraction, but given the high profile this case got she may be doing a couple hundred hours of community service, and 2 years probation.

they should lock her up and throw away the key

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Krakatoa
In which case the charge would be robbery, not assault.

It seems to include robbery as part of the assault as I read it at the link you provided. The assault is a misdemeanor, unless robbery is added as part of that assault, then it jumps to felony status. The addition of the robbery aspect provides that escalation in potential charge.

Robbery, broadly generalising for anglo-derived legal systems, is theft + assault. Or "theft with violence" as you will also hear it described. Assault is used as a broader term to actually cover two elements - putting someone in anticipation of unlawful contact (which is the actual "assault" part) and then actual unlawful contact (which is "battery"). The California code posted above describes this as "use of force or intimidation" which essentially aligns with these two elements. Rather interestingly, it also covers the situation where the victim believes that the property was at risk of unlawful injury. Well, "damage", I suppose, unless there is some other legal aspect that restricts "property" to animals in this instance.

The theft is the primary factor here, converted into robbery by the theft being in the presence of the victim and involving the victim both being put in anticipation of unlawful contact and actual unlawful contact.

Edited to add: saw some of the other posts from Phage drilling down into it in relation to the California assault definition. Her comments about burning it might actually be another route into meeting the robbery definition posted.

Let me see if I have this right ...

A girl took a guy's MAGA hat, he whined a bit, she eventually gave it back to him ... and then made a video about it ... and she should *snicker* therefore be charged with felony assault?

Did I miss anything?

a reply to: introvert
It is a snowflake response to a typical snowflake reaction. Sorry dude what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Or turnabout is fair play.