Question...Legal??

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Actually, depending on the state, spitting in someone's face can actually be considered an assault or even battery. Not to mention that it sounds like this would fall under disorderly conduct and possibly inducing panic in a public place...on top of harassment.

But the spitting thing is definitely assault or battery, but again, it depends on state law. As a matter of fact, when I looked that up, it cited FL law where spitting on someone is considered battery, so yes, you would think someone would have gone to jail, but again, that's if Bondi wants to press charges, I suppose.

ETA:

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
How is Maxine Waters public cries for people to "absolutely harass" Trump administration officials not "sedition", or using a public office to incite violence and unrest????? It's practically the very definition of "seditious activity"!!!

How?

Because the rule of law doesn't tend to matter anymore, especially if you are an elected official.

Yes, I assume that question was rhetorical, but I still had to answer because it makes me sick.



This is a good site that talks about simple battery in Florida:

Direct Contact is not Required

Indirect contact, such as by throwing or projecting an object (no matter how small), can constitute battery if the indirect contact was intentionally caused by the accused and was against the will of the alleged victim. Mohansingh v. State, 824 So. 2d 1053, 1054-55 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (spitting found to constitute battery).

Of course, the spitting needs to be intentional--incidental spitting from yelling or talking would not be sufficient to constitute a battery.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk


I think it would be contingent on the person in question filing charges or not. She chose not to since I suppose she was trying to take the high road.

originally posted by: MisterMcKill
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I am guessing that she chose to not press charges, and/or the city attorney declined to prosecute if she did, possibly for a lack of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Horrible behavior is a difficult charge to prosecute, even when the law is on your side.

I watched an interview with Pam Bondi after the incident. Basically she said she did not press charges because she didn't want to give them the satisfaction of being martyrs for their cause. Some of what happened was on video and she could certainly call witnesses to prove the case but as you pointed out, would it be beyond a reasonable doubt? If her account of what happened is true, it sounds like they were really trying to get her boyfriend to react and then be arrested.

a reply to: roadgravel

It's great that they held back, shows control and restraint in spades!

More than most people would have done themselves.

I mean i come from a place where if someone spits in your face, Man, Woman, or beast, they are getting twated, at the very least.

And the Police, whilst operating a zero tolerance, towards most crimes, which let's face it is counterproductive at best, would probably be perfectly understanding under such circumstance.

a reply to: andy06shake

Well, to be fair, since getting spit on is a battery in FL, I would assume that as long as neither her nor her boyfriend went too far, a quick pop to the schnozz of the spitter would have been warranted as self defense.

The thing is, as long as you can convince a judge or jury that you were in fear of bodily harm, you can claim self defense--it won't work every time, but you can.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I imagine, as long as you could convince the judge, that someone had spit in your face, you would be getting away with most things short of serious assault or murder.

After all Judges don't like manky mingers anymore than the next person does.

If this hypothetical situation happened in real life. I wonder if an Attorney General would be able to answer the question?

a reply to: andy06shake

Yeah, but judges also spit in the face of Lady Justice all of the time, sooooooo...

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: mysterioustranger

Well, I used 'police officer' in my example for a reason actually. If an on-duty police officer directs a person to do something, like stop screaming in their face, and they fail to do so, then it can (and often is) considered "failure to follow a lawful order". I pulled back from making this comparison in the OP because I figured it would just confuse the matter. But where I was headed with that was "breach of the peace" is considered an offense in which a person can make a Citizen's Arrest, even if they are not a sworn LEO.

If people now want to start attacking and harassing Trump supporters, or anyone else, in the manner Pam Bondi was harassed, then maybe we should start using these seldom used laws to enforce the "law".

Citizens arrest is a funny thing. Usually it has to do with holding a person for police...but as I train for that too at times...you have be be witness to a felony or misdemenor...and be damn sure you have the right person..or they can sue you for false detention/holding someone against their will.

Of course there's a zillion of reasons...as to a cop? Off duty they are supposed to uphold the law 24/7...carrying their badge and service weapon..even in plain street clothes.

Best- MS

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
How is Maxine Waters public cries for people to "absolutely harass" Trump administration officials not "sedition", or using a public office to incite violence and unrest????? It's practically the very definition of "seditious activity"!!!

How?

Your statement doesn't even rise to the level of "wrong." Sedition relates to a violent overthrow of the government, not making some blond twit miss a movie or go hungry. It's like the clueless pundits who keep screaming "treason", not realizing treason requires a declared war. Words matter.

I think there is an orchestrated planned attempt underway by the far Left to provoke violence. It is what they want and are itching for.

Look at the man that has been following Devin Nunes all over the place, videoing every move he makes, recording every word he utters all over the capitol. I think it has been shown that this creep is from American Bridge 21st Century that employs "trackers" to do this sort of thing.

The far Left is becoming sicker and sicker as they allow "Dr." Soros to "treat" them without question.

a reply to: andy06shake

I think the idea of letting it go is to not reward and bring much more media in on it and reward those doing it with coverage.

The aggressive action and plan behind might then fade away. Given the level of the crime, it may give the better result. Whether or not it occurs again will probably tell.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Well obviously, why do you think she is blind?

a reply to: roadgravel

Agreed.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Depending on the state spitting on someone can be considered assault / harassment.

The one thing to remember is when its a crime against a person you must have the consent of the victim in order to investigate / prosecutors to prosecute. If the person who was spit on / harassed decides they dont want anything done then law enforcement actions cease.

The only exceptions I am aware of when it comes to being able to investigate / arrest / charge and prosecute a person without a cooperating victim is domestic violence. Even then prosecutors are reserved in prosecuting a person when the victim wont cooperate.

What Maxine Waters did is not assault however it can be seen as inciting violence against a person. Again it just depends on what the law says in California.

What she did do though was violate House ethics rules. Hence the motion to censure her and request she resign (a political question).

Maxine needs to learn words have consequences. There is absolutely a difference between a person saying what they would like to do against someone else and a person giving a speech using language that essentially calls on the person followers to "read between the lines" of the speech and take action. An outside of politics example would be like a neo nazi group attending a neo nazi rally where the speaker is condemning this or that. His speech doesnt overtly call on his supporters to take a certain action but by using certain phrases the followers understand that is exactly what the speaker is doing.


ETA - I responded to the op before reading the entire thread. If someone else already answered this for you my apologies.

a reply to: andy06shake

Very nice.