Anti-Trump teen girl pepper sprayed, wasn't groped and referred to 'juvi' for assault

originally posted by: TheBulk

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: TheBulk

Meanwhile in reality she lied and is now going to kid prison.

Actually it doesn't appear that she did lie

you're delusional. The corner of a pamphlet barely making contact with your center mass is not sexual assault. It's a shame people like you minimize actual sexual assault.

If you can only read the thread, you will see that that poster said he did not believe it to be sexual assault. I also said it.

originally posted by: lovebeck

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: reldra

Yeah it was the creepy looking guy with the goatee that pepper sprayed her. You can see it in this video:



EDIT:

Okay after watching this video, it's pretty apparent what happened. They're screaming in one another's faces, the girl is holding a sign up over her head and the man is doing a lot of talking with his hands and then it appears that he does in fact touch her chest, at least with the papers he's holding and possibly the back of his a couple fingers as he's trying to emphasize his point.

I sure as hell wouldn't call it a sexual assault (in this case, groping) but I do have to revise my earlier statement because he does appear to have initiated physical contact with her. She still shouldn't have struck him and the smirking creep with the pepper spray should be charged for his involvement.

I wouldn't call it a sexual assault, either. He did touch her and technically, in legal terms, it is 'an assault'. However she can press charges, but the police can decline to prosecute him, which they did. They found her contact, which sems to be more of a glancing blow than a punch, to be prosecutable. All that is reasonable.

I really do hope they find the man who pepper sprayed her. That would be an actual assault charge.

Actually you are completely wrong. When in a crowd it is expected to be accidentally touched, etc. That's the expectation and the law.

Show me where it is the expectation? They were not merely walking side by side in close quarters. They were facing eachother, with some space in between and he 'talks with his hands'. He could have avoided it. It was not incidental contact.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
That was one satisfying pepper spray shot.
Well aimed and placed upon a violent radical.
It stopped further escalation from taking place so it served its purpose well.

That was definitely illegal. That won't be disorderly conduct, it will be assault and might carry jail time.

The only assault was the lieing juvie who threw a punch which placed her into the violent category which opened her up to the well deserved pepper spay shot to quell the violence.

It was not well deserved and the person who used the pepper spray will face the serious legal consequences in this situation.

a reply to: reldra
.

It is NOT TECHNICALLY ASSAULT, In any way shape or form.

When you go into a crowd there is reasonable expectation of physical contact by proximity.

When you CHOOSE to go into a crowd you consent to incidental physical contact, this was emphasized by the officers who did NOT charge the man with assault because none had taken place.

The agitator and her companions forced their way through the crowd with hands in the air holding signs, initiating physical contact with dozens of people, showing no concern for protecting her chest area with her arms.

Ugh. This girl looks like your typical uninformed feminist mudshark.

originally posted by: PraetorianAZ
Ugh. This girl looks like your typical uninformed feminist mudshark.

What do you look like?

Jesus christ all mighty, a 15 year old girl did something so bad, she should be jailed, for being a dirty hippie commie, and her parents should be jailed.

That man with the pepper spray should get a medal for defending murika lol.

I can't wait for november, the excuses will fly even lower.

Enjoy your savior, it won't last long.

originally posted by: reldra
I wouldn't call it a sexual assault, either. He did touch her and technically, in legal terms, it is 'an assault'. However she can press charges, but the police can decline to prosecute him, which they did. They found her contact, which sems to be more of a glancing blow than a punch, to be prosecutable. All that is reasonable.

I really do hope they find the man who pepper sprayed her. That would be an actual assault charge.

I'm really not trying to be a jerk, here, but these are the types of comments that are misleading, because when it comes to the legal system, details in the language of charges matter.

Technically, "sexual assault)" and the sexual contact that come with it has to be intentional. An unintentional glancing touch while arguing with someone in a tight, crowded area, is not "technically, in legal terms," a sexual assualt. In fact, it's the opposite--technically, it's not a sexual assault at all, and the girl has zero legal ground on which to press charges.

Sure, she could press charges, but nothing would come of it because there's no supporting evidence of a sexual assault occurring.

Also, technically, the police don't prosecute anything--all they do is arrest people under suspicion of charges, and the attorneys take it from there and decide if they have enough evidence to prosecute. Maybe you just misspoke, but I see that mistake a lot on ATS, so I felt it needed to be clarified.

Yes, her punch--glancing or not--is an offense for which she should be arrested and arraigned. There is clear evidence that she struck out to intentionally harm another person. That's a pretty cut-and-dry incident, there.

And as for the assault charge against the guy who pepper-sprayed her, my take on the Wisconsin statute governing Self Defense would keep him from being charged, and here's why (see paragraph 4):

939.48 Self-defense and defense of others.

(1) A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.

...

(4) A person is privileged to defend a 3rd person from real or apparent unlawful interference by another under the same conditions and by the same means as those under and by which the person is privileged to defend himself or herself from real or apparent unlawful interference, provided that the person reasonably believes that the facts are such that the 3rd person would be privileged to act in self-defense and that the person's intervention is necessary for the protection of the 3rd person.

So, as you can see in Wisconsin, you can use self-defense force on behalf of another person (a) if they would legally be allowed to use such force in that circumstance, and (b) as long as the person acting on behalf of the "3rd person" reasonably believes that the 3rd person had the "privilege" to defend their person.

Personally, I think that the pepper-sprayer, as smug as he seems to be, was within his right/privilege to pepper spray the girl on behalf of the older man being assaulted by her. I don't think it was necessarily the best thing to do in that situation, but I think it was legal.

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
Jesus christ all mighty, a 15 year old girl did something so bad, she should be jailed, for being a dirty hippie commie, and her parents should be jailed.

Ya think this one is blown up a bit?

Can we move on now?

It's a long way until November and the incidences at Trump rally's will escalate until someone is seriously injured or killed.

This will alienate enough voters that he will lose the popular election.....if he gets the nomination....which I doubt.

The GOP will not give the nomination to someone that has already alienated women, minorities and everyone else with any sense.

Trump has brought his loser status down upon his own head. Just like he planned.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
What a badass, pushing teenage girls around. Awesome.

I have to be honest, I think you are focusing on her/their age too much. Unless they announced they were teens, I can only assume these guys thought they were retaliating against adult women (the girl in question looks like she could be 21 to me).

I cringe pointing this out because I do not condone violence against children. But you keep mentioning this 'tough guy' going after children and I don't believe that he had knowledge they were children. He probably thought they were adults provoking violence.

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
Jesus christ all mighty, a 15 year old girl did something so bad, she should be jailed, for being a dirty hippie commie, and her parents should be jailed.

That man with the pepper spray should get a medal for defending murika lol.

I can't wait for november, the excuses will fly even lower.

Enjoy your savior, it won't last long.

I take it you're not a Trump supporter. Have fun living under Hillary for eight years.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Personally, I think that the pepper-sprayer, as smug as he seems to be, was within his right/privilege to pepper spray the girl on behalf of the older man being assaulted by her. I don't think it was necessarily the best thing to do in that situation, but I think it was legal.

My opinion is that the sprayer is an asshat and was just itching for an excuse. That being said, I'm not sure what he did was illegal as you pointed out you are allowed to act on another person's behalf. I think you could sort of argue it both ways. I wouldn't have felt threatened by her, but I suppose some could argue that she was still a threat to the older gentleman.

Juvinilie

What?

Ok first of all, when you're in a situation that is that jam packed with people you can't complain that you we're groped. Ask anyone who's ever been in a most pit.

Second. The first assault came from the girl according to all the video evidence.

Third. She herself said she deserved it.

And lastly, please use a source that knows how to spell the word juvenile. Or services.

Nothing for nothing.. But i don't believe any bit of this story.. I think every person in it is an actor... This whole thing stinks to high heaven. I thinks it's all staged..

originally posted by: Arizonaguy
Ok, what kind of parents allow a 15 year old girl to attend a political rally and become hostile to adults? My daughter is 14 and has been taught to be respectful of ALL adults.

I was thinking the same thing.15 or 19 year Olds should NOT be punching old men in the face.How was this girl raised?

a reply to: TheBulk

you're delusional. The corner of a pamphlet barely making contact with your center mass is not sexual assault. It's a shame people like you minimize actual sexual assault.

I clearly said the exact opposite but nice disingenuous strawman diatribe. If I'm delusional, you're schizophrenic.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I can only assume these guys thought they were retaliating against adult women (the girl in question looks like she could be 21 to me).

1. The girl who got pepper sprayed isn't even one the girls who got shoved by the guy I was talking about.
2. The girls who did get shoved from behind as they were leaving, didn't throw any punches.

This was just some opportunistic PoS who thought it was cool to shove on some girls who were a third his size — regardless of their age — who hadn't put a hand on anyone, let alone touched him.

originally posted by: Domo1
19 year olds go to juvi?

Apparently they do if they're already in the system...
www.jjgps.org...
Upper extended age for Juvi Services is 24.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I disagree. While self-defense of others would certainly be his legal defense, I don't think it would be a successful one.

The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference.

Was this a sustained assault? No, it was a single glancing strike. Was he being assaulted or had he been assaulted. Still assault on her part but what the pepper spraying creep is doing is overtly an act of retaliation and not self-defense if you ask me. Another video shot from behind the man who was struck shows pepper spray guy participating in the shouting match which bolsters the theory that he was retaliating as he was an active participant.