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.


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

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 4 2016 @ 05:57 AM
The whole premise of ATS is "deny ignorance" and on this incident here that ideal is blown straight to hades by alot of the respondents here due to their dislike to hatred of trump.

Lets look at FACTS (as presented from video , several credible sources and THE LAW)

Ok this young lady went to a trump rally to protest.
Per the video she was very passionate about her views.
Some people challenged her views equally passionate (as is BOTH THEIR RIGHTS).
This was a large crowd so to expect that no one would accidentally make contact is an UNREASONABLE and NOT LEGAL expectation.
The video CLEARLY SHOWS she was not "grabbed" in any sexual way or classified as "sexual assault"
The fact neither the police OR HER filed charges of sexual assault is proof that it didnt happen and its an EXCUSE she is using after the fact for bad and illegal behavior.
Both were in a heated exchange of views.
It is ONLY SPECULATION but it is reasonable (but at this time not PROVEN) to presume that some aggressive words were exchanged BY BOTH SIDES with NEITHER could claim moral high ground on the other.
It is CLEARLY SEEN the young lady STRUCK the man.
By the law that is ASSAULT .
The force of the strike is NOT KNOWN nor is it RELEVANT to how hard she struck other than she CLEARLY STRUCK THUS ILLEGAL and MAKES HER THE AGGRESSOR.
It also shows she did not back down but stayed close after the physical assault.
Thus in reasonable legal terms still possessed a threat with a REASONABLE expectation (given the previous heated discussion and physical ATTACK) that she could do it again.
As clearly posted the WI law permits a third party to respond in defense of another where REASONABLE expectation of continued physical violence (as shown by the video).
the person IRREGARDLESS of the "look on his face" fired one burst and the young lady retreated.
He did not continue to use pepper spray or follow.
Now yes he didn't stick around (and I will get to that in a min).
The police HAVE NOT filled charges at this time and from reporting just want to question him.

Now here is where HATRED OF TRUMP has trashed "deny ignorance"

Her age IS NOT A FACTOR OR EXCUSE for her to assault the man or face DEFENSIVE measures ALLOWED under the letter of the law.
Something alot of posters here seems to think it does.
Now IF it were say a very young child holding a sign peacefully and got sprayed then you have a case.
The law does not say ANYONE can be physically aggressive at ANY CANDIDATES RALLY.
But here by the responses its OK if a trump by an anti trump and if the trump supporter responds in any way THEY ARE HATE FILLED/RACIST/UNEDUCATED/THUGS.
Now as to date there have been 5 (at best may have missed one but doubt it given all the press and responces here to every incident) times...
this lady (latest), a guy early in the campaign, and two reporters. One the video also not clear and there is charges filled (but no trial yet or conviction) , and one where the reporter went over approved line , ignored the SECRET SERVICE LEGAL ORDER , mouthed off aggressively, got restrained and later didnt file charges.
Notice you not only dont see trump supporters doing this same thing at other peoples rallies and when someone does question another candidate (especially hillory) they are escorted out.

Now back to why the guy who pepper sprayed the young lady didnt stick around.
Look at the comments here on all IRRELEVANT ISSUES TO THE LAW being used against him
How he looked, his facial expressions, the ladies age (again AFTER THE FACT) , and he is a trump supporter.
Would any of you against him realistically stick around to be lambasted and your head demanded by the public.
We have seen to others what the "mob" mentality does to the justice system.

Like or hate trump is your right.
But to use that to justify other bad and ILLEGAL behavior is WRONG.
Worse than that to crucify trump/supporters but not hold your candidate/supporters to same standards make a joke of "deny ignorance"

posted on Apr, 4 2016 @ 08:32 AM

originally posted by: Domo1
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.

It's not always about just being a threat to that single individual, though. The asshat could argue that he was not only concerned for the older gentleman, but also that by striking him, she could have possibly incited a larger display of violence. We're all fully aware how mob mentality works, and by striking out in the midst of a large, heated crowd, it could have easily escalated after that point. He could say that his mentality was that he was trying to stop such a thing by putting an immediate stop to it.

Like I've mentioned before, I've worked both prosecution and defense as a paralegal, so my mind tends to go both ways and play devil's advocate against itself sometimes.

posted on Apr, 4 2016 @ 08:41 AM

originally posted by: theantediluvian
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.


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.

Nah, he had no way in knowing that it wasn't going to be a sustained assault, and using a non-lethal weapon like pepper spray isn't exactly an inappropriate response to someone hitting you. For all we know, the pepper-spray asshat is a big wuss, and he truly felt threatened enough to react in such a way from that single hit. Or, like I said in my post above, he could have been trying to stop the assault in its tracks before something larger broke out.

Either way, there are plenty of viable defenses out there that he could use, and nowhere in the wording of any law says that a battery has to be sustained in order to be able to defend one's self.

But I will say that his smug smirk after he did it will not go over well in court.

posted on Apr, 5 2016 @ 07:49 PM
She needs to be forced to register as a sex offender just as he would have been forced to. She tried to jail someone for a very long time on a lie. She is a danger to the community as a whole and has proven she will use her gender as a weapon. Not surprising with the left wing in this country.

new topics

top topics
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in