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

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Hazardous1408

originally posted by: DBCowboy
With a criminal record, she won't be able to buy a gun or vote.

I was thinking that to.

I think that’s as ridiculous as calling a MAGA hat genocide sympathising.

What’s your thoughts on nonviolent felons losing their gun rights, DB?
Not a gotcha question either, just an honest query.

If people have served their time, then I don't see an issue. It's a life-time punishment for something they've already paid for.

Yeah those are my thoughts as well.

It kinda negates the idea that serving your time is the end of your punishment served...

& the vote thing is just too ridiculous to get into.

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.

a reply to: namehere

the ruling in lander vs united states says assault is:"merely by putting another in apprehension of harm whether or not the actor actually intends to inflict, or is capable of inflicting that harm."

You left part of that out:

Moreover, an interpretation that there are as many assaults committed as there are officers affected would produce incongruous results. Punishments totally disproportionate to the act of assault could be imposed, because it will often be the case that the number of officers affected will have little bearing upon the seriousness of the criminal act. For an assault is ordinarily held to be committed merely by putting another in apprehension of harm, whether or not the actor actually intends to inflict or is capable of inflicting that harm. [Footnote 5] Thus, under the meaning for which the Government contends, one who shoots and seriously wounds an officer would commit one offense punishable by 10 years' imprisonment, but if he points a gun at five officers, putting all of them in apprehension of harm, he would commit five offenses punishable by 50 years' imprisonment, even though he does not fire the gun, and no officer actually suffers injury. It is difficult, without a clear indication than the materials before us provide, to find that Congress intended this result.

The court did not chose to use that interpretation.

"When Congress leaves to the Judiciary the task of imputing to Congress an undeclared will, the ambiguity should be resolved in favor of lenity."

In any case, it doesn't seem to apply in California.

Apparently, no one understands the act of making an example out of someone. Regardless of the level of severity, a point can be made at this woman's expense to cut the s***.

a reply to: Hazardous1408

The Pure 1984 that is London you worshipers of royale can choke on Bin Brother (sensors in the trash bins cmon) and Big Brother too (how many millions of cameras just in London is it up to now?).

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: Hazardous1408

The Pure 1984 that is London you worshipers of royale can choke on Bin Brother (sensors in the trash bins cmon) and Big Brother too (how many millions of cameras just in London is it up to now?).

Contrary to popular belief, London is actually amazing.

The only problem is Westminster.

& The no-go zones of course.

Someone is about to eat a # sandwhich.


Haha.

a reply to: Krakatoa

I hope they give her the chair. They should draw and quarter this girl. They should put her in stocks and throw rotten vegetables at her. Nah, that's all too polite. They should run her over with a steamroller and broadcast it on PPV. No, on YouTube so we can embed it here and have a cheer.

Hat snatching is second only to murder in its severity. Any dumbass college kid who snatches somebody else's hat should be have their lives ruined completely. I'm utterly. She needs to learn a life long lesson. I can't say enough how much she should be forced to pay. I think there should be a registry for hat offenders. She should have to inform people before moving into a new neighborhood.

In fact, don't let her move into a neighborhood. Make her live in a tent. That'll learn her real good.

Same with all those kids in college who steal one another's mascots and those panty raid terrorists. I sure am super glad that you are covering the college beat for us! I appreciate it. If it weren't for you keeping an eye out, we might never hear about fraternity hazing deaths, overdoses, suicides, rapes, harassment, actual racist vandalism, etc — not to mention life or death assaults on freedom like a hat snatching.

originally posted by: introvert
Removing a hat from someone's head is assault?

Absolutely. Assault does not have to hurt or cause physical damage.

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

Let's say you're walking down the street and I walk up along side you and put my arm around you. You have no idea who I am and repeatedly ask me not to put my arm around you, but I ignore you and keep walking along right next to you with my arm around you. You even try to remove my arm, but I just put it right back where it was. Do I have the right to ignore your request since "I'm not hurting you"? If you come upon a police officer and tell him that you don't know me and you've asked me not to touch you but I insist on putting my arm around you and walking with you, will he stand there and say "Well since you're not injured, there's nothing I can do". No, I'd be liable to be arrested.

You don't go up to a stranger and remove an article of their clothing against their will, even if it's just a hat. That's a gross violation of another person's body and personal space. NOBODY has the right to do that to another person.

a reply to: trollz

California's laws trump common law.

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.

statelaws.findlaw.com...

a reply to: Phage

Why oh why are you defending this absolute monster, this atrocious subhuman abomination! She didn't just swipe a hat, she STOLE FREEDOM FROM HIS AMERICA-LOVING HEAD.

You might as well shred a Constitution and set fire to a nativity scene while you're at it.

a reply to: theantediluvian
You're right.
She is annoying.
She needs to be locked up.

a reply to: Phage

see that's where the video comes in, that's why it became a felony because it proved which form of assault was committed and that it was actually committed at all.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: theantediluvian
You're right.
She is annoying.
She needs to be locked up.

For life! They need to make examples of some of these social justice terrorists before they grow up and join ISIS. I have to bail on this thread now. The outrage is making me hyperventilate.

a reply to: namehere

I guess I missed the part of the video where she attempted to cause violent injury.

a reply to: Phage
clearly it counts somehow legally and maybe we're both overlooking something.

maybe someone got the info wrong and are mistaking a lawsuit for felony charges, obviously something isn't right here.

ok now i see where we are both wrong, just a little looking around and i found out that she is possibly being charged with criminal theft not assault.

Defense could argue that it was political speech, but still....at the expense of another, that makes it a crime.

a reply to: namehere

In that case it is the OP which is wrong.

Not me.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Konduit
Tucker nails it.

This person should see her own bias. if she looked she'd see that the Obamas supported Dr Suess and should also be classified as racist. But, her political bias negates that thought. Sad that the left/right battle continues. Only our financial controller benefit from arguing among ourselves.