Win or lose, MANY TEA PARTIERS ARE INELIGEBLE TO HOLD OFFICE!

Originally posted by inimalist
you have literally given me carte blanche to attack anyone who approaches me on the street, simply because I can't discount the possibility that they might mug me

If they touch you, yes, that's exactly what you can do. 😐

Here's how it goes down:

Punched: I reached out to pat him on the back.

Puncher: He swung at me with a closed fist so I blocked it, and punched him right in the jaw. I thought I was being mugged.

This is why you can't touch someone unless they "like" it. You have a right to not be molested.

Originally posted by dadudemon
If they touch you, yes, that's exactly what you can do. 😐

This would work so long as the people were holding signs.

Originally posted by Robtard
So you do blame her, you're basically saying 'if she didn't want to get stomped, she should have not been there and done that', never mind that she wasn't doing anything illegal or threatening in a manor that would have required little more than a couple men holding her off for a minute.

Yeah, that seems rather reasonable.

She knew that approaching that dude would cause lots of problems. She probably fully expected to get a beat down in some of her "scenarios." She took that risk to make a point. She paid the price for it.

I'm going to wear a "I've had my wife abort 7 babies. **** you God." T-Shirt to an anti abortion rally and see where that gets me...

Also, approaching someone that you obviously oppose, in front of all of that person's rabid supporters, is rather stupid. (Keep it in context and don't generalize, dudes. I know my statement is a little vague, but I'm only referring to this in context of the topic, not some other "I'm missing the point again" logic that you guys could come up with.) Yes, the first thing I would expect my "body guards" to do, if someone was rapidly approaching me and yelling while holding a sign that obviously is "anti-me", would be restrain the person. Hold them back. Take them down to the ground, etc. That's just reasonable especially if you're a public figure head or celebrity.

Conveniently, the beginning of that video was edited out that showed her obviously dumb political stunt.

She can still sue for damages, though. 🙂

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
This would work so long as the people were holding signs.

Huh?

I know that's a joke...but, no, it doesn't work like that.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yes, the first thing I would expect my "body guards" to do, if someone was rapidly approaching me and yelling while holding a sign that obviously is "anti-me", would be restrain the person. Hold them back. Take them down to the ground, etc. That's just reasonable especially if you're a public figure head or celebrity.

Yeah, body guards should absolutely have done that.

A violent mob? Not so much.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Huh?

I know that's a joke...but, no, it doesn't work like that.

I'm talking about Shakya's system not the law.

Originally posted by dadudemon
If they touch you, yes, that's exactly what you can do. 😐

rational courts (re: those in Canada) would disagree

we find shooting a robber fleeing a crime scene to be excessive use of force, beating someone for tapping me on the shoulder would clearly not be acceptable (and nor should it be)

Originally posted by inimalist
rational courts (re: those in Canada) would disagree

we find shooting a robber fleeing a crime scene to be excessive use of force, beating someone for tapping me on the shoulder would clearly not be acceptable (and nor should it be)

Beating someone for touching you in a way that you thought was an attack is inappropriate (legally, you can only do up to what was necessary to stop the attack...AKA, hit once and knock them out, it's done. If you continue, then you get charged with attempted murder. Dead serious. Perfect example: father struck his kid's coach and continued to hit him after he was knocked out. He killed the man. He got charged and convicted for manslaughter. Despite the fact that it was a "fight" between both of them.) Striking them, once, however, is not.

Shooting a robber that the "shooter" identifies or reliable evidence identifies that the "shooter" knew that the robber was not lethally armed is also illegal in some states. (Not Texas: apparently, you can shoot to kill after giving a fair warning.) Basically, if the shooter knows that robber is not going to hurt anyone and he shoots him in the back while the robber flees, that's illegal in most states.

So, neither of your examples actually fit with what I addressed.

Originally posted by dadudemon
If they touch you, yes, that's exactly what you can do. 😐

Here's how it goes down:

Punched: I reached out to pat him on the back.

Puncher: He swung at me with a closed fist so I blocked it, and punched him right in the jaw. I thought I was being mugged.

This is why you can't touch someone unless they "like" it. You have a right to not be molested.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Beating someone for touching you in a way that you thought was an attack is inappropriate (legally, you can only do up to what was necessary to stop the attack...AKA, hit once and knock them out, it's done. If you continue, then you get charged with attempted murder. Dead serious. Perfect example: father struck his kid's coach and continued to hit him after he was knocked out. He killed the man. He got charged and convicted for manslaughter. Despite the fact that it was a "fight" between both of them.) Striking them, once, however, is not.

Shooting a robber that the "shooter" identifies or reliable evidence identifies that the "shooter" knew that the robber was not lethally armed is also illegal in some states. (Not Texas: apparently, you can shoot to kill after giving a fair warning.) Basically, if the shooter knows that robber is not going to hurt anyone and he shoots him in the back while the robber flees, that's illegal in most states.

So, neither of your examples actually fit with what I addressed.

In what state is punching someone considered attempted murder?

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
In what state is punching someone considered attempted murder?

When you punch a person that is knocked out. 😐

Remember the controversy over that homeless guy that got beaten to death in the Dojo? The final kick, after the guy was knocked out, is where the 'attempted murder' charge came in.

Why does this not make sense?

Edit- Here's some of the vid.

YouTube video

I'll try and find the original for you.

Here's the "original" vid, I think....

YouTube video

My mistake, I misread your post. I thought that you were saying that punching someone who isn't fighting back period could get you charged with attempted murder.

Though, even then I wonder how well that would fly in California. I think, it wouldn't in most cases.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
My mistake, I misread your post. I thought that you were saying that punching someone who isn't fighting back period could get you charged with attempted murder.

Though, even then I wonder how well that would fly in California. I think, it wouldn't in most cases.

Here's the follow up on the story:

Apparantly, no charges have been brought up, but the "attempted murder" charge was being persued.

http://pablolivardo.wordpress.com/2009/08/31/bobby-joe-blythe-case-closed/

Anyway, yeah, you can't beat a person that is unconscious. But you definitely can defend yourself within "reasonable" measures.

Here's a write-up over self defense from a law perspective:

http://www.bu.edu/lawlibrary/facultypublications/PDFs/Simons/Selfdefense.pdf

It's a long read but makes some good points.

Yeah, it's a tricky thing. I had to go through a relatively extensive law class a few months back to become a security guard. "Excessive force" is a really volatile subject.

Back to the topic. I guess my point was two-fold. The first is that Conservatives are willing to crucify a barely liberal sitting president based on specious rumors as to the constitutionality of him occupying the office while letting several candidates, most notably Rick Perry who actually ARE unquestionably constitutionally unfit to hold office based on their actions in without a second thought.

This leads to my second point. Power and money have been consolidated so completely that the capitalist class, the political class, and the banking class now exist in a state of complete lawlessness and this is just another symptom. Anyone have a problem with that?

Define "capitalist class, political class and banking class" for me. I mean I have a job that wasn't assigned to me by the government, does that put me in your capitalist class?

I suspect, though, that you just mean "rich people have lots of money and influence" which strikes me as sort of a tautology.

As for lawlessness that's just objectively not true. Outside of Somali there are no unregulated markets, though the US seems to have a serious problem with bad regulation. Rich people can only get away with things because they can hire great lawyers, which is a flaw of any comprehensive legal system not of supposed consolidation of power.

Selective enforcement of the law is lawlessness. People complain that corporations have too much power while forgetting that under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act those same corporations don't have the right to exist in their present form, period. The last president and his cabinet committed the highest crimes and congress refuses to prosecute despite the fact that refusing to impeach or prosecute high crimes is in and of itself an impeachable offense. Celebrities who are only famous for being rich traffic cocaine and don't go to jail.
Lawyers are pretty inconsequential when the system refuses to prosecute in the first place.

Now if you're the kind of person that thinks the current policy direction from both the right and the so called left is so wonderful that the ends justify the means, then may I recommend dropping neutron bombs on every major US city as a way to accomplish the ultimate result of said policies in a much quicker and more efficient manner?

Let's leave it at that and not discuss the results of the election in detail in this thread.

policies on the left and the right want to release lethal and penetrating forms of radiation designed to destroy tank divisions on major cities?

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Selective enforcement of the law is lawlessness.

No it's not. That's the very opposite of lawlessness. It's just selective enforcement of the law.

Lawlessness is "without law." If there is no law, which quite explicitly excludes selective enforcement of existing law, then the law cannot be enforced. If there is law, and it is not enforced at all, that could also be considered "lawlessness."

But why am I taking you literally? You do not actually mean what you said, you're just making a point with hyperbole. Right?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Define "capitalist class, political class and banking class" for me. I mean I have a job that wasn't assigned to me by the government, does that put me in your capitalist class?

I suspect, though, that you just mean "rich people have lots of money and influence" which strikes me as sort of a tautology.

As for lawlessness that's just objectively not true. Outside of Somali there are no unregulated markets, though the US seems to have a serious problem with bad regulation. Rich people can only get away with things because they can hire great lawyers, which is a flaw of any comprehensive legal system not of supposed consolidation of power.

Definitions of Capitalist Class on the Web:

•In sociology and political science, bourgeoisie (adjective: bourgeois) describes a range of groups across history. In the Western world, between the late 18th century to now, the bourgeoisie is a social class characterized by their ownership of capital and their related culture. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalist_Class

Political class, or political elite is a concept in comparative political science originally developed by Italian political theorist theory of Gaetano Mosca (1858-1941). It refers to the relatively small group of activists that is highly aware and active in politics, and from whom the national leadership is largely drawn. Also from wiki.

Banking Class - The true "ruling elite" from which some of the political and capitalist class come from, but not completely. It comprises the bank owners, wall street traders, major monetary asset holders, and so forth. This one is less of a "real" economics term and more of a synonym for the conspiratory term "banking elite." From my head.

So, no, they are not the same thing but they are also not mutually exclusive. I hope that helps.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Banking Class - The true "ruling elite" from which some of the political and capitalist class come from, but not completely. It comprises the bank owners, wall street traders, major monetary asset holders, and so forth. This one is less of a "real" economics term and more of a synonym for the conspiratory term "banking elite." From my head.

So, no, they are not the same thing but they are also not mutually exclusive.

Originally posted by inimalist
policies on the left and the right want to release lethal and penetrating forms of radiation designed to destroy tank divisions on major cities?

Well, let's see. You've got a bunch of pussies claiming to be liberals who in actuality are only economic liberals and are too scared to do anything and are more interested in being friends and raising money than governing. On the other side you've got a bunch of criminal fascists bent on doing nothing other than stealing and whoring with no regard to human life and pulling a JFK on our callow, disappointing President. Then you've got Bernie Sanders and unfortunately there's only one Bernie Sanders. Add in a few years, the state of culture, the economy, and frustration and yeah, you'll have ruined cities, astronomical unemployment and imprisonment, starvation and all the other wonderful things associated with both corporatism and warfare.

Just look at the policies of the last two decades and you see that the Democratic Party's position can be summed up as "Yes sir, please don't hit me" while the Republican position seems to be "Let's kill as many people as we can and steal everything we must." The only conservative recovery plan possible is subtle, slow autogenocide.

ok, but why a neutron bomb? surely there is no need of such penetrating radiation, when the cities aren't full of soviet tanks.

Tactically, it is just off, you could use any type of high explosive