Originally posted by Putinbot1
oh trust me if you said stupid things to me and I warned you I found them offensive but you continued and I beat you up, as long as I didn't use a weapon or go over the top I would not get anything more than a fine or a non custodial sentence at the most.
Check out my post where you wouldn't even get a fine for that same situation:
Originally posted by dadudemon
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fighting_words
Isn't US Freedom awesome?
Here is what I find hilarious: this wine tossing thing shows just how butthurt some are over Tucker. Keep in mind the dates involved, the wine throwing happened October 13, If the man was upset over it...why wait so long before saying or doing anything?
I will tell you why: the incident at Tucker's home. This incident created sympathy for Tucker and his family. I guarantee there are pieces of shit in this country who couldn't stand that lol.
Originally posted by Surtur
Here is what I find hilarious: this wine tossing thing shows just how butthurt some are over Tucker. Keep in mind the dates involved, the wine throwing happened October 13, If the man was upset over it...why wait so long before saying or doing anything?I will tell you why: the incident at Tucker's home. This incident created sympathy for Tucker and his family. I guarantee there are pieces of shit in this country who couldn't stand that lol.
He could have sat on it for a while with a lawyer until it came to fruition (lol). Meaning, he had an appointment, rested, appointment, filing, public announcement.
Originally posted by Putinbot1
It is very good but I was reading last night that's been diluted and has to be a direct insult or am I wrong about that DDM?
You're right. We can start with "dumb-dumb" and see how that goes. And then work our way up to "I am going to beat you." Wherever the courts rule is the line is the precedence. I wonder if that line is lower than "whore"?
Originally posted by dadudemonalmost certainly, in the UK it doesn't have to be direct for a breach of the peace to be incited. It can be about something people feel strongly about, like politics or religion.
You're right. We can start with "dumb-dumb" and see how that goes. And then work our way up to "I am going to beat you." Wherever the courts rule is the line is the precedence. I wonder if that line is lower than "whore"?
Originally posted by Putinbot1
almost certainly, in the UK it doesn't have to be direct for a breach of the peace to be incited. It can be about something people feel strongly about, like politics or religion.
Relevant to the story talked about, I hope the judges rule that he deserved to have a glass of wine thrown on him and that he also deserved to be punched in the face. I hope cases like these put sexist aggressors like this guy in his place.
Originally posted by Silent Master
No need to cast that wide of a net, There are people on this board who are butt-hurt over it.
True there are several folk here butthurt over Tucker.
What makes me smile is they made him into a martyr by doing this too. Now people who despised him are expressing sympathy for him. Womp womp.
Originally posted by Putinbot1
almost certainly, in the UK it doesn't have to be direct for a breach of the peace to be incited. It can be about something people feel strongly about, like politics or religion.
Politicians are so timid.
Did you know, gun regulation was originally enacted because legislators feared blacks (African Americans? I'm out of touch with current acceptable terms) an armed march on the capital?
If I had absolute power over a nation, I'd suspend all laws and courts, just to see what happens. I bet the riots will burn themselves out, and the people will come together in the end.
Originally posted by cdtm
Politicians are so timid.Did you know, gun regulation was originally enacted because legislators feared blacks (African Americans? I'm out of touch with current acceptable terms) an armed march on the capital?
If I had absolute power over a nation, I'd suspend all laws and courts, just to see what happens. I bet the riots will burn themselves out, and the people will come together in the end.
I argued with libertarians over this. I suggested that it's retarded to think the second amendment, for the actual purposes it was created (to overthrow a tyrannical government in addition to the militia stuff), is no longer valid due to modern warfare tech.
However, they said to ask the people who ran the USSR or the current US MIC if Afghan insurgents care about modern warfare. I see the point.
But...here's the problem. Black people are killing each other at much higher rates, with guns, than any other racial/ethnicity experiences in the US. I'm all about shitting on racist policies such as removing guns from black people. Let's not do that. But at the same time...I care quit a bit about this problem.
If you can figure out how to save all of these young black lives while also not taking guns away, I would be happy to read your solution and support it.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Of course it's ****ing Avenatti pushing this shit.
I kinda like Avenatti...in the sense that the left screams about cults and then some of them worship at the altar of Avenatti. With some of them legit believing he is gonna save America. That makes me smile.
Lol CNN is suing the WH over them taking Jim Acosta's press pass. Maybe Michael could get involved?
Originally posted by Surtur
I kinda like Avenatti...in the sense that the left screams about cults and then some of them worship at the altar of Avenatti. With some of them legit believing he is gonna save America. That makes me smile.Lol CNN is suing the WH over them taking Jim Acosta's press pass. Maybe Michael could get involved?
Who worships Avenatti?