Carlisle Blues
My Mail is Forwarded Here
- Messages
- 3,154
- Location
- Beautiful Horse Country
Feraud said:Apparently the court has convicted the victim.![]()
Nope the hat touching youth was not convicted; poor boy.
Feraud said:Apparently the court has convicted the victim.![]()
Feraud said:Technically you are right.
In reality I shudder to think anyone advocate he should have stood there and let two kids play monkey in the middle with his hat? Running off to find a policeman would have resulted in the loss of his hat.
Mahagonny Bill said:Next time I'll remember not to argue with an Internet lawyer![]()
Carlisle, I am not upset. You offered your opinion and I accept that. My "Internet Lawyer" comment was in regards to the mock trial "case closed" jag you were on and not your previous comments. Don't take things so seriously. If I did, I would have been offended by you appointing yourself as judge and jury for the case. Instead I assumed that at that point you were joking and tried to play along.Carlisle Blues said:I don't know if you were referring to me. I am not an internet lawyer.
You asked a question I answered. You did not like my answer that much is obvious. What is obvious as well is a measure of displaced anger directed at the "internet lawyer" you referred to.
Carlisle Blues said:If you just retrieved your hat no problem, but, you grabbed the kid.
You will never a get a glad hand, "it's ok" answer from me.
If you want to be taken seriously then try to accept answers even if they are not what you want to hear.
I am sure the next this occurs you will think twice before reacting.
That is why I answered the way I did. Get upset, but, please think before acting next time. .
Mr. Scratch said:(3) Whenever used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her possession, in case the force is not more than is necessary;[/I][/B]
Mr. Scratch said:What is there to think about? Someone tried to steal from him, he prevented the theft with a minimum of physical force. Looks to me like everything worked out fine. Would have only been better if he'd grabbed the lad by the ear and frog marched him to the nearest police officer to have him charged with Theft.
Mahagonny Bill said:I do thank you for your comments.
Lefty said:Unless you're going to quote the definition statute for the meaning of "malicious interference", this ain't gettin' anybody off.
As per usual.Feraud said:Apparently the court has convicted the victim.![]()
I couldn't say. Seattle leans pretty far to the left, but we are not a Nanny state (yet). Besides, as Lefty said earlier; "there's law and there's justice. Don't confuse the two". Law and Justice also depend on circumstances, including how the police officer who arrived on the scene was feeling that day, how belligerent or cooperative the participants were, what the case load of the courts are, who has the financial means to carry the case through court, etc. etc. Since the incident did not go that far, any discussion about the true legal issues of the incident are academic.Tiller said:I've never been to Seattle though, so I have no idea what would happen there if someone punched out (or in your case grabbed their shirt) someone else for stealing property. But since you are an older gentleman being harassed by two youths, I'd have to think most juries would be sympathetic, but I'm not sure I don't know how most people from Seattle feel about such subjects.