General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThis message was self-deleted by its author
This message was self-deleted by its author (Are_grits_groceries) on Thu Feb 9, 2012, 06:33 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.
eShirl
(20,259 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)I can't fucking believe that people can't wrap their heads around the notion that it is not okay to throw things at others who have not consented to it.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/college/felony-snowball-tossing-busts
Felony Snowball Tossing Busts
Occulus
(20,599 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)...they lose visibility, crash the car and die, then it's all good.
Likewise permanently damaging someone's vision by getting glitter in their eye and scratching a cornea.
Or do you think it only counts if that actually happens?
RFK was shot to death in a crowded hotel convention facility. Distracting security assigned to a presidential candidate provides an opportunity for the candidate to get shot by someone else while security is going after someone who thinks throwing things at people is some kind of political discourse.
Justice wanted
(2,657 posts)carpet bombing if Glitter is now considered a missle. BUT what the EFFIN hell are they going to do when it comes to the conventions and all those balloons and confetti start dropping.
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)The government can drop missiles and carpet bombs whenever they feel like it and on whoever they feel like it without any ramifications.
It is us, we the people, that can't drop missiles (glitter -
) and carpet bombs (confetti -
) without going to jail.
That is perfectly sane. Perfectly sane.
Justice wanted
(2,657 posts)another body as a missle.
hlthe2b
(113,973 posts)soc7
(53 posts)But, I'm thinking that heaving something at any presidential candidate is probably not such a great idea....
Are_grits_groceries
(17,139 posts)I do believe that finding the harshest punishment and making the crime fit it perverts justice.
Broderick
(4,578 posts)Doubt he will get that much time.
no_hypocrisy
(54,908 posts)The physical qualities and effects of the impact of a missile aren't there.
Let me put it this way: if it were a civil lawsuit instead of a criminal prosecution, the glitter would be a technical "battery" where something made contact with a person. The "impact" would be negligilble like blowing cigar or cigarette smoke at someone, save for a possible complication of the glitter getting in an eye and causing discomfort or infection at the worst.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)A "missile" is any thrown object.
Simply because your education is limited does not change the fact that it is illegal to throw things at people.
no_hypocrisy
(54,908 posts)I'd want to see how prior courts have interpreted what a "missile" is. That's the definition that carries.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Ask any first year torts student.
no_hypocrisy
(54,908 posts)The Macmillan Dicitionary defines a missile as a weapon.
The definition of a weapon is "an object that can be used to hurt people or damage property, for example a gun, knife, or bomb."
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/weapon
I maintain that glitter is not a missile as it can't injure or kill like a true weapon can.
A court can do one of two things when deciding whether glitter is a missile or not: Either adopt the strict meaning that it's an object thrown or projected or parse the definition to exclude objects that are practically harmless notwithstanding they can be thrown at a person.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Armed With A Deadly Burrito
Felony charge for teen who tossed Mexican "missile" at car
----
You want to believe throwing shit at people is okay, you go right on believing.
By all means, act like a fucking child.
no_hypocrisy
(54,908 posts)And that's one court's interpretation of the definition of the word "missile". It isn't ubiquitous for all courts. My contention is to see how the court in this particular case will interpret glitter.
And yes, conceded that stuff shouldn't be thrown at people in general, save for traditions of confetti, rice at a wedding, etc.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)I sincerely doubt that any court is going to see the act of throwing something, anything, at another person who cannot be understood to have given any consent - particularly when the point of the act is based upon such non-consent - as anything other than some form of assault (or the relevant statutory category of the state in question).
Are_grits_groceries
(17,139 posts)That was unnecessary and did nothing to add to the discussion. From previous posts I have read, I believe you are quite capable of disagreeing in a manner that doesn't resort to this kind of attack.
Of course, if you choose to scuttle along the low road, that is your prerogative. It does not reflect well on you.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)I have no problem whatsoever insulting the intelligence, education and character of people who think throwing things at people is an acceptable way to make a point.
Period.
I honestly don't give a shit how it reflects on me.
You want to support assault as a form of political discourse, that's fine.
Are_grits_groceries
(17,139 posts)Not a very good view from there, and your fellow travelers are a suspect bunch. In addition, you will have to throw your vitriol upwards which guantees some will land back on you.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Well you just go on thinking you can throw things at people.
Are_grits_groceries
(17,139 posts)Never said there should be no punishment.
I'm out. Argue with yourself.
Capitalocracy
(4,307 posts)but regardless of how juvenile or stupid or ineffective or counterproductive you might think it is, it still doesn't make sense to sentence a person who threw glitter as if they threw a rock.
Justice wanted
(2,657 posts)would have called the shoes that where thrown at W?
After all Glitter is a missle and Confetti is a carpet bombing....Just saying...
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Hawkowl
(5,213 posts)Quite a price to pay for an act of civil disobedience. He is a national hero, as he should be.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Hawkowl
(5,213 posts)The point of civil disobedience is to effect change. The getting arrested is the means to an end.
Ian David
(69,059 posts)Ian David
(69,059 posts)Capitalocracy
(4,307 posts)Two men enter, one man leaves! And then the other man leaves. Covered in glitter.
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)They'll pin a medal on your chest for that. Just be sure to say afterwards that the decedent was some kind of "militant" or "terrorist," which is as good as "He's comin' right at us!" for conferring legal immunity.
Jon Ace
(255 posts)and probably not even show up.
But if you throw glitter at Mr. $200 Million, well, that's just terrorism."
- sickpharaoh, reddit.com