Yep, I have a bit of a record, and know a few with records, my father’s family is law, lawyers and politicians, military, government . My mom’s family is similar except toss in a few criminals. I have been reading law, philosophy, sociology, anthropology, history for most of my life. At 4 yrs old my family discovered that not only could I read a book like Jonathan Livingston Seagull, I could comprehend the philosophy behind it.
Now, to return the favor that you gave me earlier : Did you miss most of what I have been saying??
Justice is not black and white, an innocent can go to prison as easily as the guilty, ah hell my friend just reread what I have written, please don’t make me type it all again…
Kris, if I walked up to a stranger in the street and started hitting them because I didn’t like what they were doing, then it’s an assault. It doesn’t change anything that we may or may not be related. Whether the prosecutor does his job is another story. We know from the case in Ferguson that some of these people are willing to throw away their reputations for politics.
Keep ignoring relevant context, mr r. Yes, your own adolescent child who could make your entire family suffer and bring it down to its knees with his bullshit is obviously completely comparable to a stranger =D>
I don’t think the law itself distinguishes, other than that in one case it’s an assault and in another case it’s a domestic assault.
You guys seem to want to put your perception of what family values ought to be ahead of the law.
So because he’s her son, and because you’ve got some speculative story about what may happen about the family being “torn apart”, we should ignore video evidence of an assault and then even go on to praise the culprit, then we should chastise someone for exercising their constitutional right to protest and assemble and all that?
So your view of how family values and of how society should be are the way you want it to be instead of the way the law says it should be.
That’s fine. Just admit it. You’re a mob. You’re praising a criminal who’s assaulted an innocent person.
People who merely protest don’t need to hide their entire face behind a mask typical of a criminal. From what I’ve heard, a lot more has been going on in Baltimore than mere protesting, there is looting and house burning, no? It’s very unlikely that he’s innocent and that his mother hit him for nothing.
But it’s fine, let’s ignore the larger context of the entire situation and focus on one video and pretend that a mother hitting her child to prevent him from burning other people’s property and stealing is, somehow, ill intentioned. It does fit our liberal, anti-family agenda, doesn’t it?
As I said, mr r, you identify too much with that adolescent for somebody who is 30+ years old.
And you are not getting what I am saying. Let me try again.
Arrest is not conviction. You might have attacked the person, you might get arrested for assault and you might get a conviction for assault if your lawyer cannot find evidence to defend you or you admit to it.
It’s all labels and organization.
Your arrest for assault does not mean you did assault. Your lawyer will will take another label and argue for that label, self defense, temporary insanity, or in some places, Samaritan action.
Assault or other is a legal label for an action. You get arrested for assault, you get tried for assault, you can get convicted for assault or walk away because your lawyer proved it was another label, self defense or Samaritan action.
The two arms of the justice system use different labels.
The intent of the action is part of arrest and conviction. Assault is intent to cause physical harm/injury. The mother obviously had no intentions to cause physical harm, caused no injury so even should a zealous police department arrest her for assault, the court system would quite likely not prosecute.
If we stick with only the video as sole evidence and knowing it is mother and son. Lets take a better look at the video . The boy, was with other teens all clothed the same way, a warm day, all covered head to foot , even wearing gloves. Obects in their hands. In a gang behavior. You claim constitution rights for freedom to dress as you choose. Wrong. nationalgangcenter.gov/legislation/michigan
Federal laws as well define public dress and behavior, Terrorist and gang laws are being defined and redefined. Clothing is a part of of this.
Seeing the boy and his peers dressed in a gang manner and in that situation removes him from being a total innocent. We can as well hear that his mother understands his intent as he defies her demands to stop, for him to get out of there. She is attempting to stop a potential crime, to defend her family.
We do not have the freedom to dress or not dress as we want, there are laws and codes.
She already has talked to the law. Look up some of the follow ups. Stopping her son from committing a crime can fall under Samaritan laws. Her intent was not to harm but, to protect. Not revenge, hate, anger or any other of the like. It was to be a good citizen and stop her son from being harmed or a criminal. Her boy not listening to her orders was blatant disobedience and showed a desire to commit an anti-civil action. His cohorts beat feet if you did not notice, teen hormonal boys and girls, brave one second, scared spitless the next, stupid follows in there somewhere.
Look, your cultural ways, are not mine and not theirs, mine is not theirs. It is Detroit, Detroit people have a reputation. So two questions:
Would you remove all different cultural values in order to comply with your beliefs? If laws are written in stone and intent has no place in the laws what kind of society would it be?
You are confusing the issue. You are stick to a particular frame of a long clip and trying to judge it in isolation, which is not the right approach.
Let me put it differently to you.
Say an accident happens before your eyes and some people get injured very badly and are about to die. You look around and see that there is another car parked nearby but it is locked and you driving licence is also experied.
Now, what should you do? Should you let those people die because it is a crime to steal the car and drive it without proper licence, or break in and carry them to the hospital?
Remember, you would still technically committ a crime, if you carry those to the hospital, even if it saves many lives, and you can be even punished for that too.
And, what will you do if that accident happens to your family members? Would you call 911 and let those die or break in?
MR, actions do not mean much. The actual thing to look for is the intention behind the action.
A father can give a good hard slap to his 17/18 old son on the spot, caughting in smoking. It may be defined as domestic violence but it is a right thing to do at the moment.
I’m not debating the right and wrong. I’m saying that whatever the case, there’s a video of a woman assaulting a man and if she’s innocent than the courts should decide not some mob.
The fact of the matter is that you cannot decide anything unless you decide what is right or wrong. That is the very essence of formulating the laws.
And, to decide what is right or wrong, you have to look at the particular circumstances as a whole, not a single frame of the event, otherwise you will get a misleading picture.
That video does not mean anything unless you are not aware why that women is beating her son. You cannot simply leave the intention behind and then takr a call on her action in isolation. That is nor how the law works, either in letter or spirit.
Well, I disagree a bit zinnati. The video shows someone attacking someone else. Unless you got a video of the dude attacking the lady beforehand, it’s about as clear a case of assault as I’ve ever seen. Now, if you wanna talk about how she should be allowed to assault him because of some vague notions of motherhood and “danger in the streets”, then so be it. But it’s a stretch, and it’s a long one to say she’s innocent and he’s guilty, which is the impression that I’m getting from some posters.
I mean, by this same reasoning…a starving person could never be guilty of stealing food. I don’t think shop owners would agree that it’s ok to damage others based on spurious notions of the accused’s motivations and speculation about what may have happened besides the clear cut infliction of damage that we can see on the tape.
Your theory might work if there were no audio and if we had zero information of any of the circumstances but, primarily the audio makes your theory off. Its clearly a mother, not a stranger and clearly through audio we know he is disobedient and in a bad situation. Remove the video and just have the audio with all the circumstances we know. Would you feel the same? I doubt it.
Right now you are basing it only on sight not both sight and sound. So many videos without sound and other information can be looked as abusive. A cop or judge can’t rely on just one piece of data to convict, well, honest ones cannot. Yet that is what you are doing. Using just the video. No audio, no other present evidence. It does not wash my friend.
