Then start your own country and let your own morality be the law there. But in the US, I’d prefer it if people weren’t applauded by mobs when they assault other people.
Oh, so you’re still ignoring what actually happened.
Different scenario: A large woman attacks a young boy biologically unrelated to her and significantly physically smaller and weaker than her, using a weapon, and pounds his face in relentlessly until the people in the street stop her, leaving the boy bloody and bruised. She is known to hate the boy.
Can you tell me if you think there is a relevant difference between the scenario we discussing and the one above?
Or are they basically the same, and the imaginary woman is no better or worse?
You’re arguing against the law. Size doesn’t factor in an assault, and neither does biological relationship. Whether she hates him doesn’t matter, unless it’s an actual hate crime. But you’ve already said that you believe your moral code to be superior to the laws of America, so I mean what else is there to say? I get it. You want to allow some people to break some laws because you believe your morals are righteous. That’s the opposite of being a nation of laws.
Mr R and others are correct. The Law is the Law. She has broken the Law. What is the sentence to be? A fine? Community Service? Imprisonment? It has to be a sentence that is harsh enough to deter others from deterring others from rioting.
People should have the right to be able to riot in peace.
Well if you told me you had evidence…like a video or something of the kid rioting then you could prosecute him too. But the only evidence we have is of this woman attacking him. I suspect that a lot of those people who were out there were out because it’s a sight to see a bunch of people out doing the kinds of things that were happening. I can’t say that I’d sit at home and watch on TV is it was happening in my city. I’d probably go down there to take a look, and I think a lot of people probably did just that. So if we have no evidence that the kid committed a crime, or was in the process of committing a crime, then I don’t see how everyone can say he’s anything other than a victim of an assault. If we want to run the justice system some other way, like maybe disregard evidence against people who’s views we support, and concoct evidence against people who we do not support, then let’s all vote and get the laws changed to do just that. But I don’t think that’s a good idea. It’s probably better that we just use the evidence that it obvious to convict the people that we see plainly committing crimes.
1st off…appealing to nazi stuff? I’m not even gonna dignify that cliche.
Also, how was he “endangering her, her other childrens, and his own lives”?
Yes, one can of course do that, and why not?
Are laws some kind of God’s verdicts that cannot be challenged ever? If that was so, slavery would have been legal even now because once it was leagal. The same is applicable to homosexuality, divorce and abortion too. Law is not some sort of writing on the stone that cannot be challenged and changed at any cost. Laws should address and amend according such questions which use to pop up with the time in the society.
And, if there is any such law which ignores the intent of caring patents and consider any such act as violence, which is violent only in symbolism but does not cause any real physical harm, such law should be thrown into dustbin without any hesitation and delay.
With love,
Sanjay
You are so ignorant of the law. Good intent does not negate an assault, nor does the absence of damage. Do you actually think a husband can slap his wife out of “good intent” and it not be assault?
Sanjay - It is not anyone else but you who are ignorant of the mechanism of the laws. Laws are not meant to be read and implemented varbatim. They should be followed both in letter and spirit. The cornerstone of the laws are their spirit, not their letters. Thus, if there is any conflict between these two on any case, it is the spirit which should be followed, not the letters.
And yes, good intent override everything, even actual physical damage, not to say about slapping.
Say, there is a husband who is suffering from some mental illness like suicidal tendencies. And, in the heat of such mental stroke, he tries to stab himself with the knife. Now, her wife slaps him hard to get him out of the that state.
Is the wife guilty of domestic violence? Only a fool would say so and no jury of US will held her guilty.
Not only that, even if the wife gets seriously injured by the husband, the jury would not held the husband guilty either, because he was suffering from temporary insanity at the time of the incident.
Ask any lawyer. He will second me, not you.
With love,
Sanjay
mr r, we live in democracy, do we not? Laws are products of human morality, not the other way around. If you want to justify laws there are usually appeals to morality involved, but you don’t justify morality by appealing to laws.
If morality of the society changes, so will the laws, in a democracy. If the majority of people are advocating a certain position and giving good arguments which you can’t counter with anything else but appealing to the current law, ‘It’s the law’, then it is the law that should be put under question and possibly changed, get it? The “it’s the law” justification produces nothing but mindless, brainwashed drones, blind followers of an ideology, Nazism is an excellent example whether you like it or not.
Are you intentionally missing the points?
The mother is smaller than her son, size matters because generally, bigger people inflict more pain and damage. It’s not the same if a 5 year old girl smacks a 2 meter martial artist with full strength, and if he smacks her.
The point with hate is intent, whether it is malicious or benign, in my scenario the intent is obviously malicious and to hurt the other person, unlike in the main scenario being discussed.
I remember when my father brought home a puppy, and when he gave him food the puppy growled at my father if he tried to get close. My father lightly smacked him on the head to establish dominance and to prevent the dog growing up to be aggressive and disobedient. He never had to hit him ever since, the dog grew up to be smart and happy, and never had any physical injuries whatsoever from that light 1 sec smack. But according to you, we should just ignore all that and call what my father did animal abuse? A myopic view of things if I ever saw one.
Kriswest nicely explained how his (mis)behavior endangered the rest of the family as well as his own life.
Shorter. Not smaller. That bitch was fat as hell.
According to me people shouldn’t teach their children and discipline them?
Where did I say that? What I see on the video doesn’t look like teaching and discipline. It looks like an assault. If 2 brothers get into a fight and the police are called, they both get charged with assault. It doesn’t matter that they’re brothers.
I said this before :
Based on the video alone there could have been an arrest if there was no audio. There would have been an arrest if the person that took the video had taken it straight to the cops with IDs of the two.
But, the prosecution would eventually drop the case especially is she has a half ass decent lawyer. The rest of the evidence denies assault, the whole situation would prove to volatile, it is not an assault based on all evidence. The tape can only cause arrest not conviction.
No, the evidence absolutely shows assault as well as battery. The situation was not "too volatile;’ there was only one combatant throwing blows: the mother. So, the tape is absolutely enough for conviction. However, if you have actually taken law school courses in criminal law and evidence, as I have, please explain to us why it would not be.
It’s like a guy can’t be guilty of beating his wife at the time either because it was volatile on the other side of the street.
Because that’s his wife too. I mean, not obeying him is not only a violation of her marital vows, but it also endangers the cohesiveness of his family and all their futures, so he totally has a right to flog her in the street as this mother flogged her son. Right?
I have already explained why.
Mr. R, very few take vows of obedience anymore, only the orthodox do. Love, honor and respect are the norm now. Obedience was not in my vows. Why vow something that you know you won’t do.
You honestly want to compare spousal attacks to this? You really think they are the same and same intent?
No, you haven’t. You haven’t explained in any logical way why there isn’t enough evidence for a conviction. All you have shown is your ignorance of the law. You are, however, free to give it another shot.
They are absolutely comparable. A parent does not have the right to assault and/or batter their child…end of story. The law makes that clear. And whether the assaulter or batterer has “good intent” or not, the assault and battery are still illegal. That goes for spouses and parents.
As I said above, I suggest you read up on your laws before your speak on the matter. You have been glaringly wrong so far.
I was just using the criteria that you provided. Family, danger around, taking risks etc…
How would it be different if a man was beating his wife for the same reasons at the same time in the same place?
The answer to that is that it wouldn’t. That’s why we have laws that say people aren’t supposed to hit one another.
This is how it’s different:
- An average man is significantly stronger than an average woman, so he would be more likely to hurt her. The woman is obviously weaker than her son, never intended to seriously hurt him, and never did seriously hurt him.
- It would be a man hitting a woman (seen very differently by most people in society due to instincts to protect women)
- A husband-wife social relationship is that of equal authority, a parent-child relationship isn’t.
- This one I assume - if a wife was hit by a husband, she would press charges. The kid didn’t, and he publicly admitted he was wrong and that his mother only wanted the best for him.