We would, but that doesn't mean all of us would lose all sense of self-control and start tossing potentially lethal weapons around.Originally posted by: DanTMWTMP
Originally posted by: joshsquall
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Thraxen
So what... do we actually have people here practically advocating hitting minors with hard objects everytime they break curfew or cause a friend to do so?? WTF? Who the hell didn't break a curfew growing up? The fact that he was hit with a toy is totally irrelevant... don't think so? I'll be glad to whack any of you with a Tonka truck and see what you think. Granted, we don't really have all the facts (i.e. how hard was he hit, etc...), but that is exactly the reason you shouldn't be dismissing it like it was nothing. And, no, I'm not advocating suing.
It's amazing seeing the # of people up here willing to assault a minor.
Amazing....
Sad, really.
So, to you who would punch/beat up/kick the ass of a minor, you would rather spend some time in jail, have to post bail, go to court, etc. because you lost your temper and beat up a KID?
You're no better than the people you bash who beat up umpires at t-ball games or hit kids there, too. What's the difference there? Hmmm????
Grow some brains! I'd be willing to bet most aren't parents. A good parent would know what to do in a situation like this. And, heck, I'll offer up that a good parent wouldn't even BE in this situation with their daughter/son.
I have to agree. You people are being fvcking retarded.
Having your daughter out past her curfew does NOT give you the right to assault a 17 year old kid. Your daughter willingly chose to break your rules, not the kid. He may have known that she was doing this, but it still doesn't give you the right to take an "eye for a finger nail" or some other distorted punishment.
sooo i c..YOU WON'T GET MAD AND AGITATED WHEN THIS HAPPENS TO YOUR DAUGHTER I SEE.....get real dude...of course we don't want to beat anyone up, but get real..amdforever2 deserved that smack.....anyone who's a father of a girl would have done the same....
Originally posted by: deftron
wtf?
details, man..
how late was it?
how old are you two?
did you argue with the dad first or did he just roll up nonchalant and clock you?
Originally posted by: nan0bug
Originally posted by: Millennium
Originally posted by: nan0bug
Originally posted by: Rogue
ScottyB,
How old are you? You've obviously not been around too many situations for too long, have you? First off, the offenses nearly balance each other out. Considering the cases like Polly Klaas and Elizabeth Smart, how can you not understand the momentary anger this parent displayed upon discovering his daughter missing from his house? We don't know that he didn't wake up and find her missing from her bed with no explanation at all, now do we? In fact, I'm sure that's what happened. Second, this 17 year old male removed this 15 year old child from her home after curfew. He took her god knows where and did god knows what with her. He may never admit to what he actually did to us or anyone else anyway. I caught my brother's 15 year old girlfriend in a tent with two sleeping bags zipped together and two condom wrappers underneath. They both said they didn't have sex until the used condom was found nearby. Third, you are obviously a part of either this current generation or a generation past that insists on taking no responsibility for their own irresponsible actions. He knew what he was doing was wrong, he must have known that he could suffer some consequences for it and he did, minor ones at that. So he got something thrown at him, if that's even what happened. It's not like he was brutally beaten and kicked by this guy. He even admitted more or less that he suffered no real physical damage. Now ask me why I should waste my time, my department's time, my court's time and the tax payers hard earned money to take a case and run with it on this one? All things told, this one is a no brainer that I would guess easily better than 50% of cops in this country would not waste their time on. Keep in mind also, that you have no relevant experience in dealing with criminal matters other than watching COPS and you know less than I do about the legalities of this entire situation, even though he hasn't even really given us a full detailed story in the first place. Never mind the fact that no court in it's right mind is going to prosecute this case under all the circumstances listed above and you've got yourself one big bull$hit party.
Uhm, simple assault is simple assault, and assaulting a minor is assaulting a minor. Aggrivating and Mitigating circumstances are supposed to be left to the court to decide. I call BS on you even being a cop.
I call BS on you knowing WTF you are talking about. Evidently, you have never heard of discretion have you? Cops have that. Secondly, assault in this case is not clearly defined. We have one party's details, no witnesses, and a biased account. You are ready to hold to your statement that it would be assaulting a minor? I will tell you right now that the original poster isn't even going to call the cops. If he had, they would have never told him to come in tomorrow. They would have wanted to make a report and document any injuries right then.
P.S. I call BS on you having a brain.
I have heard about discretion. However, when it comes to assaulting a minor, I don't see where discretion comes into play. If there was an assault against a MINOR there should be some sort of investigation into it, regardless of the circumstances. Who knows what the guy is capable of? If he's assaulting other people's kids, what is he doing to his own kids? Discretion would be applicable if say 2 drunk guys got into a fight with each other and neither wanted to press charges and nobody was hurt.
Assault is clearly defined. He hit a minor with an object, and the minor objected to it. The daughter witnessed it. Why is it automatically a 'biased account' if its coming from a teenager?
I can tell you right now that you don't know any more about what he did than anyone else, because he hasn't let anyone know. Leave the psychic act to Miss Cleo, kthx.
Originally posted by: Millennium
nanobug, so could you please explain to me mens rea and actus rea then? In general terms since I don't want a google definition. Could you also tell me how assault is CLEARLY defined considering you nor I were there? You want to leave the psychic work to Mrs. Cleo, yet you are doing what you accuse me of doing. Do you understand the differences in degrees of assault? The whole "I have been on the wrong side of the law so many times" is exactly what Rogue and I are talking about. All you people are jailhouse/street cops or lawyers.
Can you also tell me why you have just "heard" of discretion? Just heard of it? Umm... ok... wow. Evidently you have no concept of things then. Discretion is one of the most powerful things that cops have. Do you mind explaining it to me as well? You said you know what you are talking about, so I would advise you to start proving it, instead of just saying it. Words are meaningless if you can't actually back up what you are saying.
Finally, neither Rogue nor I were advocating someone hitting this guy. Hey, the fact of the matter is most cops would have laughed when a punk ass kid came bitching about getting hit with a plastic firetruck. I seriously believe they would "investigate" if the kid and his parents bitched enough, but they would laugh the entire way. Maybe the kid should have not messed with the guys officer in the first place?
Hey, if you want the cops to be "perfect" then start creating robots, because humans are going to make mistakes regardless of training, rest, diet, and intelligence. That whole concept seems to be lost on people. I love when people want a ticket thrown out on a technicality, but they miss the big picture. They broke the law, yet for some odd reason they expect to receive perfect treatment. The Constitution gives us individual rights and protects us from abuse of power, but it doesn't say anything about discretion or anything of the like. Why do you leave that to the courts and the police to deal with, and you go back to being the perp. It works out much better that way, because you get a free ride in the squad car again.
Sounds fair to me.
Originally posted by: Millennium
Originally posted by: nan0bug
Originally posted by: Millennium
Originally posted by: nan0bug
Originally posted by: Rogue
ScottyB,
How old are you? You've obviously not been around too many situations for too long, have you? First off, the offenses nearly balance each other out. Considering the cases like Polly Klaas and Elizabeth Smart, how can you not understand the momentary anger this parent displayed upon discovering his daughter missing from his house? We don't know that he didn't wake up and find her missing from her bed with no explanation at all, now do we? In fact, I'm sure that's what happened. Second, this 17 year old male removed this 15 year old child from her home after curfew. He took her god knows where and did god knows what with her. He may never admit to what he actually did to us or anyone else anyway. I caught my brother's 15 year old girlfriend in a tent with two sleeping bags zipped together and two condom wrappers underneath. They both said they didn't have sex until the used condom was found nearby. Third, you are obviously a part of either this current generation or a generation past that insists on taking no responsibility for their own irresponsible actions. He knew what he was doing was wrong, he must have known that he could suffer some consequences for it and he did, minor ones at that. So he got something thrown at him, if that's even what happened. It's not like he was brutally beaten and kicked by this guy. He even admitted more or less that he suffered no real physical damage. Now ask me why I should waste my time, my department's time, my court's time and the tax payers hard earned money to take a case and run with it on this one? All things told, this one is a no brainer that I would guess easily better than 50% of cops in this country would not waste their time on. Keep in mind also, that you have no relevant experience in dealing with criminal matters other than watching COPS and you know less than I do about the legalities of this entire situation, even though he hasn't even really given us a full detailed story in the first place. Never mind the fact that no court in it's right mind is going to prosecute this case under all the circumstances listed above and you've got yourself one big bull$hit party.
Uhm, simple assault is simple assault, and assaulting a minor is assaulting a minor. Aggrivating and Mitigating circumstances are supposed to be left to the court to decide. I call BS on you even being a cop.
I call BS on you knowing WTF you are talking about. Evidently, you have never heard of discretion have you? Cops have that. Secondly, assault in this case is not clearly defined. We have one party's details, no witnesses, and a biased account. You are ready to hold to your statement that it would be assaulting a minor? I will tell you right now that the original poster isn't even going to call the cops. If he had, they would have never told him to come in tomorrow. They would have wanted to make a report and document any injuries right then.
P.S. I call BS on you having a brain.
I have heard about discretion. However, when it comes to assaulting a minor, I don't see where discretion comes into play. If there was an assault against a MINOR there should be some sort of investigation into it, regardless of the circumstances. Who knows what the guy is capable of? If he's assaulting other people's kids, what is he doing to his own kids? Discretion would be applicable if say 2 drunk guys got into a fight with each other and neither wanted to press charges and nobody was hurt.
Assault is clearly defined. He hit a minor with an object, and the minor objected to it. The daughter witnessed it. Why is it automatically a 'biased account' if its coming from a teenager?
I can tell you right now that you don't know any more about what he did than anyone else, because he hasn't let anyone know. Leave the psychic act to Miss Cleo, kthx.
This is just more proof you don't understand things. Why are two drunk guys ok to assault each other, but not the dad? Remember, intoxication is not an excuse for crime if you made yourself intentionally intoxicated.
Originally posted by: amdforever2
There is no curfew.
There is no curfew.
There is no curfew.
There is no curfew.
There is no curfew.
There is no curfew.
There is no curfew.
There is no curfew.
Therefore, I could not have taken her out after curfew.
I'm a minor too. How do minor's kidnap other minors?
And once again, no romantic reason for us being out.
Make up my mind here.So I was taking this girl home and we stopped outside her house and her dad comes up to the car and hits me.
Sure, she wasn't supposed to be outside, sure, it was after curfew, but nothing can justify him hitting me.
So, how would one ensure their ability to sue the individual?
Do I need to file a police report and press charges or can I just sue?
Originally posted by: nan0bug
Originally posted by: Millennium
nanobug, so could you please explain to me mens rea and actus rea then? In general terms since I don't want a google definition. Could you also tell me how assault is CLEARLY defined considering you nor I were there? You want to leave the psychic work to Mrs. Cleo, yet you are doing what you accuse me of doing. Do you understand the differences in degrees of assault? The whole "I have been on the wrong side of the law so many times" is exactly what Rogue and I are talking about. All you people are jailhouse/street cops or lawyers.
Ok. Mens rea and actus reus are used to determine liability in the event of a crime taking place. What that has to do with what we're talking about here, I don't know. Mens rea is 'bad mind' in latin. It's used to infer that the person was of a mental state where they committed a crime willingly, whether or not they had a motive. Actus reus is the 'bad act', or the actual crime. One without the other != crime.
Assault is defined as an act of violence against another human being, however, in some places (most parts of the US) the act of violence does not necessarily need to take place if a person feels threatened. An example would be if someone pulls a gun out, points it directly at someone and threatens them with it. If the person is in fear of their life, unless the defendant has a REALLY good lawyer it will be considered assault in court. (Edit: Threatening someone IS an act of violence. What I should say is that nobody necessarily needs to be physically hurt in order for there to be an assault)
Here, we have a man who threw a toy at a minor, then reached his hand inside of his car and tried to take his keys so that he could detain him. Clearly a case of assault, since not only did he actually cause harm to the boy (the low degree of harm would be considered a mitigating circumstance, but it's still assault) but he was acting in a manner that suggested he might have done more to the boy given the chance (which may or may not be considered an aggrivating circumstance.
Considering you and I were not there, neither of us can say for sure if it even really happened. However, judging by the boy's statements (which is ultimately all we have to go on), it sounds like assaulting a minor to me, pure and simple. Whether or not the father would get charged with that, I don't know. Could be he's just making stuff up. However, if what the boy says is true, he should be charged. There's no 'discretion' about it. The guy committed a crime, and he should be charged with that crime regardless of if he 'lost his temper'. I certainly wouldn't want my child being hit by someone elses parents, regardless of what the circumstances that brought it up were. Its not like the guy is some crackhead. He's a guy with a child who should know better than to be laying his hands (or toys) on kids in a violent manner.
Can you also tell me why you have just "heard" of discretion? Just heard of it? Umm... ok... wow. Evidently you have no concept of things then. Discretion is one of the most powerful things that cops have. Do you mind explaining it to me as well? You said you know what you are talking about, so I would advise you to start proving it, instead of just saying it. Words are meaningless if you can't actually back up what you are saying.
If you feel like reading into my statements like that, you go right ahead. I'm not going to explain discretion to you because you and I both know that I know what it is. Stop taking my words out of context. Someone asked "have you heard of discretion?" and I responded "yes, I have heard of discretion". I didn't feel the need, and still don't, to write a novel about it.
Finally, neither Rogue nor I were advocating someone hitting this guy. Hey, the fact of the matter is most cops would have laughed when a punk ass kid came bitching about getting hit with a plastic firetruck. I seriously believe they would "investigate" if the kid and his parents bitched enough, but they would laugh the entire way. Maybe the kid should have not messed with the guys officer in the first place?
I think you meant daughter. As far as the boy said, he was just giving her a ride home. Could be she would have had to walk through some nasty neighborhood if he hadn't done that. Unfortunately, 'super dad' didn't even give him a chance to explain, and started flinging toys around. If he's frustrated that he can't keep his daughter under control, he shouldn't be taking it out on anyone but himself.
Hey, if you want the cops to be "perfect" then start creating robots, because humans are going to make mistakes regardless of training, rest, diet, and intelligence. That whole concept seems to be lost on people. I love when people want a ticket thrown out on a technicality, but they miss the big picture. They broke the law, yet for some odd reason they expect to receive perfect treatment. The Constitution gives us individual rights and protects us from abuse of power, but it doesn't say anything about discretion or anything of the like. Why do you leave that to the courts and the police to deal with, and you go back to being the perp. It works out much better that way, because you get a free ride in the squad car again.
Sounds fair to me.
Could you kindly explain to me exactly wtf this has to do with anything talked about above? Make up your mind. A police officer takes an oath, its usually written on the side of squad cars. "To protect and serve". If a cop is going to laugh his way through something like this maybe he should put down his gun and pick up a flashlight and go laugh his way right into a mall security job. Adults should not be hitting other people's kids, period. Calling their parents to tell them why they should hit their own kids? absolutely... flipping out and throwing things at a kid because he brought your daughter home later than you like? If that sounds acceptable to you, do me a favor and don't have kids.
Originally posted by: Millennium
Originally posted by: nan0bug
Originally posted by: Millennium
nanobug, so could you please explain to me mens rea and actus rea then? In general terms since I don't want a google definition. Could you also tell me how assault is CLEARLY defined considering you nor I were there? You want to leave the psychic work to Mrs. Cleo, yet you are doing what you accuse me of doing. Do you understand the differences in degrees of assault? The whole "I have been on the wrong side of the law so many times" is exactly what Rogue and I are talking about. All you people are jailhouse/street cops or lawyers.
Ok. Mens rea and actus reus are used to determine liability in the event of a crime taking place. What that has to do with what we're talking about here, I don't know. Mens rea is 'bad mind' in latin. It's used to infer that the person was of a mental state where they committed a crime willingly, whether or not they had a motive. Actus reus is the 'bad act', or the actual crime. One without the other != crime.
Assault is defined as an act of violence against another human being, however, in some places (most parts of the US) the act of violence does not necessarily need to take place if a person feels threatened. An example would be if someone pulls a gun out, points it directly at someone and threatens them with it. If the person is in fear of their life, unless the defendant has a REALLY good lawyer it will be considered assault in court. (Edit: Threatening someone IS an act of violence. What I should say is that nobody necessarily needs to be physically hurt in order for there to be an assault)
Here, we have a man who threw a toy at a minor, then reached his hand inside of his car and tried to take his keys so that he could detain him. Clearly a case of assault, since not only did he actually cause harm to the boy (the low degree of harm would be considered a mitigating circumstance, but it's still assault) but he was acting in a manner that suggested he might have done more to the boy given the chance (which may or may not be considered an aggrivating circumstance.
Considering you and I were not there, neither of us can say for sure if it even really happened. However, judging by the boy's statements (which is ultimately all we have to go on), it sounds like assaulting a minor to me, pure and simple. Whether or not the father would get charged with that, I don't know. Could be he's just making stuff up. However, if what the boy says is true, he should be charged. There's no 'discretion' about it. The guy committed a crime, and he should be charged with that crime regardless of if he 'lost his temper'. I certainly wouldn't want my child being hit by someone elses parents, regardless of what the circumstances that brought it up were. Its not like the guy is some crackhead. He's a guy with a child who should know better than to be laying his hands (or toys) on kids in a violent manner.
Can you also tell me why you have just "heard" of discretion? Just heard of it? Umm... ok... wow. Evidently you have no concept of things then. Discretion is one of the most powerful things that cops have. Do you mind explaining it to me as well? You said you know what you are talking about, so I would advise you to start proving it, instead of just saying it. Words are meaningless if you can't actually back up what you are saying.
If you feel like reading into my statements like that, you go right ahead. I'm not going to explain discretion to you because you and I both know that I know what it is. Stop taking my words out of context. Someone asked "have you heard of discretion?" and I responded "yes, I have heard of discretion". I didn't feel the need, and still don't, to write a novel about it.
Finally, neither Rogue nor I were advocating someone hitting this guy. Hey, the fact of the matter is most cops would have laughed when a punk ass kid came bitching about getting hit with a plastic firetruck. I seriously believe they would "investigate" if the kid and his parents bitched enough, but they would laugh the entire way. Maybe the kid should have not messed with the guys officer in the first place?
I think you meant daughter. As far as the boy said, he was just giving her a ride home. Could be she would have had to walk through some nasty neighborhood if he hadn't done that. Unfortunately, 'super dad' didn't even give him a chance to explain, and started flinging toys around. If he's frustrated that he can't keep his daughter under control, he shouldn't be taking it out on anyone but himself.
Hey, if you want the cops to be "perfect" then start creating robots, because humans are going to make mistakes regardless of training, rest, diet, and intelligence. That whole concept seems to be lost on people. I love when people want a ticket thrown out on a technicality, but they miss the big picture. They broke the law, yet for some odd reason they expect to receive perfect treatment. The Constitution gives us individual rights and protects us from abuse of power, but it doesn't say anything about discretion or anything of the like. Why do you leave that to the courts and the police to deal with, and you go back to being the perp. It works out much better that way, because you get a free ride in the squad car again.
Sounds fair to me.
Could you kindly explain to me exactly wtf this has to do with anything talked about above? Make up your mind. A police officer takes an oath, its usually written on the side of squad cars. "To protect and serve". If a cop is going to laugh his way through something like this maybe he should put down his gun and pick up a flashlight and go laugh his way right into a mall security job. Adults should not be hitting other people's kids, period. Calling their parents to tell them why they should hit their own kids? absolutely... flipping out and throwing things at a kid because he brought your daughter home later than you like? If that sounds acceptable to you, do me a favor and don't have kids.
WRONG! You can have not have mens rea(intent) and still be convicted due to actus rea(act that occurred). I see that you don't know what you are talking about. I am wasting my time here. I have debated in numerous legal and police threads and I know the information I am giving is correct. Please stop posting until you know what you are talking about. BTW, you still skirted the discretion question, but maybe google isn't pulling up the information you need. Sucks when that happens eh? Then you have to just skirt a question. Heh, come back when you have some working knowledge of the law.
Thank You,
Evan
Ok. Mens rea and actus reus are used to determine liability in the event of a crime taking place. What that has to do with what we're talking about here, I don't know. Mens rea is 'bad mind' in latin. It's used to infer that the person was of a mental state where they committed a crime willingly, whether or not they had a motive. Actus reus is the 'bad act', or the actual crime. One without the other != crime.
He hit me with a toy firetruck. Simple, eh?
Originally posted by: Booty
Well, let's see... if I was a parent and had a 15 year old daughter, I'd be nervous about her dating an older guy in the first place. Then if she snuck out late to be somewhere with him, and I didn't know where they were or what they had been up to... well, just put yourself in his shoes...
What if he went to check on her for some reason and found her gone? And you haven't said anything about what was going on in the car... if I see my daugter coming back from sneaking out, making out with an older guy in his car... well, I probably wouldn't hit him. But I'd be pretty pissed and can't say (without hearing both sides) that I necessarily blame this guy for "assaulting" you (did it even hurt?).
On top of all that, it sounds like you were well-aware that she was sneaking out, which just isn't cool. It's disrespectful... and if you care at all about the girl then you should care about her parents' wishes (which to my knowledge werent' unreasonable). I can't believe you have the nerve to try to sue or press charges after this... that's about as logical as him pressing charges for kidnapping or something. Good lord... what you should be doing is apologizing for taking his daughter out past curfew.
I mean, damn, am I alone here or does anyone else hear crap like this and feel like society's on a downward spiral?
Originally posted by: Millennium
Originally posted by: nan0bug
Originally posted by: Millennium
nanobug, so could you please explain to me mens rea and actus rea then? In general terms since I don't want a google definition. Could you also tell me how assault is CLEARLY defined considering you nor I were there? You want to leave the psychic work to Mrs. Cleo, yet you are doing what you accuse me of doing. Do you understand the differences in degrees of assault? The whole "I have been on the wrong side of the law so many times" is exactly what Rogue and I are talking about. All you people are jailhouse/street cops or lawyers.
Ok. Mens rea and actus reus are used to determine liability in the event of a crime taking place. What that has to do with what we're talking about here, I don't know. Mens rea is 'bad mind' in latin. It's used to infer that the person was of a mental state where they committed a crime willingly, whether or not they had a motive. Actus reus is the 'bad act', or the actual crime. One without the other != crime.
Assault is defined as an act of violence against another human being, however, in some places (most parts of the US) the act of violence does not necessarily need to take place if a person feels threatened. An example would be if someone pulls a gun out, points it directly at someone and threatens them with it. If the person is in fear of their life, unless the defendant has a REALLY good lawyer it will be considered assault in court. (Edit: Threatening someone IS an act of violence. What I should say is that nobody necessarily needs to be physically hurt in order for there to be an assault)
Here, we have a man who threw a toy at a minor, then reached his hand inside of his car and tried to take his keys so that he could detain him. Clearly a case of assault, since not only did he actually cause harm to the boy (the low degree of harm would be considered a mitigating circumstance, but it's still assault) but he was acting in a manner that suggested he might have done more to the boy given the chance (which may or may not be considered an aggrivating circumstance.
Considering you and I were not there, neither of us can say for sure if it even really happened. However, judging by the boy's statements (which is ultimately all we have to go on), it sounds like assaulting a minor to me, pure and simple. Whether or not the father would get charged with that, I don't know. Could be he's just making stuff up. However, if what the boy says is true, he should be charged. There's no 'discretion' about it. The guy committed a crime, and he should be charged with that crime regardless of if he 'lost his temper'. I certainly wouldn't want my child being hit by someone elses parents, regardless of what the circumstances that brought it up were. Its not like the guy is some crackhead. He's a guy with a child who should know better than to be laying his hands (or toys) on kids in a violent manner.
Can you also tell me why you have just "heard" of discretion? Just heard of it? Umm... ok... wow. Evidently you have no concept of things then. Discretion is one of the most powerful things that cops have. Do you mind explaining it to me as well? You said you know what you are talking about, so I would advise you to start proving it, instead of just saying it. Words are meaningless if you can't actually back up what you are saying.
If you feel like reading into my statements like that, you go right ahead. I'm not going to explain discretion to you because you and I both know that I know what it is. Stop taking my words out of context. Someone asked "have you heard of discretion?" and I responded "yes, I have heard of discretion". I didn't feel the need, and still don't, to write a novel about it.
Finally, neither Rogue nor I were advocating someone hitting this guy. Hey, the fact of the matter is most cops would have laughed when a punk ass kid came bitching about getting hit with a plastic firetruck. I seriously believe they would "investigate" if the kid and his parents bitched enough, but they would laugh the entire way. Maybe the kid should have not messed with the guys officer in the first place?
I think you meant daughter. As far as the boy said, he was just giving her a ride home. Could be she would have had to walk through some nasty neighborhood if he hadn't done that. Unfortunately, 'super dad' didn't even give him a chance to explain, and started flinging toys around. If he's frustrated that he can't keep his daughter under control, he shouldn't be taking it out on anyone but himself.
Hey, if you want the cops to be "perfect" then start creating robots, because humans are going to make mistakes regardless of training, rest, diet, and intelligence. That whole concept seems to be lost on people. I love when people want a ticket thrown out on a technicality, but they miss the big picture. They broke the law, yet for some odd reason they expect to receive perfect treatment. The Constitution gives us individual rights and protects us from abuse of power, but it doesn't say anything about discretion or anything of the like. Why do you leave that to the courts and the police to deal with, and you go back to being the perp. It works out much better that way, because you get a free ride in the squad car again.
Sounds fair to me.
Could you kindly explain to me exactly wtf this has to do with anything talked about above? Make up your mind. A police officer takes an oath, its usually written on the side of squad cars. "To protect and serve". If a cop is going to laugh his way through something like this maybe he should put down his gun and pick up a flashlight and go laugh his way right into a mall security job. Adults should not be hitting other people's kids, period. Calling their parents to tell them why they should hit their own kids? absolutely... flipping out and throwing things at a kid because he brought your daughter home later than you like? If that sounds acceptable to you, do me a favor and don't have kids.
WRONG! You can have not have mens rea(intent) and still be convicted due to actus rea(act that occurred). I see that you don't know what you are talking about. I am wasting my time here. I have debated in numerous legal and police threads and I know the information I am giving is correct. Please stop posting until you know what you are talking about. BTW, you still skirted the discretion question, but maybe google isn't pulling up the information you need. Sucks when that happens eh? Then you have to just skirt a question. Heh, come back when you have some working knowledge of the law.
Thank You,
Evan
Ok. Mens rea and actus reus are used to determine liability in the event of a crime taking place. What that has to do with what we're talking about here, I don't know. Mens rea is 'bad mind' in latin. It's used to infer that the person was of a mental state where they committed a crime willingly, whether or not they had a motive. Actus reus is the 'bad act', or the actual crime. One without the other != crime.
Originally posted by: amdforever2
Kansas City, where I live, has a curfew.
Gladstone, where she lives, and where it happened, does not. I didn't know Gladstone didn't until I called their police people. I haven't filed a report or anything.
Originally posted by: Millennium
Originally posted by: nan0bug
Originally posted by: Millennium
Originally posted by: nan0bug
Originally posted by: Millennium
nanobug, so could you please explain to me mens rea and actus rea then? In general terms since I don't want a google definition. Could you also tell me how assault is CLEARLY defined considering you nor I were there? You want to leave the psychic work to Mrs. Cleo, yet you are doing what you accuse me of doing. Do you understand the differences in degrees of assault? The whole "I have been on the wrong side of the law so many times" is exactly what Rogue and I are talking about. All you people are jailhouse/street cops or lawyers.
Ok. Mens rea and actus reus are used to determine liability in the event of a crime taking place. What that has to do with what we're talking about here, I don't know. Mens rea is 'bad mind' in latin. It's used to infer that the person was of a mental state where they committed a crime willingly, whether or not they had a motive. Actus reus is the 'bad act', or the actual crime. One without the other != crime.
Assault is defined as an act of violence against another human being, however, in some places (most parts of the US) the act of violence does not necessarily need to take place if a person feels threatened. An example would be if someone pulls a gun out, points it directly at someone and threatens them with it. If the person is in fear of their life, unless the defendant has a REALLY good lawyer it will be considered assault in court. (Edit: Threatening someone IS an act of violence. What I should say is that nobody necessarily needs to be physically hurt in order for there to be an assault)
Here, we have a man who threw a toy at a minor, then reached his hand inside of his car and tried to take his keys so that he could detain him. Clearly a case of assault, since not only did he actually cause harm to the boy (the low degree of harm would be considered a mitigating circumstance, but it's still assault) but he was acting in a manner that suggested he might have done more to the boy given the chance (which may or may not be considered an aggrivating circumstance.
Considering you and I were not there, neither of us can say for sure if it even really happened. However, judging by the boy's statements (which is ultimately all we have to go on), it sounds like assaulting a minor to me, pure and simple. Whether or not the father would get charged with that, I don't know. Could be he's just making stuff up. However, if what the boy says is true, he should be charged. There's no 'discretion' about it. The guy committed a crime, and he should be charged with that crime regardless of if he 'lost his temper'. I certainly wouldn't want my child being hit by someone elses parents, regardless of what the circumstances that brought it up were. Its not like the guy is some crackhead. He's a guy with a child who should know better than to be laying his hands (or toys) on kids in a violent manner.
Can you also tell me why you have just "heard" of discretion? Just heard of it? Umm... ok... wow. Evidently you have no concept of things then. Discretion is one of the most powerful things that cops have. Do you mind explaining it to me as well? You said you know what you are talking about, so I would advise you to start proving it, instead of just saying it. Words are meaningless if you can't actually back up what you are saying.
If you feel like reading into my statements like that, you go right ahead. I'm not going to explain discretion to you because you and I both know that I know what it is. Stop taking my words out of context. Someone asked "have you heard of discretion?" and I responded "yes, I have heard of discretion". I didn't feel the need, and still don't, to write a novel about it.
Finally, neither Rogue nor I were advocating someone hitting this guy. Hey, the fact of the matter is most cops would have laughed when a punk ass kid came bitching about getting hit with a plastic firetruck. I seriously believe they would "investigate" if the kid and his parents bitched enough, but they would laugh the entire way. Maybe the kid should have not messed with the guys officer in the first place?
I think you meant daughter. As far as the boy said, he was just giving her a ride home. Could be she would have had to walk through some nasty neighborhood if he hadn't done that. Unfortunately, 'super dad' didn't even give him a chance to explain, and started flinging toys around. If he's frustrated that he can't keep his daughter under control, he shouldn't be taking it out on anyone but himself.
Hey, if you want the cops to be "perfect" then start creating robots, because humans are going to make mistakes regardless of training, rest, diet, and intelligence. That whole concept seems to be lost on people. I love when people want a ticket thrown out on a technicality, but they miss the big picture. They broke the law, yet for some odd reason they expect to receive perfect treatment. The Constitution gives us individual rights and protects us from abuse of power, but it doesn't say anything about discretion or anything of the like. Why do you leave that to the courts and the police to deal with, and you go back to being the perp. It works out much better that way, because you get a free ride in the squad car again.
Sounds fair to me.
Could you kindly explain to me exactly wtf this has to do with anything talked about above? Make up your mind. A police officer takes an oath, its usually written on the side of squad cars. "To protect and serve". If a cop is going to laugh his way through something like this maybe he should put down his gun and pick up a flashlight and go laugh his way right into a mall security job. Adults should not be hitting other people's kids, period. Calling their parents to tell them why they should hit their own kids? absolutely... flipping out and throwing things at a kid because he brought your daughter home later than you like? If that sounds acceptable to you, do me a favor and don't have kids.
WRONG! You can have not have mens rea(intent) and still be convicted due to actus rea(act that occurred). I see that you don't know what you are talking about. I am wasting my time here. I have debated in numerous legal and police threads and I know the information I am giving is correct. Please stop posting until you know what you are talking about. BTW, you still skirted the discretion question, but maybe google isn't pulling up the information you need. Sucks when that happens eh? Then you have to just skirt a question. Heh, come back when you have some working knowledge of the law.
Thank You,
Evan
I didn't say you couldn't be convicted for the act. I said that by that definition, the act is not a crime -- that doesnt mean people don't get convicted. I'm starting to wonder if you can read. By the mens lea and actus reus (not rea) definition of a crime, gross negligence resulting in the death of another is not a 'crime'. That doesn't mean that people don't get convicted for manslaughter, and I never said otherwise.
Ok. Mens rea and actus reus are used to determine liability in the event of a crime taking place. What that has to do with what we're talking about here, I don't know. Mens rea is 'bad mind' in latin. It's used to infer that the person was of a mental state where they committed a crime willingly, whether or not they had a motive. Actus reus is the 'bad act', or the actual crime. One without the other != crime.
Your whole 'HA HA!' attitude while pointing out some sort of imagined fallacy in my 'argument' just goes to show how much of a troll you are. You're no longer worthy of my attention. You bring up things that have absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about earlier (and furthermore spell them incorrectly), and then think that because you have bad reading comprehension skills, that somehow makes my point of view less valid than yours. You totally ignored everything else that I said.
As far as me 'skirting' the discretion question, maybe you should read further up in the thread, instead of nitpicking. Or maybe you can stop 'skirting' away from the topic at hand. If you want to argue about mens lea and actus reus and discretion, start a new thread. Otherwise, kindly stfu. Your signal to noise ratio is off the charts.
Originally posted by: nan0bug
Originally posted by: Millennium
Originally posted by: nan0bug
Originally posted by: Millennium
Originally posted by: nan0bug
Originally posted by: Millennium
nanobug, so could you please explain to me mens rea and actus rea then? In general terms since I don't want a google definition. Could you also tell me how assault is CLEARLY defined considering you nor I were there? You want to leave the psychic work to Mrs. Cleo, yet you are doing what you accuse me of doing. Do you understand the differences in degrees of assault? The whole "I have been on the wrong side of the law so many times" is exactly what Rogue and I are talking about. All you people are jailhouse/street cops or lawyers.
Ok. Mens rea and actus reus are used to determine liability in the event of a crime taking place. What that has to do with what we're talking about here, I don't know. Mens rea is 'bad mind' in latin. It's used to infer that the person was of a mental state where they committed a crime willingly, whether or not they had a motive. Actus reus is the 'bad act', or the actual crime. One without the other != crime.
Assault is defined as an act of violence against another human being, however, in some places (most parts of the US) the act of violence does not necessarily need to take place if a person feels threatened. An example would be if someone pulls a gun out, points it directly at someone and threatens them with it. If the person is in fear of their life, unless the defendant has a REALLY good lawyer it will be considered assault in court. (Edit: Threatening someone IS an act of violence. What I should say is that nobody necessarily needs to be physically hurt in order for there to be an assault)
Here, we have a man who threw a toy at a minor, then reached his hand inside of his car and tried to take his keys so that he could detain him. Clearly a case of assault, since not only did he actually cause harm to the boy (the low degree of harm would be considered a mitigating circumstance, but it's still assault) but he was acting in a manner that suggested he might have done more to the boy given the chance (which may or may not be considered an aggrivating circumstance.
Considering you and I were not there, neither of us can say for sure if it even really happened. However, judging by the boy's statements (which is ultimately all we have to go on), it sounds like assaulting a minor to me, pure and simple. Whether or not the father would get charged with that, I don't know. Could be he's just making stuff up. However, if what the boy says is true, he should be charged. There's no 'discretion' about it. The guy committed a crime, and he should be charged with that crime regardless of if he 'lost his temper'. I certainly wouldn't want my child being hit by someone elses parents, regardless of what the circumstances that brought it up were. Its not like the guy is some crackhead. He's a guy with a child who should know better than to be laying his hands (or toys) on kids in a violent manner.
Can you also tell me why you have just "heard" of discretion? Just heard of it? Umm... ok... wow. Evidently you have no concept of things then. Discretion is one of the most powerful things that cops have. Do you mind explaining it to me as well? You said you know what you are talking about, so I would advise you to start proving it, instead of just saying it. Words are meaningless if you can't actually back up what you are saying.
If you feel like reading into my statements like that, you go right ahead. I'm not going to explain discretion to you because you and I both know that I know what it is. Stop taking my words out of context. Someone asked "have you heard of discretion?" and I responded "yes, I have heard of discretion". I didn't feel the need, and still don't, to write a novel about it.
Finally, neither Rogue nor I were advocating someone hitting this guy. Hey, the fact of the matter is most cops would have laughed when a punk ass kid came bitching about getting hit with a plastic firetruck. I seriously believe they would "investigate" if the kid and his parents bitched enough, but they would laugh the entire way. Maybe the kid should have not messed with the guys officer in the first place?
I think you meant daughter. As far as the boy said, he was just giving her a ride home. Could be she would have had to walk through some nasty neighborhood if he hadn't done that. Unfortunately, 'super dad' didn't even give him a chance to explain, and started flinging toys around. If he's frustrated that he can't keep his daughter under control, he shouldn't be taking it out on anyone but himself.
Hey, if you want the cops to be "perfect" then start creating robots, because humans are going to make mistakes regardless of training, rest, diet, and intelligence. That whole concept seems to be lost on people. I love when people want a ticket thrown out on a technicality, but they miss the big picture. They broke the law, yet for some odd reason they expect to receive perfect treatment. The Constitution gives us individual rights and protects us from abuse of power, but it doesn't say anything about discretion or anything of the like. Why do you leave that to the courts and the police to deal with, and you go back to being the perp. It works out much better that way, because you get a free ride in the squad car again.
Sounds fair to me.
Could you kindly explain to me exactly wtf this has to do with anything talked about above? Make up your mind. A police officer takes an oath, its usually written on the side of squad cars. "To protect and serve". If a cop is going to laugh his way through something like this maybe he should put down his gun and pick up a flashlight and go laugh his way right into a mall security job. Adults should not be hitting other people's kids, period. Calling their parents to tell them why they should hit their own kids? absolutely... flipping out and throwing things at a kid because he brought your daughter home later than you like? If that sounds acceptable to you, do me a favor and don't have kids.
WRONG! You can have not have mens rea(intent) and still be convicted due to actus rea(act that occurred). I see that you don't know what you are talking about. I am wasting my time here. I have debated in numerous legal and police threads and I know the information I am giving is correct. Please stop posting until you know what you are talking about. BTW, you still skirted the discretion question, but maybe google isn't pulling up the information you need. Sucks when that happens eh? Then you have to just skirt a question. Heh, come back when you have some working knowledge of the law.
Thank You,
Evan
I didn't say you couldn't be convicted for the act. I said that by that definition, the act is not a crime -- that doesnt mean people don't get convicted. I'm starting to wonder if you can read. By the mens lea and actus reus (not rea) definition of a crime, gross negligence resulting in the death of another is not a 'crime'. That doesn't mean that people don't get convicted for manslaughter, and I never said otherwise.
Ok. Mens rea and actus reus are used to determine liability in the event of a crime taking place. What that has to do with what we're talking about here, I don't know. Mens rea is 'bad mind' in latin. It's used to infer that the person was of a mental state where they committed a crime willingly, whether or not they had a motive. Actus reus is the 'bad act', or the actual crime. One without the other != crime.
Your whole 'HA HA!' attitude while pointing out some sort of imagined fallacy in my 'argument' just goes to show how much of a troll you are. You're no longer worthy of my attention. You bring up things that have absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about earlier (and furthermore spell them incorrectly), and then think that because you have bad reading comprehension skills, that somehow makes my point of view less valid than yours. You totally ignored everything else that I said.
As far as me 'skirting' the discretion question, maybe you should read further up in the thread, instead of nitpicking. Or maybe you can stop 'skirting' away from the topic at hand. If you want to argue about mens lea and actus reus and discretion, start a new thread. Otherwise, kindly stfu. Your signal to noise ratio is off the charts.
Umm... it is mens rea and actus rea or reus.
Link
Link 2
I can post more if you want...
Originally posted by: dfi
Everyone involved is an idiot.
Daughter is an idiot of sneaking out.
Dad is an idiot for waiting around with a toy in his hand.
You are an idiot for wanting to sue.
I'm an idiot for even replying to this post.
dfi