Physical altercation between liberal and conservative Wis. judges

[KingMerv00]

Unless there is an allegation of a conspiracy.

In which case, you have to provide evidence of a conspiracy. Saying "they are members of the tea party", is not evidence.

 

[leftysergeant]

In which case, you have to provide evidence of a conspiracy. Saying "they are members of the tea party", is not evidence.

They were in her office. She wanted them out.

There is less evidence that she attacked the whiney old creep than that he might have attacked her.

Why were they in her office?

There is mention in the article of an altercation regarding a recent decision. Trying to intimidate her?

Then, there is Prosser's paranoid rant about the Chief Justice.

He smells more than a little paranoid delusional to me.

 

[KingMerv00]

They were in her office. She wanted them out.

It seems they both agree on this so I will accept that as proven.

There is less evidence that she attacked the whiney old creep than that he might have attacked her.

As of right now it is "he said she said". Further, everything I've heard (on both sides) is hearsay and largely inadmissible hearsay at that.

Why were they in her office? There is mention in the article of an altercation regarding a recent decision. Trying to intimidate her?

Maybe he was mad. Maybe he needed a pen. Maybe he did it. Maybe she did it. I don't know and neither do you. Until we get further evidence, all we have is your bias. That shouldn't hold up in criminal court or the court of public opinion.

 

[leftysergeant]

In which case, you have to provide evidence of a conspiracy. Saying "they are members of the tea party", is not evidence.

There's also the threat to "destroy" Abrahamson.

 

[KingMerv00]

There's also the threat to "destroy" Abrahamson.

That's certainly an improvement. It's still hearsay but probably admissible.

Some light Googling tells me the quote was made on Feb. 10th. Do you think he's been planning this "conspiracy" since then? Sorry, it still isn't enough; a four month old threat isn't automatic proof of a battery. Whoever is a fault here, it seems to be a crime of passion, not careful planning.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Some light Googling tells me the quote was made on Feb. 10th. Do you think he's been planning this "conspiracy" since then?

In before lefty says that's more likely than any other explanation yet.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I can't see how someone can accidentally place someone in a choke hold. Maybe it's my training.

 

[KingMerv00]

I can't see how someone can accidentally place someone in a choke hold. Maybe it's my training.

He's denying that there was a choke hold.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

I can't see how someone can accidentally place someone in a choke hold. Maybe it's my training.

Well, she says he put her in a choke hold; he says he made conctact with her neck in a defensive move.

 

[KingMerv00]

Well, she says he put her in a choke hold; he says he made conctact with her neck in a defensive move.

He probably shouldn't have said that out loud. If he tries that in court, self-defense is usually an affirmative defense which means the burden of proof shifts to him. He has to prove that he had a reasonable fear of injury.

 

[Ziggurat]

Well, she says he put her in a choke hold

She may not actually know what a choke hold is. She might think that hands grasping the neck constitute a choke hold, though of course it doesn't.

 

[Ziggurat]

Unless there is an allegation of a conspiracy.

You're the only one making the allegation, lefty.

Kind of a pattern, really.

 

[BenBurch]

...

If I had the money and no regard for my driver's licence I'd suggest we destroy our livers making a lap of Wisconsin, Taiwan, and Korea, with the hope that kimchee could make it all better.

If not, there is a "girl bar" in Seoul where they can make things all better for a modest price...

 

[BenBurch]

I thought Wisconsin itself was primarily cheese. Wasn't there a documentary about an Englishman's visit to the state?
[qimg]http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01746/Moon2_1434681c_1746903c.jpg[/qimg]

Wensleydale?

 

[leftysergeant]

He has to prove that he had a reasonable fear of injury.

There were apparently three people in the office.

Not good for Prosser.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

...unless he's telling the truth.

 

[Leif Roar]

His side says that "she charged him with fists raised" and he "put his hands in a defensive posture" to block her, and made contact with her neck.

That sounds a little off to me. What sort of "defensive posture" makes contact with an assailant's neck?

 

[leftysergeant]

...unless he's telling the truth.

Given what we know of his mental status, not likely.

 

[leftysergeant]

That sounds a little off to me. What sort of "defensive posture" makes contact with an assailant's neck?

We might also ask, what was he doing still in the office of someone whom he had so pissed off? It just seems to me that the longer one stays in the defensible territory of an opponent, the less valid any claim of "self-defense" becomes.

 

[BenBurch]

...unless he's telling the truth.

What is your wager?