“This is what tolerance looks like at UC Berkeley”

The Big Dog said:
and they were mortared in place like the ancients of old, a bulwark against the rising tide of legal marchers.

How utterly ridiculous.

Those guys in the Stationary Human Wall of Impressiveness must have world champion "I'm not touching you" players in their youth:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgXDYiHhp5Y
Click to expand...

Yes. Of course. That's why it's used as a protest technique. It creates a sort of standoff where if you push through them, as the marchers did, you have committed textbook battery. The marchers did so, and committed battery by walking up to the stationary human wall and pushing through it.

When you have a moment, please cite what part of that superficial legal analysis you provided upthread supports your views on telekinetic battery, or whatever you call it. You know, where someone walks up to you, shoves you out of the way, and you are guilty of battery. Dying to hear this.
 
MostlyDead said:
Yes. Of course. That's why it's used as a protest technique. It creates a sort of standoff where if you push through them, as the marchers did, you have committed textbook battery. The marchers did so, and committed battery by walking up to the stationary human wall and pushing through it.

When you have a moment, please cite what part of that superficial legal analysis you provided upthread supports your views on telekinetic battery, or whatever you call it. You know, where someone walks up to you, shoves you out of the way, and you are guilty of battery. Dying to hear this.
Click to expand...

HA! I chuckled again!

telekinetic battery otherwise known as simple assault?

http://www.assaultandbattery.org/california/

You are a dream correspondent!

Thanks
 
The Big Dog said:
HA! I chuckled again!

telekinetic battery otherwise known as simple assault?

http://www.assaultandbattery.org/california/

You are a dream correspondent!

Thanks
Click to expand...

Again with the link which continues to support my position on battery. From your new link:

It is defined as any willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon another person.
Click to expand...

Can you PLEASE cite specifically where any of the links about battery you provide even remotely support your view?

Are you trying to move the goalposts again to now claim you meant 'assault' all along? I agree that the protestors might be guilty of that. But the marchers were unequivocally guilty of battery, when they walked up and shoved their way through the wall.

Don't you read these things before posting?
 
MostlyDead said:
Again with the link which continues to support my position on battery. From your new link:



Can you PLEASE cite specifically where any of the links about battery you provide even remotely support your view?

Are you trying to move the goalposts again to now claim you meant 'assault' all along? I agree that the protestors might be guilty of that. But the marchers were unequivocally guilty of battery, when they walked up and shoved their way through the wall.

Don't you read these things before posting?
Click to expand...

Actually i was just nuking from orbit your attempt to be clever by saying "telekinetic battery" which it turns out is a little something called assault.

Now, what we were talking about is the black bloc scum intentionally putting themselves in harms way and then claiming that they were just acting in self defense when people approached their "wall."

Even the slightest little bit of movement on the part of people trying to block free passage of the permitted marchers?

That there is your battery.

As previously pointed out, even the tiniest bit of touching results in a battery.

So the black bloc take legit beating and then get their asses thrown in jail. That there is what we call a "win win."
 
MostlyDead said:
Thank you for that- I use a proxy to Google so that my results are not filtered or bubbled, apparently something wrong because I got only 4 hits. Much appreciated
Click to expand...

You're welcome.

I didn't go through everything but I went through enough of it to come to the conclusion that this guy is a serious activist, not some random knucklehead and is probably every bit as "misguided" as your average neo-nazi.
 
The Big Dog said:
Actually i was just nuking from orbit your attempt to be clever by saying "telekinetic battery" which it turns out is a little something called assault.
Click to expand...

And you took the bait. Battery requires that you willingly use force against another person. There is no reporting in any link cited ITT that the wall protesters made any moves whatsoever. There is reporting that the marchers walked up and shoved through them. Assault by the protestors is debatable; battery is not unless you have an ace up your sleeve.

Now, what we were talking about is the black bloc scum intentionally putting themselves in harms way and then claiming that they were just acting in self defense when people approached their "wall."

Even the slightest little bit of movement on the part of people trying to block free passage of the permitted marchers?

That there is your battery.
Click to expand...

Think that through. By that logic: If person A walks up and punches belligerent but stationary person B, your claim is that person B commits a preemptive battery if he moves at all? This is beyond ridiculous.

As previously pointed out, even the tiniest bit of touching results in a battery.
Click to expand...

Again, the protestors are not reported to have done even the tiniest bit of touching, only the marchers did. Think it through- anyone being battered is going to be touched by the batterer, and it is insane to suggest that someone cannot move at all prior to being battered. Your argument is beyond any reason.

So the black bloc take legit beating and then get their asses thrown in jail. That there is what we call a "win win."
Click to expand...

I'll keep that in mind when visiting Cali. If someone stands in front of me looking belligerent, I can walk up and punch them, claiming that they made a tiny move and then their face touched my fist and therefore they battered me, according to The Big Dog.


ETA: the tinist bit of movement, btw, does not constitute battery. Battery has been clearly defined for you as the willing use of force or violence against another person. 'Tiny movements' to not fit this plain english Cali Penal Code requirement.
 
Last edited:
Stout said:
You're welcome.

I didn't go through everything but I went through enough of it to come to the conclusion that this guy is a serious activist, not some random knucklehead and is probably every bit as "misguided" as your average neo-nazi.
Click to expand...

Agreed, he appears to be sincere in making a political statement. I think the Berkeley guys were more intent on burning/smashing than political commentary (the riots continued for hours after their success in cancelling the Milo speech), and that they were organized and efficient in execution. Kind of amazing that none were arrested on site during Berkeley.
 
MostlyDead said:
Think that through. By that logic: If person A walks up and punches belligerent but stationary person B, your claim is that person B commits a preemptive battery if he moves at all? This is beyond ridiculous.
Click to expand...

First, I want to compliment you on your random bolding.

Second, this analogy is ridiculous, as I am sure you know.

You just claimed he was stationary, which is absurd.

If you intentionally and belligerently block someone's way, and when they try to get around you move and create contact with them? that is a battery.

hell, I'll go a step further and note that using one's body to create a physical barrier actually creates consent to a touching.

Which is why the wall was in jail licking their wounds.
 
The Big Dog said:
First, I want to compliment you on your random bolding.

Second, this analogy is ridiculous, as I am sure you know.

You just claimed he was stationary, which is absurd.

If you intentionally and belligerently block someone's way, and when they try to get around you move and create contact with them? that is a battery.
Click to expand...

It is not, but please cite any reporting that this happened. You are trying to add details to make the absurd argument plausible. Reporting thus far is that the marchers approached and shoved through the protesters. Cite specifically where your Alternative Facts TM are reported.

hell, I'll go a step further and note that using one's body to create a physical barrier actually creates consent to a touching.
Click to expand...

'Willingly using force or violence upon the person of another' is the requirement for battery.

Which is why the wall was in jail licking their wounds.
Click to expand...

Seriously dude? The arrested protestors were from the separate and heavily videoed pepper spray confrontation. No human wall members were reported as arrested.
 
MostlyDead said:
It is not, but please cite any reporting that this happened. You are trying to add details to make the absurd argument plausible. Reporting thus far is that the marchers approached and shoved through the protesters. Cite specifically where your Alternative Facts TM are reported.
Click to expand...

Your argument rests on a supposition that the black bloc were standing immobile like inanimate statues, which is nonsensical.

Plus, you ever actually get near a black bloc member? Their odor alone is an assault and battery.
 
The Big Dog said:
Your argument rests on a supposition that the black bloc were standing immobile like inanimate statues, which is nonsensical.
Plus, you ever actually get near a black bloc member? Their odor alone is an assault and battery.
Click to expand...

They could be break-dancing for all it matters. It does not matter if there were tiny moves, or if there was incidental or unintentional contact. That is not willingly using force or violence against another person.
 
MostlyDead said:
They could be break-dancing for all it matters. It does not matter if there were tiny moves, or if there was incidental or unintentional contact. That is not willingly using force or violence against another person.
Click to expand...

Of course it is.... are you serious?

their intent was to physically stop the legal protest.
 
The Big Dog said:
Of course it is.... are you serious?

their intent was to physically stop the legal protest.
Click to expand...

Yes it was. That is called a protest. It does not fit the requirements for your claim of battery, as I repeatedly ask you to support. 'Willingly' and using 'force or violence' being the sticky parts.

ETA: And it was to stop the march, not the protest.
 
MostlyDead said:
Yes it was. That is called a protest. It does not fit the requirements for your claim of battery, as I repeatedly ask you to support. 'Willingly' and using 'force or violence' being the sticky parts.
Click to expand...

What an odd comment.... you just quoted my post saying they wanted to "physically" stop the march, and ask me where the "willingly" and "force" part comes into play?

What do you think "physically stop" something means?

What an odd series of posts this has been.
 
The Big Dog said:
What an odd comment.... you just quoted my post saying they wanted to "physically" stop the march, and ask me where the "willingly" and "force" part comes into play?

What do you think "physically stop" something means?

What an odd series of posts this has been.
Click to expand...

Amen, brother.

I can physically stop traffic by standing in the middle of the street. While I may be guilty of one crime or another, battery is not one of them.

Sheesh.
 
.


I visited the Berkeley campus today and things are now quiet and I hope it stays that way despite the fact that Trump is proving with each passing day that he is unfit to be president.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom