wdefromtx

When was initial contact made? Looks to me when he turned towards the podium and the although he was pacing him it was not until he turned to the podium that he grabbed and stopped him and started moving him backwards.

He can prove it. The fact we have multiple people on here the see it as him stopping him from going to the podium and also like you think he was just trying to run a grab him says it’s not as cut and dry as you want it to be.

So it’s assault if you act defensively?

That’s what I thought, you are basing your whole view of this from a political perspective. You state you don’t know his views but in the very next sentence call him a MAGA. Bottom line the kid was acting like an idiot and whether or not he was a real threat he he came across as a potential one and got removed by a congressman who is also a reserve peace officer.

Dibda did and said you were incorrect thinking it was. Yes the open spot was to be up at the podium. He already had an open spot back with everyone else.

You whole argument is predicated on you thinking he did this in bad faith. Why? Because he doesn’t share the same views as you? He was perfectly within his rights to do what he did and acted on his training as a peace officer. If what he did is so bad I guess we will see him end up in court and lose right?

He was running around the backside and tried to turn to head up to the podium. Higgins came around when he took off running and it wasn’t until he turned towards the podium that he blocked him and pushed him back. Nevermind the fact the only people that close to the podium were other congressmen and people associated. Other onlookers kept a proper distance. And yes it was stated in this thread that this is not criminal assault. Maybe he has a claim for civil battery, but that’s a stretch. Had he just kept his distance even if he was being annoying none of this would have happened and if it did Higgins would have been in the wrong.

The whataboutism is getting strong in here!🤣

In the absence of police being there to remove him when he was running up to the podium…..yes I do. You already indicated you would be fine if it was the police that did it so I don’t see your issue with it. The kid was the problem in this instance.

Yeah which points back to the kid being a snowflake and feeling offended and his dignity challenged. Which comes full circle with this thread.

Because you would be willing to let someone charge your wife or mom and find out…we know that. My guess is if he was wearing a trump shirt and not a Bernie shirt you’d want to make sure you were in the way of him. Not that you’d admit that……

Based on all this…the battery bar is set pretty low.

So you are saying that the kid made an attempt at unwanted touching at Boebert? That’s what we’ve been saying why Higgins stepped in.

On the kid? We’ve established it’s not assault by Higgins in this thread.

Lol…ok.

I prefer Voodoo Ranger or Yuengling anyways….I’m not losing any sleep over whoever Budlight promotes.

The argument though is you said it’s assault. Was he assaulted or not?

Because you are only believing what you want to believe based on your political beliefs. You ignore the facts match up with what he said. None of us were there and you are watching a video after the fact going in already concluding it’s Higgins fault. I’m sorta shocked that you are still going to such great length to justify this kids actions and claim him to be the victim. Then again it doesn’t surprise me. We’ve concluded it is not assault, maybe battery from what Dibda said but I’ve posted that these circumstances make that a stretch and I’d doubt a jury would convict him of battery. I heard a bunch of snowflakes in the videos though. As far as if he would have shot him….if you would have actually read what I said previously, I said if he would have hit him he would have stepped over the line. With that being said if he was a trump supporter you’d be saying he was the one that caused all this.

Yes, if she was being removed for being a dumbass towards a congressman or anyone else for that matter. That is a totally totally different situation than someone running up that you do not know what they will do. So I ask that question again or you just going to evade?

Yes it was and yes I did. The moment he started to run to the podium....he became a possible threat. So if he was mouthing off at your wife or mom and then tried to run up like that you would not try to stop them?

So you think he should have let him keep running and reach the podium and then just let it play out?

Pot meet kettle by trying to make this kid out to be the victim of assault.

Yes, when the kid was trying to go around everyone and run up to the podium. He acted defensively not knowing what the kid was going to do. That is when he became a threat or at a minimum a perceived threat in the moment. https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/threat-intimidation-guide-english-022322.pdf/view#:~:text=If someone communicates any statement,legal system%2C that's a threat. If someone communicates any statement or indication of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action in an illegal manner, to include in a manner that manipulates the US legal system, that's a threat.

I will have to look him up....... BTW, I first read this as Led Zeppelin. LOL

I understand the jury instructions on this, obviously not as well as you being a lawyer....and I also that know that this can be very subjective. Things like this are hard to prove one way or another because we do not know what the people involved were actually thinking at the moment. We do not know what the kid was thinking when he started to try to run around and get right up to the speaker at the podium. We do not know what Higgins was thinking when he made contact with him and pushed him away. He has made a statement and we can only go off what he says. So far his story adds up to what we see on video. I pulled the instructions and posted the other link because I am not blindly saying it is not assault, while others are just trying to say it is assault with no real reasoning other than politics. As far as battery, I argue that even battery would be a stretch. From the same instructions with my notes: 20:5 ELEMENTS OF LIABILITY For the plaintiff, (name), to recover from the defendant, (name), on (his) (her) claim of battery, you must find that all of the following have been proved by a preponderance of the evidence: 1. The defendant’s act resulted in physical contact with the plaintiff (This would be met, he did make contact); and 2. The defendant intended to make harmful or offensive physical contact with the plaintiff (or another person) (or knew that [he] [she] would probably make such contact); and (3. The contact was [harmful] [or] [offensive].) (Both harmful or offensive would be hard to prove, we can only go off of what he says and how the contact looked in the video. In my opinion there was no intent to harm......if he was trying to do harm he could have easily. Also, offensive can go different ways.....is the person being contacted just offended because they do not want to be touched or like how he did it or was the contact an offensive move meaning Higgins went of the offensive? Or was Higgins actions on the defensive? ) If you find that any one or more of these (number) statements has not been proved, then your verdict must be for the defendant. On the other hand, if you find that all of these (number) statements have been proved, (then your verdict must be for the plaintiff) (then you must consider the defendant’s affirmative defense(s) of [insert any affirmative defense that would be a complete defense to plaintiff’s claim]). If you find that (this affirmative defense has) (any one or more of these affirmative defenses have) been proved by a preponderance of the evidence, then your verdict must be for the defendant. This to me says that even if he meant to cause harm or offensive as long as it was in defense it still is not battery? Again, that goes back to his words and actions and what a jury thinks right? However, if you find that (this affirmative defense has not) (none of these affirmative defenses have) been proved, then your verdict must be for the plaintiff.