Newt Gingrich, who's been on the receiving end of this supposedly "fun" protest, says: "Glitter bombing is clearly an assault and should be treated as such... When someone reaches into a bag and throws something on you, how do you know if it is acid or something that stains permanently or something that can blind you? People have every right to their beliefs but no right to assault others.”
The NYT tries to get a legal opinion by asking First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams:
"I don’t think you’d get much disagreement that like so much else in the law, it’s all a matter of degree... Touching someone’s body can be criminal. But it’s awfully unlikely that there would be a prosecution if it’s just a bit of glitter. But in theory, the more that’s dropped, the more likely is prosecution."That's a pragmatic assessment from the point of view of police and prosecutors, not an opinion about whether it is a crime. Did Abrams address the point of view of the recipient of the attack (as Gingrich did, above)? If someone rushes at you and makes gestures of attack, but it turns out to be only glitter, you still have the fear, and you (or your bodyguards) don't know what is about to happen. Then maybe it's funny to laugh at the person who felt the fear or overreacted. And there they are covered in glitter. Ha ha.
This is like the childhood game of taking a swat at someone, without hitting him, and then hooting "You flinched!" In that childhood game — is it still played? — if the person flinched, you then have the right to punch him in the arm. Hard. But imagine adults playing with each other that way. Or would life work better? Justice Bradley charges right up to Justice Prosser, gets in his face, with fists flying but not touching him, and he flinches/touches. Well, then Justice Bradley immediately has the right to punch Prosser — hard — in the arm. And that's the end of it. Instead... oh, lord!... the troubles we have in Wisconsin!
(And here's that thread from last month where we talked about pie-throwing and where, in the comments, there was some extensive discussion of glittering.)
পোস্টগুলি
১৪৬টি মন্তব্য:
Throwing glitter at someone? Way to fight the stereotypes, Diane!
I once had a student in my drawing class whose grandfather invented glitter.
I like to throw plain old water in someone's face, then yell ACID!
It's all fun and games until someone puts out an eye.
How about throwing glitter in someone's face, and then yelling AIDS! How cool would that be?
The politicians need to learn how not to react badly since every angle at all times are being digitally recorded.
Politics today is images and soundbites shown on TV warfare.
Or what the heck, take the asshole down and smash his/her face into the ground and then kindly help them stop their nose bleeding.
On, Wisconsin. Or, Off Wisconsin.
Is "glittering" intended to create fear in the one so "glittered," and, if so, would a reasonable "glitteree" feel fear? If so, it seems actionable if not criminal.
And when, rushed at by an unknown person, the intended target pulls out a handgun, who will be charged?
I prefer to spit in someones face. Harmless and quite colorful.
(that is sarcasm....mocking the homosexual's comments).
I wonder what sort of trouble I'd get in if I charged the stage at an Obama rally and hurled glitter in his face.
I'd imagine I'd do some prison time, if I survived it. The Secret Service would probably shoot me just as I was releasing the glitter.
That's eventually going to happen to one of these nitwits, by the way -- they'll pull this shit on someone with a big enough reputation to have received actual death threats -- someone like Gingrich, or Perry, who would have an armed security detail. Quick double-tap to center mass and they'll become an instant martyr.
That's why there's a pie shop cooling off period.
See also Same-Person Marriage while we're on recent Althouse-relevant bizarro comics.
traditional guy, good idea. Since the protestor is filming it to show off, the Republican should over react. Act as though he/she is truely injured.
I think Michelle Bachmann's response to being glittered should have been to stride right through it, arms waving like a pageant queen. Message: They love her! They love her!
I think that would have been the end of glitter protests right there.
I say NO to glitter bombs.
It's stupid.
Tits and Clouds.
As long as people are getting arrested for filming cops in public and someone can get two counts of manslaughter for killing a pregnant woman, none of our laws really make any sense do they?
I can't believe the Times didn't get a comment from Rip Taylor.
Who's to say that these glitter-bombings aren't probing dry runs for an assassination attempt?
Or a softening of defenses in preparation for one? If they launch enough of these, eventually they'll condition security to take someone rushing the stage less seriously, and security will be less likely to use lethal force to prevent someone rushing the stage from reaching the vip.
Maybe anyone who does this should be charged as a co-conspirator should there ever be an assassination on a public figure by someone rushing the stage.
Don't pull this stunt on Carrie or, for that matter, anyone with telekinetic powers.
"How about throwing glitter in someone's face, and then yelling AIDS!"
Or just baby powder and yell "Anthrax!"
Or just baby powder and yell "Anthrax!"
In a public setting, as these almost always are, that would seem to activate the "movie" in a crowded firehouse thingy. There is such a thingy, right?
Just throw a vicious punch the moment you see them. Who could blame anybody for that?
When Ann Coulter was attacked by those pie throwers on that college campus in Arizona, I wrote an email to Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik--the same guy involved in the Loughner case--pointing out that chemicals and contaminants (lye and semen from HIV-infected men) had been showing up in the pies thrown at conservative ministers of Parliament in the UK (providing links), and suggesting that he test those pies thrown at Coulter.
He wrote back a few days later saying that it was just college kids and pie. They told him they baked it themselves (exact words).
Now why wouldn't they tell him if they added anything? I'm sure they would turn a simple misdemeanor into a major felony (like attempted murder) if they had added anything.
Glitter thrown in someone's face can cause eye damage. It should be treated as felony assault once this is known.
I would like to see the victim of one of these attacks just kick the hell out of the attacker. Then claim self-defense stating they were sure it was some kind of radioactive material.
"
Or just baby powder and yell "Anthrax!"
I was just sitting here reading and the same thought popped in my head, only I was thinking of also popping an Alka Seltzer in my mouth before hand and let the foam come out of my mouth, make gurgling sounds while throwing the Baby powder and yelling Anthrax.
Hey! it aint hurting no one
Another question - what happens when someone's reflexes are quick enough to flatten (or shoot or stab) our gay prankster before the glitter flies?
O! How the lawsuits and screams of, "I've been gay bashed", will flow!
It is assault and the target of the assault should be allowed to protect himself/herself.
That protection means beating the crap out of the person performing the assault, knocking them to the ground, stepping on their shoulder or head or even shooting them before they can reach you (my personal favorite).
You have no idea what sort of mayhem they are about to commit. It could be acid. It could be something dangerous and life threatening. That it turns out to be glitter is immaterial.
If you don't want to be treated like a deranged criminal committing assault, then don't act that way.
The correct response to having someone throw an unknown substance at you is taking them to the ground and beating them bloody.
Afterwards, you can get together and laugh at the fact that it was only glitter after all.
that would seem to activate the "movie" in a crowded firehouse thingy.
That's akin to yelling "doughnut" in a crowded police station or "tort" in a lawyer's meeting.
It seems glitter could potentially cause serious harm to the eyes, and maybe ears, sinuses, and lungs. On the other hand, "wonderfully fabulous" sounds really gay.
If someone rushes at you and makes gestures of attack, but it turns out to be only glitter, you still have the fear, and you (or your bodyguards) don't know what is about to happen. Then maybe it's funny to laugh at the person who felt the fear or overreacted. And there they are covered in glitter. Ha ha.
And, I get a good chuckle at their broken jaw.
Afterwards, you can get together and laugh at the fact that it was only glitter after all.
Classic.
All this time we were keeping Diane Anderson-Minchall from getting married because she's gay, we should have been keeping her from getting married because she's not an adult.
If only Justice Bradley had used glitter.
Okay, let us be serious for a moment. In Indiana it would be battery at the lowest level and arguably criminal mischief. Battery: knowingly touching another person in a rude, insolent or angry manner.
The touching can be indirect, such as by throwing something at someone.
Criminal mischief: knowingly damages or defaces property of another person without consent.
If a person was "glittered" by a person not a personal friend I would expect the glitter tosser to get charged with one or both of these crimes.
Personally, I don't see anything even slightly "fabulous" about the idea.
If someone rushes at you and makes gestures of attack, but it turns out to be only glitter, you still have the fear, and you (or your bodyguards) don't know what is about to happen.
For someone who doesn't think waterboarding is torture, you sure are concerned about whether people are fearful or don't know what is going to happen.
Boy, that was lame, even for a dunderhead like you, Freder.
If it were 2 metric tons of glitter, someone would get really, really hurt.
Didn't the democrats freak out that they were getting tea bags in the mail?
Like it was potentially biological warfare?
Why is that not considered hysterical weakness, while it's OK to throw glitter at someone? I'm sure glitter in your eyes is very unpleasant, too.
And filthy hippies from Madison have such poor hygiene. You don't want anything they touch to come into contact with you. You have a right to not be touched by stinky weirdos.
The second someone throws glitter in Michelle Obama's face the NYT will completely change their mind. They will even use the 'terrorism' description.
It's so interesting watching the left fall further into hackery.
Yeah. But if Newt thinks "arrests will be made," he's a lunatic! What he did when he held the GOP Sneaker's Office was a REAL ASSAULT ON AMERICA!
As to arresting someone who is looking to be arrested for publicity's sake ... I can just imagine this woman's "DAY IN COURT!"
And, the jury's reactions.
Because you're gonna get two sides pitted against each other.
And, the JURORS are the FINDERS OF FACT!
Make a case! Go ahead! Let's bring on the evidence, while you're at it!
Will the evidence be spread out on oak tag? The way "projects" used to get done in elementary school?
Will the defense attorney "accidentally" sneeze on the evidence ... while the jurors laugh? Forcing the judge to "bang the gavel?"
SOLD!
If you were in an auction house ... And, you heard the gavel coming down ... You'd know someone "won" the chance to go home with the prize.
Wow. Newt Gingrich is afraid, now, of "glitter." Next, he won't stand on the GOP stage ... as the balloons and confetti rain down.
Oh. That's not so, is it?
Well, maybe, he won't be invited to be up on the stage?
On the other hand, nobody ahead will do a convention quite like the democrapic convention in Chicago, back in 1968.
(Oh, and the one before that one? In Chicago. 1860. But that one was for the republicans.)
You know, Newt would do anything for a headline.
He's probably pissed, though, that Ann's running with it. And, not CNN! (Can David Letterman do the top ten things wrong with Newt's current complaint?)
Can't we just laugh?
Answer the question as posed, Freder. Is glitter assault? Not knowing what's going on in the moment it happens, should the target be able to defend themselves?
What about mock executions with an unloaded gun? That's not against the law either right?
Wouldn't it be funny if one of these glitter throwers got their teeth knocked out in response? :)))))
Freder makes no distinction between normal everyday people and terrorists captured on the battlefield. There is no difference in his mind. All innocent babies.
I would treasure the post-glitter beer shared between me and the activist, assuming he don't mind drinking his Guiness through a straw. Good times!
Answer the question as posed, Freder. Is glitter assault? Not knowing what's going on in the moment it happens, should the target be able to defend themselves?
Using the standards established by Althouse and many of the commenters here, absolutely not. With waterboarding, the victim thinks he is going to drown. If that is an acceptable interrogation technique then the standard for assault should be actual risk of harm, not the perception of the victim.
Once again Freder equates terrorists with the rest of us.
Hey Freder - if you don't want to be waterboarded don't plan massive terrorist attacks.
What if one of these nitwits attacks Rick Perry, who has been known to carry concealed weapons on his person, and provokes a shooting?
More Machiavellian yet, what if a political operative, hoping for such a reaction, carries out such an attack with the express purpose of derailing Perry's run at the Presidency?
Bullshit answer, Freder, but congrats for Gregory Heinz-level tap dancing.
The question as posed is can't it be considered assault as defined by assault and battery laws. Try again.
Freder makes no distinction between normal everyday people and terrorists captured on the battlefield.
Show me where there is any U.S. law or treaty we are party to that allows us to assault anyone, whether or not they may be suspected of terrorism.
Freder - first has to admit that they are terrorists.
"Bullshit answer, Freder"
That is axiomatic.
The question as posed is can't it be considered assault as defined by assault and battery laws.
So are you conceding that waterboarding constitutes assault and battery? If so, show where the government is entitled to commit assault and battery against anyone.
Freder won't stop until all terrorists are exonerated.
FYI-don't bunch all gays together.
Not all gays are into the "glitter movement".
Some gays just go about their life and don't do anything in a gay organization or club.
I hate any kind of clubs.
I am very antisocial.
first has to admit that they are terrorists.
Where was that?
What if one of these nitwits attacks Rick Perry, who has been known to carry concealed weapons on his person, and provokes a shooting?
Given the glitter attacks I've seen and how quickly and closely they occur, I doubt very seriously any such attack could provoke a shooting by a concealed carrier. It's too close, it's too quick.
Now...if some braindead idiot knows the 20' rule of thumb and wants to try and provoke a shooting (ie, wants to die), they would run at the target from 30 feet or so with a hand tucked into a jacket or coat.
In all likelihood, the target's security would react before he/she did. The target wouldn't be thinking in terms of security as they gladhand or give a speech. The security detail, on the other hand, would be thinking of nothing but.
Surely the EPA needs to step in and zealously prosecute these would-be destroyers of our planet.
Typically, the only way to remove those metallic flakes from someone is to wash them off, which then contaminates and pollutes our water system.
So are you conceding that waterboarding constitutes assault and battery? If so, show where the government is entitled to commit assault and battery against anyone.
I never wrote a word about waterboarding. Quit trying to change the subject and answer the question.
Can a glitter attack be charged as assault?
I see that Freder is still a moron. Glad he abandoned commenting at Volokh.
"So are you conceding that waterboarding constitutes assault and battery? If so, show where the government is entitled to commit assault and battery against anyone."
What? You thought it was controversial to call waterboarding a battery?
Of course it's battery. This is no insight.
Is the government entitled to apply unwanted force? Of course sometimes it is. If they arrest you, for example, they are applying force and even kidnapping. If they execute you, that's homicide.
You can't do an end run around that policy discussion by revealing that waterboarding is a battery.
As Al Gore said, of course it's illegal, that's why it should be covert.
I'd like to throw 10 cubic yards of glitter at Freder. Wet glitter. Oh, and some boards too.
"Show me where there is any U.S. law or treaty we are party to that allows us to assault anyone"
That's very easy to show you. Just look at the sentencing section of most penal codes and observe how the state is permitted by law to imprison you and even apply force.
But you are clearly evading the topic at hand. What this got to do with filthy progressives throwing objects into the faces of conservatives?
"Using the standards established by Althouse and many of the commenters here, absolutely not. With waterboarding, the victim thinks he is going to drown."
You're being dishonest to claim anyone here said waterboarding is not a battery.
What a pathetic attempt to avoid the truth.
What's with all the hacks lately?
Don't you realize Obama was praised for ordering the SEALs to shoot someone in the face? Are you saying that's not a battery?
I want to see a bodyguard body-slam the next person who tries to do this.
Or better yet, the intended victim rush the person and body-slam them themselves.
I think people who have glitter, or anything else, thrown at them should respond with a punch in the nose to the thrower. It's not peaceful but it only hurts some asshole who deserves it And it does get a really important point across in a fun way.
I'll bet that every single one of these throwers are pot smokers.
"... Show me where there is any U.S. law or treaty we are party to that allows us to assault anyone, whether or not they may be suspected of terrorism...."
Why are you still on about this? President Obama closed Gitmo and no innocent Islamic terrorists are being tortured.
Is the government entitled to apply unwanted force? Of course sometimes it is. If they arrest you, for example, they are applying force and even kidnapping. If they execute you, that's homicide
Both can and are distinguished from torturing someone in custody.
Try again.
Why are you still on about this? President Obama closed Gitmo and no innocent Islamic terrorists are being tortured.
Because Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld have yet to be charged with war crimes.
"Because Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld have yet to be charged with war crimes."
Nor has Obama, right?
And why would it be a war crime?
Obama has ordered missiles lobbed at people. Are you claiming that means it's not a battery to fire a missile at someone?
Your argument makes absolutely no sense and reeks of trying to change the subject.
Is throwing glitter on someone a battery? Of course it is. You know it.
Freder could turn a tax discussion with an accountant into an argument about "waterboarding".
He can't stop thinking about it. I think it kind of turns him on, the though of these big, muscular men restraining him and giving him a 'choking' feeling, so to speak...
Hey, I'm just throwing alphabetical glitter!
"... So are you conceding that waterboarding constitutes assault and battery? If so, show where the government is entitled to commit assault and battery against anyone...."
Is bombing Lybian military forces assault and battery? How about drone attacks on 'suspected' Taliban or terrorist camps?
I think its cute that you actually get worked up over the non-lethal methods used in fighting bad guys.
Maybe because there is no crime.
Except the treason committed by Freder and his pals in the hypocrite Left.
"... Because Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld have yet to be charged with war crimes...."
Oh I see. Just a suggestion, you might find a new hobby.
Oh and you do know Gitmo is still open. Should Obama be charged too?
Freder makes no distinction between normal everyday people and terrorists captured on the battlefield.
Freder's an expert in the use of fallacious reasoning.
Innocent young people attacking the authority symbols who will not behave the way the young want them to need to remember two words.
Kent State.
Starting violence is easier than controlling it.
For someone who doesn't think waterboarding is torture, you sure are concerned about whether people are fearful or don't know what is going to happen.
Okay, have it your way. We'll throw glitter on terrorists and see if they talk.
This is what I love about the left. They'll assert (with a staight face) that a terrorist whose intent is to kill as many innocent people as possible is exactly the same as someone with whom they disagree on policy.
Oy.
If so, show where the government is entitled to commit assault and battery against anyone...."
Stupidest, most stupid, mostest stupidst request ever.
This is what I love about the left. They'll assert (with a staight face) that a terrorist whose intent is to kill as many innocent people as possible is exactly the same as someone with whom they disagree on policy.
You, and all the others, have avoided and ignored the issue.
It's really very simple, whatever you might have in your hand. You get inside someone's security zone, directing your body motion directly at another person, usually arms length or a bit less, you are a threat, you intend to be a threat, and if you get knocked out as a result, you deserve it.
Can you imagine a Sunday afternoon with a bunch of friends over, drinking beer, watching football on the TV, then... looking out the window and seeing Freder walking up the steps.
Can you imagine a Sunday afternoon with a bunch of friends over, drinking beer, watching football on the TV, then... looking out the window and seeing Freder walking up the steps.
Break out the waterboard!
You, and all the others, have avoided and ignored the issue.
So did you. Answer the question. Can someone that walks up to a public figure (hell, anyone) and throws a bunch of glitter in their face be charged with assault under the law?
Freder, if they threw glitter on a suspected terrorist, would it be torture?
Freder, the "issue" here is whether or not tossing glitter on a stranger is a crime, and further whether or not it might provoke some violence from the target toward the glitter tosser. You want to change the subject to whether or not waterboarding is torture, is a crime, should be punished, etc.... At least once you suggested that if a person thought waterboarding by the government was okay then that person could not complain about "glittering" by a citizen. I want to suggest to you: that line of argument is, please excuse me, truly stupid. It strikes me as similar to the current lefty argument: "You can't be upset about obscene Democrat spending unless you were upset about obscene Republican spending."
Perhaps some things are BAD regardless of what someone thinks about something else? If I ever thought any act of violence was justified am I forbidden to disapprove of any other act of violence?
"You, and all the others, have avoided and ignored the issue."
What are you talking about? A lot of people responded seriously to your incredibly stupid argument.
They explained that you're wrong on two counts. One being that waterboarding is actually a battery anyway.
You're the one doing the stubborn ignoring of others' arguments.
Is throwing glitter in Michelle Obama's eyes a battery? I think it is, and those doing it should go to prison. You disagree, but are totally unable to explain why without sounding crazy.
"Can you imagine a Sunday afternoon with a bunch of friends over, drinking beer, watching football on the TV, then... looking out the window and seeing Freder walking up the steps."
Break out the glitter!!! and the Raid!!!!
You, and all the others, have avoided and ignored the issue.
8/29/11 11:54 AM
Says the one who introduced the topic of waterboarding into a thread about assaulting innocent people.
You're funny!
The right has no sense of humor. And, it's a drawback!
Newt has stood on stages that have been peppered with confetti. That he knew was up there!
But now? He's turning a publicity stunt ... into something he can rally "his" troops around him with?
Newt isn't your best candidate.
And, today ... as well as yesterday ... there are plenty Americans out there who remember the "ooze" you got from spray cans that shot "string." In NEON colors!
Oh, yeah. Anyone who gets close enough to Michelle, to throw anything at all at her ... is DOOMED.
Just in case you thought "going after Michelle" is as easy as attacking Ann at the Rotunda.
NOT. QUITE!
Would it still be assault if they threw the glitter in the air over the target like confetti? Seems to me it would be less threatening.
Unfortunately, the targets have to be careful of how they react, even by reflex. Look at how much mileage the left got out of the attact on Rand Paul - MoveOn lady with a wig on tried to jam a sign through the window of Rand Paul's car. Of course, the left made the meme that this poor innocent lady got stomped on by violent Tea Party thugs, that it was an over reaction. Google "Rand Paul attack" and see what the top results are. Here's one from Huffington Post: Rand Paul Supporter Stomps on MoveOn Member's Head
Someone needs to inventory this kind of stuff - I suspect that will be a continuing tactic of the left - do a threating move that will cause a reflexive action, before the victim has time to think about the reaction. Pretty much what happened to Prosser too, except his was complicated by the fact that it was a woman who initiated the move.
Come to think of it, we have 3 situations that involved women. They must be emulating the Taliban or something.
Let's throw some flakes on her every time she shows her smug little face in public. That would be a good test.
"The right has no sense of humor. And, it's a drawback!"
Sorry, but if you really fail to see any humor on the right these days, you are living in a bubble.
They just aren't in a humorous mood about physical attacks, given the atmosphere. We really are in a pre-civil war attitude as a country. It's not funny when people attack eachother. There's plenty of room for humor, but not here.
Anyone attacking a democrat or a republican in the slightest physical or threatening way is to be considered a complete asshole by all right-thinking people.
"I suspect that will be a continuing tactic of the left - do a threating move that will cause a reflexive action"
"The ones who wish to fight, well, we aim to please."
"I want to see a bodyguard body-slam the next person who tries to do this."
There was an incident involving Rand Paul where this more-or-less occurred. Caused a moderate amount of indignation on the left. Apparently security personnel are supposed to wait and ascertain the exact outcome of someone charging the person they are guarding. I'm pretty sure I live in a state with a "stand your ground" law. I intend to take full advantage of it whenever necessary.
its Freder--all tht needs to be said
BTW--where is jeremy? haven seen him/her lately
wv (how does it know?) procu ans--what a proctologist does
"There was an incident involving Rand Paul where this more-or-less occurred. Caused a moderate amount of indignation on the left. "
Good memory.
Apparently they want to be able to attack conservatives, and if there is any reaction that's the real thuggery.
I don't understand this. It's like they are acknowledging their moral inferiority. It's similar to Alinsky's rules. It's like they are admitting they are losers, and it's easy to see, long term, it won't work very well. Yet how brilliant they act like this all is.
Show me where there is any U.S. law or treaty we are party to that allows us to assault anyone...
Okay. Since you asked...
Court opinion legalizing infanticide out of the womb.
and
Executive order for the assassination of American citizen
You, and all the others, have avoided and ignored the issue.
As if we should attempt rational debate with someone who avoids logic and espouses idiocy.
Freder F: Let me put this into perspective for you. We do not give a shit about waterboarding. Waterboarding was an excellent way to torture, that is torture, people into revealing information we might be interested in. Or not. But we waterboarded because we could. And in all likelihood we continue to do so in foreign lands. waterboard that is. If you think it is such a crime against nature why don't you go throw glitter in GWB's face and put a citizen's arrest on him? OK? Waterboarding was, and is, torture. Plus it is fun to administer.
"... You, and all the others, have avoided and ignored the issue..."
Nonsense. If waterboarding suspected terrorists is a warcrime, what is an airstrike or drone attack on a suspected camp?
How is glittering supposed to persuade? And, for that matter, street puppetry, drum circles and sing-songs?
Q. What parts of your body are private?
A. All of it.
Yes, it is an assault.
There're places and times where running up at someone looking like you're going to attack them will get you shot.
People need to grow the hell up.
Their desire to "protest" does not legitimize any mode they choose.
(And what about when the glitter gets in someone's eye and scratches their cornea?)
(I second Palladian's comment.
I know a fair number of gay people.
Oddly, they aren't all about being "fabulous" at all times.
Professional Gay Advocates pushing stereotypes?
I thought stereotyping people based on their sexuality was wrong?
Guess that's only wrong when it's Someone Else doing it, not you doing it to the people on your personal Reservation...)
What is you are filming something, and you are glitterbombed, and your camera is damaged by the glitter? (Could this happen? I don't know).
If you have a $3000 camera, is it a felony?
I bet this person hyperventilating over waterboarding has absolutely no problem with Obama "getting" Osama bin Laden.
Much better to shoot someone on sight than pouring water on his face, right?
(For the record, I'm fine with shooting Osama, and I'm fine with harsh treatment of people who plan to kill Americans en masse.)
How is glittering supposed to persuade? And, for that matter, street puppetry, drum circles and sing-songs?
You forgot spinning and primal scream.
MadisonMan said...
What is you are filming something
You're starting to talk like me.
Freder:
Freder:
"Show me where there is any U.S. law or treaty we are party to that allows us to assault anyone, whether or not they may be suspected of terrorism."
Rule Three-Oh-Three, motherfucker.
Here in the Commonwealth of Virginia, a self-defense defense to a murder charge requires the actor to reasonably fear death or serious bodily injury. Whether the risk actually was present is not relevant; it's the actor's reasonable belief.
(Same standard applies to defending another person.)
Assume a bodyguard shoots and kills someone rushing towards a candidate with an unknown substance in his or her hand.
Interesting question whether knowledge by, for example, a bodyguard, that candidates are being attacked by thrown glitter (which does not run the risk of serious bodily injury) makes claiming self defense considerably more difficult in this case.
Jack
Freder, if they threw glitter on a suspected terrorist, would it be torture?
GLITTERBOARDING!!!!
"Paul Zrimsek said...
All this time we were keeping Diane Anderson-Minchall from getting married because she's gay, we should have been keeping her from getting married because she's not an adult."
She got married the old fashioned way...to a dude. Of course the dude used to be a woman. I'm guessing to save on batteries.
If I really wanted to atack someone with Anthrax then it seems like Glitter would be the perfect way to conceal it since everyone knows glitter is harmless
Oh, Advocate. Still stuck in the nineties, when masculine gays were too far in the closet to call bullshit on this stupid "wonderfully fabulous" hyper-feminine glitter-riddled shtick. Not anymore. The face of modern gayness is no longer glitter, Garland, cross dressing, feminine pronouns, and argyle sweaters. We've been normalized. We're here, we're mediocre, get used to it.
AND STOP THROWING FUCKING GLITTER AT PEOPLE! YOU PUSSIES!
All depends on if one removes the glitter from the box or not. Or if it's that new fluoric acid glitter people have been talking about.
Someone threw glitter on me I'd have hell-to-pay explaining the 'stripper-dust' to the Missus.
You brandish the glitter, I'll break out the pepper spray, deal?
Prosser's queer as a three dollar bill, as any punk who beats women is.
Tale of the tape--Prosser male, 5-9 180 vs Bradley female 5-3, 140.
He assaults a petite middle aged woman, and the joto Prosser walks--and then the voice of the TP, Miss AA lies for him.
That might actually have some relevance if it were posted in the right thread, but probably not even then.
Were you able to read you'd see AA refers to the Prosser case again, Squat-tard.
Yo! Maybe Mrs. Prosser should have glittered that mean 5-3 feminazi BRadley.
This is the kind of sociopathic behavior that's now rampant on the Left. They have dehumanized the opposition in every possible way, such that it doesn't even occur to them that these kinds of assaults are just sick. Whether it's pies or glitter, the message is clear: Fuck you. I won't even bother to talk or debate because I already know you're evil.
It's not as violent as say, stoving in someone's noggin with an axe-handle; but throwing glitter on someone is still boorish thuggery...
If anyone threw a handfull of J material into someone's face, they'd turn out ugly.
Yr the queer here Allen-joto-- Log Cabin-Larry Craig material--which is to say, Judge Prosser material
Got that perp?
J--
Why so obsessed about homo-love?
Oh, now I'm outraged, if I'm a perp, then you're a burp.
"Prosser's queer as a three dollar bill, as any punk who beats women is."
A whole lot of hidden meaning in this little rant, 'eh?
You hate gays, and have a weird test for gayness, and think it's OK to lie about people you think are gay.
My guess is that you're gay/self-hating and can't handle it without bashing folks. Radical lefties usually do have something really bizarre going on upstairs.
Prosser won, btw. He'll stay in office for another decade and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it. He has power. He'll be on the bench long after Bradley is off of it. She knows it, and that's why she got so violent and nasty.
He assaults a petite middle aged woman, and the joto Prosser walks--and then the voice of the TP, Miss AA lies for him.
What a fair & accurate recounting of the facts!
You are a clown.
Don't mess with him, Jay. He says he can bench four-hundred pounds.
Jason:
Rule 303 is the old English law. Here in the US we prosecute under rule 223. Under international law it's rule 556
Rule 303 is the old English law. Here in the US we prosecute under rule 223. Under international law it's rule 556
Is the difference the number of paces you have to take before you can turn and fire?
If throwing glitter in someone's face does not rise to the level of criminal assault, then is it also OK to throw sand in someone's face? Stret dirt? Can I fill a water pistol with lemon juice or Clorox or some other "harmless" household food or cleaning substance and shoot it at you?
My guess is that those who do this choose their victims very carefully. Because they know that if the victim responds with a strong sucker-punch, no jury is likely to convict the thrower of the sucker punch.
Because, really, we all know that the only time you have a right to throw something at a stranger is in self-defense.
"If anyone threw a handfull of J material into someone's face, they'd turn out ugly."
That reminds me of that scene in "Silence Of The Lambs" when "Multiple Migs" (the guy in the cell next to Lecter who hisses "I can smell your cunt!" at Agent Starling when she's walking in) throws some "material" in Starling's face when she's walking out of the cell block [link not safe for anyone].
Whenever I read J's... uh, writing, I think of Multiple Migs.
I'm just surprised that Newt didn't pull a laminated sheet out of his breast pocket ... and flash a "contract with America!")
Glitter will be harder to buy than bullets.
Palladian said...
Whenever I read J's... uh, writing, I think of Multiple Migs.
Yeah, but I think that J is incapable of ejaculation, which will benefit society if his genes are not passed on.
Yes, and as an infantry HHC commander, I also operated by Rule 81. And as a tank company platoon leader and XO, I operated by Rule 762, Rule 50, rule 105, and when we got the M1A1s, Rule 120. And like Rule 223 and 556, they were very effective. But they didn't have a Robert Shaw line from a movie adaptation of a play. So I opted for RULE THREE OH THREE!!!!1!!!11!!!!!
I was an 11BRAVO2P, and we didn't have any rules. Rules that were enforced anyway.
Glitter is like those guns that you point and shoot and a red flag pops out that says, "bang."
You need a sense of humor in life. But if you cannot see it that way, then wipe the floor with them.
At Common Law, glittering is by definition ASSAULT, i.e., both a crime and a tort, as Justice Bradley will find out when she is eventually charged with assault on fellow Justice Prosser:
"Generally, the essential elements of assault consist of an act intended to cause an apprehension of harmful or offensive contact that causes apprehension of such contact in the victim.
"The act required for an assault must be overt. Although words alone are insufficient, they might create an assault when coupled with some action that indicates the ability to carry out the threat. A mere threat to harm is not an assault; however, a threat combined with a RAISED FIST [emph. added] might be sufficient if it causes a reasonable apprehension of harm in the victim."
Wouldn't it be wonderful ... if someone on the right ... does a visual ... with Newt seen standing there ... And, then a magic wand passes over this picture. And, Newt disappears in a flash.
How come he hasn't gone off the stage, yet? Wasn't he enough of an embarrassment, already?
Give Boehner a chance.
If somebody threw metallic glitter in my face, especially at a public event, I would feel perfectly justified in first kicking their *** up one side of the street and down the other, and then I would press charges, and then sue the snot out of them. Nobody has the right to put my God-given eyesight in danger for a mere political disagreement.
Some things are just beyond the pale. Somebody has to take a stand, and any of us may be that somebody. If we don't, we will only embolden the barbarians at the gate.
(And if you must use tar and feathers, make sure it's the brushable at room temperature kind, and keep it away from the face. And make sure the rail doesn't have splinters.)
I guess the perfect scenario would be if one of these glitter bandits ran up to make their pathetic, useless little clown-like gesture, and somebody clothes-lined them right in the face with a cream pie.
Now that the Army is thinking of replacing the M-9 I hope we can go back to Rule 1911
The difference in flinch and throwing glitter at someone is that you play flinch with friends. If someone approached me asa stranger and tried to get me to flinch and I did, he wouldn't be entitled to punch me in the arm. Rather I would have punched him in his face as hard as I could.
Flinch, and Purple purple are fun games to play with buddies, but with strangers not so much.
Feeder wrote:
Using the standards established by Althouse and many of the commenters here, absolutely not. With waterboarding, the victim thinks he is going to drown. If that is an acceptable interrogation technique then the standard for assault should be actual risk of harm, not the perception of the victim.
are you aware of the distinction between someone you are trying to interrogate, and the guy or celebrity you throw a pie at? Even if you simply use the army field manual and forgo any enhanced interogations, there is still some degree of coercion and subterfuge and discomfort that an interrogator will put a detainee through, that you would not if you were to meet that same person in polite company.
Are pie throwers throwing those pies to get life saving info? If so, and if you could show that throwing those pies would save lives, then more power to pie throwing as an interrogation technique.
Only this pie throwing and glitter bobbing is done, not to get information, but simply to embarrass/terrorize.
Are you so stupid to not recognize the distinction?
Freder wrote:Show me where there is any U.S. law or treaty we are party to that allows us to assault anyone, whether or not they may be suspected of terrorism.
I take it you've never heard of SERE training, where the us has routinely assaulted (in your words) cadets and made them go through such torture simply to graduate. And this has been going on for decades!
Even prior to Bush!
@alan markus
Come to think of it, we have 3 situations that involved women. They must be emulating the Taliban or something.
All that damned ululating drives them crazy.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন