And his behaviour encouraged inclusiveness and understanding where the other side is coming from how, exactly?An excellent opportunity to sow further division. And cosplay outrage while demanding better.
Someone should tell PP that, given he says he's hired security to deal with (social media) words aimed at his spouse.Sticks and stones may break my bones,
But names will never hurt me.
I just re read the definition, what part Assault did he do under the Criminal code?I’d argue disparity of force, large male rapidly approaches her yelling.
That is a threat and designed to intimidate.
You don’t need to physically assault someone to be guilty of assault.
Yet he threw some verbal profanities with name calling, at no time did he breach her space. He stopped at the elevator. Had he of entered the elevator things would have been different, but he did not. Honestly his feelings are she turned her back on her own back yard where she grew up. The liberals are getting their feelings hurt over people calling them names and using profanities is laughable. As their entire head of party has used extremely derogatory words to describe law abiding citizens, even calling them criminals.
I do not agree with the guys approach, but I don't feel she was in danger other then getting feelings hurt, the video shows her smiling/ laughing on the elevator.
I have zero idea why you crossed out the rest of your response other than you realized you where incorrect.I just re read the definition, what part Assault did he do under the Criminal code?
You are correct with the definition, But is practice I doubt very much any Judge would charge this man with assault. He maybe intimidating due to his size and the fact he raised his voice. But he in no way broke her safety space. From the video she showed no fear while he was giving her the gears, in fact she was smiling. I would like to be in on the court case if this does see the Judge. It would be precedence setting and would make any discussion with raised voices a act of violence.
I read the CC wrong that you posted i thoughy 265 1(c) might of applied but he did not have any visiable weapons so accosting would not apply.I have zero idea why you crossed out the rest of your response other than you realized you where incorrect.
You cannot use size, screaming or motions to attempt to intimidate others.
Period.
Do I think he had some valid comments - maybe, but his presentation ruined any argument he was trying to make as is yet a further example to PMJT’s campaign of idiocy that all who disagree with him are nuts.
They will just trot out this example and I suspect it will play well for him in eastern urban centers.
How were they defenseless? That is an asumption made to garner and emotional response.He was big, loud, profane, unpredictable, and aggressively moving forward towards a group of defenceless women under 5ft 6in high.
Subsection B. You need a weapon for C not B or AI read the CC wrong that you posted i thoughy 265 1(c) might of applied but he did not have any visiable weapons so accosting would not apply.
I didnt want to erase what i wrote thats why i crossed it out.
I am curious what section would apply to him assaulting her?
Disparity of force.How were they defenseless? That is an asumption made to garner and emotional response.
That would be a stretch to charge him under 265 (1)(b). Would be interesting.Subsection B. You need a weapon for C not B or A
Disparity of force.
Large male, smaller female.
Large male multiple other people still a stretchSubsection B. You need a weapon for C not B or A
Disparity of force.
Large male, smaller female.
And his behavior encouraged inclusiveness and understanding where the other side is coming from how, exactly?
I’d argue disparity of force, large male rapidly approaches her yelling.
That is a threat and designed to intimidate.
You don’t need to physically assault someone to be guilty of assault.
View attachment 72862
View attachment 72863
See subsection B.
Behaving like an assclown while one may believe they are correct doesn’t make it right or legal.
I'm not defending the JT Government - I'm pointing out that what that one individual did was wrong.That would be a stretch to charge him under 265 (1)(b). Would be interesting.
Again this goverment did order the seizurea of a couple thousand bank accounts. They lied about it.
They also stated truck protesters were armed with shotguns. Yet none were found. I guess the the truckers did weaponize their trucks. I guess anything is possible in the relm of the current goverment thought process.
Some people smile nervously, you can't rely on a smile.As she was smiling I doubt any Judge would say she felt threatened during the interaction.
Sure...I am curious actually if they were or are friends from. Back in the day.
Assault is generally threatening words or gestures, the battery, aggravated assault etc are the physical side of it.I guess words really are violence
Assault is generally threatening words or gestures, the battery, aggravated assault etc are the physical side of it.