Basic Human Rights - Define them?

[Goober]

I wasn't referring to you, Goober (I am sure you know that).

Honest msitake on may part -

But I would ask that you read over the docs posted - No as to what a person will or will not do in any situation where harm can be inflicted upon them - many do not know as they have rarely if ever faced the threat - some know as they have.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Chief Justice Beverly McLaughlin defined an arrest as “a continuing status initiated by words accompanied by physical touching or submission and ending with delivery to the police, maintained as necessary with a force that is no more than reasonable in all the circumstances.”
“The ability to use force is necessary to the efficacy of the arrest power because it often provides a necessary precondition to securing the submission of the person arrested,” she wrote. “An occupier is therefore entitled to use reasonable force both to initiate the status of arrest and to maintain it.”

I don’t see the relevance of this. Sure you may use violence to make an arrest; the police do that many times.

But again, you cannot make citizen’s arrest against somebody who has not been disorderly, is not being violent, who has not done anything to you, has not assaulted you etc. If he produces a gun, then he is definitely being violent. In that case violence committed in arresting him maybe justified.

But suppose somebody utters threats, says he is going to hit you, punch you, whatever. That does not give you the right to make citizen’s arrest and assault him in the process.

Citizen’s arrest mechanism is for rare usage and can be justified only in rare circumstances, it isn’t to be used willy nilly. If it could be done easily, there will be thousand of citizen’s arrest every day. In every barroom brawl, one brawler could punch the other fellow, knock his lights out and claim that he was doing it in the process of citizen’s arrest.

I don’t think citizen’s arrest is relevant in this instance. I still maintain that if the other fellow has not laid a hand on you and if you assault him (and the facts are not in dispute), you are in trouble with the law, the rare instance of citizen’s arrest notwithstanding.

 

[Goober]

If you have been following my conversation with Goober, he seemed to imply that one could hit the other fellow even when he hasn’t laid a hand on you, that may be acceptable in some circumstances. To which my response was that it is never acceptable. If other fellow has not laid a hand on you, then you hitting him is assault, no matter what he may or may not have said.

What you are describing here is assault in response to assault, in self defense. A totally different matter.

SJPIf that person is threatening violence towards me and I have a reasonable belief that he will attack me causing physical harmI can as they say hit first - Prevenative action of this type is allowed under the Criminal Code -

 

[TenPenny]

Sure the law is clear. What does innocent until proven guilty have to do anything? If you think I am wrong, by all means punch the next fellow you see on the street on the nose, knock out his teeth and then claim in the court (when you are tried) that he provoked you into punching him. See where that lands you.

I think you are arguing for the sake of argument, nothing else. Try living by your own advice, that it is OK to assault somebody when they have not laid a hand on you.

Your anger towards me (I can just see you at the computer, apoplectic, foaming at the mouth) has made you lose all perspective, the ability of thinking clearly. My advice to you is sit back, relax, take a deep breath (take several deep breaths) and calm down.

It is unfortunate, but you seem to have little understanding of what you have written; it appears to be you who cannot think clearly, at least when it comes to what you yourself have written.

You have somehow come to believe that assaulting someone automatically results in a guilty verdict and a sentence. I gather your knowledge of our legal system is quite limited, which surprises me, as you claim to be an expert on every subject known to man.

You then decide to rant on with some bizarre fantasy about me. I think that you have a strange psychological problem; if you are having a fantasy about me frothing at the mouth, I think you need to satisfy your homosexual urgings somewhere; unfortunately for you, I have no inclinations that way, but I can certainly give you some phone numbers, but I'll have to ask them if they're interested.

(I have no anger toward you; you are quite an amusing character, with your personality that requires you to act superior to everyone, which quite obviously is an effort to hide a rather major inferiority complex.)

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Honest msitake on may part -

But I would ask that you read over the docs posted - No as to what a person will or will not do in any situation where harm can be inflicted upon them - many do not know as they have rarely if ever faced the threat - some know as they have.

So far I have never seen you lose your cool, Goober (unlike some others here). And we have had many disagreements in the past. anyway, I have already responded to the second part.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

It is unfortunate, but you seem to have little understanding of what you have written; it appears to be you who cannot think clearly, at least when it comes to what you yourself have written.

You have somehow come to believe that assaulting someone automatically results in a guilty verdict and a sentence. I gather your knowledge of our legal system is quite limited, which surprises me, as you claim to be an expert on every subject known to man.

You then decide to rant on with some bizarre fantasy about me. I think that you have a strange psychological problem; if you are having a fantasy about me frothing at the mouth, I think you need to satisfy your homosexual urgings somewhere; unfortunately for you, I have no inclinations that way, but I can certainly give you some phone numbers, but I'll have to ask them if they're interested.

(I have no anger toward you; you are quite an amusing character, with your personality that requires you to act superior to everyone, which quite obviously is an effort to hide a rather major inferiority complex.)

Temper, temper, Tenpenny. Calm down, it is not good for your blood pressure (if you don't have one, anger may well cause you to develop it).

Psychoanalyzing me is OK (and it can be an amusing exercise), but watch your temper.

 

[Goober]

Question

Chose this one at random

What countries violate this Basic Human Right -

Article 18.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

 

[AnnaG]

One doesn’t have to be a legal expert for this TenPenny. If you assault somebody and that somebody has not laid a hand on you, if the facts are not in dispute, then you are guilty of assault, period.

Now, if there are any extenuating circumstances, they may be considered while sentencing. But I think the law is quite clear. If somebody has not laid a hand on you and you assault him, then you are guilty of assault.

What happens when you gab at someone until their ears bleed? Isn't that assault?
(I was just curious and thought I'd ask someone with experience in this activity).

 

[AnnaG]

Only if you are on the stand under oath.

Um, he was joking, you know. Hence the "lol" at the end of his comment.

 

[AnnaG]

If you have been following my conversation with Goober, he seemed to imply that one could hit the other fellow even when he hasn’t laid a hand on you, that may be acceptable in some circumstances. To which my response was that it is never acceptable. If other fellow has not laid a hand on you, then you hitting him is assault, no matter what he may or may not have said.

What you are describing here is assault in response to assault, in self defense. A totally different matter.

A guy threatens to clout you with a baseball bat and then winds up a swing and it looks distinctly as if you will be dented by the bat. You'd just stand there? You certainly couldn't hit him first because all he'd done would be threaten to hit you, right? :roll:

 

[AnnaG]

I think if I was in trouble and Sir Porky was a lawyer, I'd represent myself. For that matter, I think I'd trust one of my dogs to represent me first. lol

 

[MHz]

Temper, temper, Tenpenny. Calm down, it is not good for your blood pressure (if you don't have one, anger may well cause you to develop it).

Psychoanalyzing me is OK (and it can be an amusing exercise), but watch your temper.

I'm pretty sure everybody has blood pressure, angry or not.

 

[MHz]

What happens when you gab at someone until their ears bleed? Isn't that assault?
(I was just curious and thought I'd ask someone with experience in this activity).

In my case it was some crazy woman trying for her 9th rapture, lol

As far as I know if somebody is holding something and threatening to use it on you, that is assault right there and you can defend yourself to the extent that you are no longer in danger. Using the same bat on him after you get it would not come under a self-defense, the danger passed when you took posession of the bat.

 

[Goober]

In my case it was some crazy woman trying for her 9th rapture, lol

As far as I know if somebody is holding something and threatening to use it on you, that is assault right there and you can defend yourself to the extent that you are no longer in danger. Using the same bat on him after you get it would not come under a self-defense, the danger passed when you took posession of the bat.

MHZ
You are correct - the threatening with or without a bat is assault and you can as they say strike first if you have a reasonable belief that this person intends to harm you

Now shall we say you disarm him and performing a citizens arrest you can threaten to use it to detain him- legally - use it but only with enough force to prevent his departing the scene - hit on the legs shall we say - not bashing his head in repeatedly - or if he intends to assault someone else.

The use of reaonable force to detain is wide but limited to the amount of force being reasonable - A man has a knife - 20 feet away - you have a gun - he threatens to kill you - he moves towards you - you can use the gun to protect yourself - many people do not relize how little time it takes for a mna to travel 20 feet - some points to consider though - aim for the legs -

3. Now, let us look at all the other ways they will try to get you. Forget about the presumption of innocence in criminal charges. That only works if you are a real criminal. If you shoot, there will be a reasonable presumption that you intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm.

4. You are going to have to prove that you had reasonable grounds for believing that shooting was the only way to protect youself, or someone else whom you wanted to protect, from being killed or seriously injured by someone who was attacking or was about to attack, or that you had reasonable grounds for believing that shooting was the only way to stop that person from breaking into your house or was the only way to get him to leave after he had broken in.

5. You will almost certainly be charged after the event and your reasonable grounds for your beliefs will be aggressively challenged.

6. Let's look at reasonable grounds for belief in real life situations. You should know that studies have shown that a fast man with a knife who is 21 feet from you can get to you and stab you in 1.5 seconds. This means that if you are a policeman with a holstered gun you will not be able to draw and shoot in time to save yourself. If your gun is in your hand you will not have much time to decide to shoot and you may get stabbed anyway.


7. A man with a club or a knife can kill or maim you very easily and very quickly depending on how close he is. A powerful man, even without a weapon, can kill or maim the average person very easily and very quickly depending on how close he is. An average man, even without a weapon, can kill or maim an average woman very easily and very quickly depending on how close he is.

8. The average man does not realize how vulnerable he is to a person who intends to kill or maim him. The aggresssor does not have to be fair.