- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: FBI arrests/raids Catholic pro-life speaker/author, guns drawn as his terrified kids watch
Posted on 9/26/22 at 10:47 am to AggieHank86
Posted on 9/26/22 at 10:47 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Anti-abortion mujahadin assault retirees.
Where would you draw the line of assault? Did the "retiree" assault the child?
1. Yes, the man assaulted the child, therefore the parent of that child is tasked with protecting him.
2. The man didn't assault the child, and you completely contradict your definition of assault considering past precedent when the shoe is on the other foot.
The first amendment protects he and his son's right to be there, so you can't fall back on the "he shouldn't have been there in the first place."
Help me understand your train of thought.
1
Posted on 9/26/22 at 10:48 am to AggieHank86
quote:
YOUR side's problem is that you do not like abortion, so you read absolutely everything through that distorted lens, rather than staining your ideological purity by using objective analysis.
Posted on 9/26/22 at 10:49 am to AggieHank86
quote:
a service which was (at the time) Constitutionally-protected
Abortion has never been constitutionally protected.
Posted on 9/26/22 at 10:51 am to AggieHank86
quote:
rational
Double standards are not rational and attempts to be condescending don't lead to intelligent discussion.
Posted on 9/26/22 at 10:54 am to the808bass
He is a pretentious , Narcissistic azzhole if, following Hanks' lead, we are interested in being precise.
Posted on 9/26/22 at 10:55 am to AggieHank86
quote:
YOUR side's problem is that you do not like abortion, so you read absolutely everything through that distorted lens, rather than staining your ideological purity by using objective analysis.
You mean like using snarky, insulting language towards those you disagree with.....
BTW, do you understand the meaning of the word "hypocrisy"?
Posted on 9/26/22 at 10:57 am to TheBoo
quote:I don't even understand what you are trying to say on Point 2, so I will just outline my thoughts on the assault, independent of your attempt to frame them for me.
Help me understand your train of thought.
Let's use EXACTLY the facts outlined by Houck's wife in the article which is quoted extensively in the OP.
Houck's wife ADMITS that the retiree did not commit a physical assault on the son. She says only that he got too close to the son (something about personal space). She then ADMITS that Houck "shoved" the retiree to the ground (a textbook assault) because Houck thought that the retiree was too close to the son.
On Houck's behalf, the wife attempts to justify this assault by saying that the retiree was using "vulgar language." The use of "vulgar language" is not a defense to the assault, as outlined in this statute. (For example, if Houck had called the volunteer a "baby-killer," is it your position that the volunteer would be legally-protected to punch Houck in the face?)
If we believe HOUCK'S STORY, as recounted by his wife, Houck clearly violated this statute. There is no relevant fact even in dispute.
Those who oppose this prosecution are basically saying that an admitted assault is acceptable, because the person who was assaulted supports abortion rights ... that political disagreement justifies physical assault. Sorry, but that is "messed up."
quote:You are correct. That would be a stupid argument.
The first amendment protects he and his son's right to be there, so you can't fall back on the "he shouldn't have been there in the first place."
====
Now, we can certainly discuss the question of whether Congress SHOULD have enacted this statute. Several posters raised that question. But that is not the issue that I have been addressing.
This post was edited on 9/26/22 at 11:13 am
Posted on 9/26/22 at 10:59 am to cajunangelle
quote:
FBI arrests/raids Catholic pro-life speaker/author, guns drawn as his terrified
I heard this story this morning and the very first thought that popped into mind was what kind of a fricking miserable loser do you have to be at age 72 escorting clients to an abortion clinic!
Posted on 9/26/22 at 11:13 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Houck's wife ADMITS that the retiree did not commit a physical assault on the son. She says only that he got too close to the son (something about personal space). She then ADMITS that Houck "shoved" the retiree to the ground (a textbook assault) because Houck thought that the retiree was too close to the son.
The shove would be textbook battery, right? However if Houck’s son thought the old man was going to imminently batter him, that would be an assault, right? I guess we would have to look at the state law. If the escort was committing an assault the battery may be justified.
Doesn’t matter, though. FBI agents, guns drawn raiding a house for a battery is insane. Also begs the question. Why is the FBI involved at all in a battery case?
This post was edited on 9/26/22 at 11:15 am
Posted on 9/26/22 at 11:21 am to BBONDS25
quote:If we were talking about either a civil case under the old common law or even a state level criminal charge, there is some merit to what you say. But we are talking about a specific violation of a specific federal statute. I used the term "assault" as shorthand (many states including Texas have consolidated assault/battery). The STATUTE reads as follows:
The shove would be textbook battery, right? However if Houck’s son thought the old man was going to imminently batter him, that would be an assault, right? I guess we would have to look at the state law. If the escort was committing an assault the battery may be justified.
quote:The boldface language shows that the common law concepts of assault/battery ARE merged in this statute.
Whoever ... by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with ... any person ....
Now, the affirmative defense of "defense of others" MIGHT come into play, if there were any indication that the retiree were about to hit the son. But the mother makes no such claim, and we are analyzing this scenario based upon HER purported facts.
quote:I agreed with this notion early in the thread.
Doesn’t matter, though. FBI agents, guns drawn raiding a house for a battery is insane
quote:It is not a common law battery case. It is a violation of a federal statute.
Why is the FBI involved at all in a battery case?
Who do you propose should enforce federal statutes, if not a federal law enforcement agency?
Posted on 9/26/22 at 11:22 am to AggieHank86
Shut the frick up, clown-faced idiot.
Posted on 9/26/22 at 11:23 am to the808bass
quote:Bass, the adults are talking.
Shut the frick up, clown-faced idiot.
Posted on 9/26/22 at 11:25 am to AggieHank86
I have more maturity in my little finger than your trifling arse has in your entire body.
You’re a moronic caricature who has convinced himself (?) he has something to say of import. You do not. You never do. But you spend 40 pages doing it.
You’re a moronic caricature who has convinced himself (?) he has something to say of import. You do not. You never do. But you spend 40 pages doing it.
Posted on 9/26/22 at 11:32 am to the808bass
quote:
he has something to say of import. You do not. You never do. But you spend 40 pages doing it.
If he was as important as he thinks he is, he wouldn't be wasting his life on Social Media.
At the very least, he would concentrate his time on a message board with those he considers his intellectual peers.
But alas, his Mum was an overbearing Teacher (his words), so perhaps he has no control in what he's become.
At least I'm honest about my trolling....
Posted on 9/26/22 at 11:43 am to Crimson1st
quote:
heard this story this morning and the very first thought that popped into mind was what kind of a fricking miserable loser do you have to be at age 72 escorting clients to an abortion clinic!
A leftist activist who was out there to "bird dog" and draw the ire and provoke the other side into an incident. He was successful as we can see. So, what we have here is local authorities saw this for what it is and dropped it. The politicized DOJ (Stasi) promptly picked it up because the "escort" is a foot soldier on the same ideological team.
BTW, I myself have been in several pro life events. Mainly the "Walk for Life" in Birmingham, Alabama. The leftists who show up and counter protest these events are nasty, nasty hateful individuals. They yelled and cursed at men, women and small children who were all prayerful and silent during the march.
It's obvious they were trying to provoke an altercation which I am happy to say did not occur.
And let me add for my little down voting friend that this arrest was a full show of force to the rest of the people on the wrong side of the political aisle.
This post was edited on 9/26/22 at 12:09 pm
Posted on 9/26/22 at 12:06 pm to TS1926
quote:
And let me add for my little down voting friend that this arrest was a full show of force to the rest of the people on the wrong side of the political aisle.
They know that and they cheer it silently. It's an anonymous message board so I don't know why they wouldn't just come out and admit it.
Posted on 9/26/22 at 12:32 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
I have no doubt that a significant percentage of this forum is utterly convinced that this was done as some sort of Gestapo intimidation tactic. I think it is two combined factors instead.
First, LEO‘s have become pussies. They are afraid of their own shadows, To the extent that they treat some little suburban lay preacher as if he were a drug cartel overlord. Second, the federal government’s War on Drugs has provided them with such wonderful tactical toys, that they are incapable of not using them at every opportunity. I do not see intimidation. I see overgrown children playing with their favorite toys.
I won’t insult your intelligence by suggesting that you really believe what you posted here, because you’d have to be borderline retarded to believe that BS.
However, I will say this – your jumping through hoops to rationalize DOJ/FBI in their ridiculous “war on MAGA Republicans” is so clearly antithetical to Libertarian label you claim for yourself that I’m beginning to understand why so many think you’re a closet progressive.
Posted on 9/26/22 at 12:43 pm to David_DJS
By the same token, I think many of our posters are paranoid nutcases with a major martyrdom complex.
You seem to be among them.
You seem to be among them.
This post was edited on 9/26/22 at 12:55 pm
Posted on 9/26/22 at 12:58 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
By the same token, I think many of our posters are paranoid nutcases with a major martyrdom complex.
The magnitude of this hypocrisy coming from you is immeasurable.
We'll all bookmark this for the next time you whine about everyone on the board being against you....
Posted on 9/26/22 at 1:13 pm to TS1926
quote:Remember the Denver (?) TV crew that just happened to stumble upon an activist that provoked a FAFO from conservative gathering attendee? This case sounds very similar to it.
A leftist activist who was out there to "bird dog" and draw the ire and provoke the other side into an incident.
Page 14 of 26
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News