- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: Grand jury refuses to indict woman accused of shoving elderly abortion protester
Posted on 6/26/19 at 8:40 am to ShortyRob
Posted on 6/26/19 at 8:40 am to ShortyRob
quote:No, you should probably be subject to charges for misdemeanor assault ... as I have now said four times.
So, if I willfully run you over, but keep my hands at my side, all good?
You're such a fraud
Your confirmation bias is showing.
To think that I once considered your objectivity to be a step above the average run around here. I was wrong and am willing to admit it. You are as blindly partisan as the rest.
This post was edited on 6/26/19 at 8:44 am
1
Posted on 6/26/19 at 8:47 am to AggieHank86
quote:She was charged with 2nd degree assault in Kentucky.
No, you should probably be subject to charges for misdemeanor assault ... as I have now said four times.
Assault 2nd Degree (KRS § 508.020): a person is guilty of assault in the second degree when:
a) The person intentionally causes serious physical injury to another person; or
quote:
Durning broke her femur and required surgery and rehabilitation
b) The person causes physical injury to another person by means of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument; or
c) The person wantonly causes serious physical injury to another person by means of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument
quote:
Your confirmation bias is showing.
quote:That's because for a time, I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you were sincere. I try to do this with most posters where possible
To think that I once considered your objectivity to be a step above the average run around here.
quote:Nah. I'm just conservative with a libertarian lean and you don't like it because you aren't.
You are as blindly partisan as the rest.
ETA
In Kentucky, to be a misdemeanor, it falls under 4th degree assault which is simply to "cause injury" as opposed to serious injury.
I kinda think a broken femur qualifies as serious. Don't you?
This post was edited on 6/26/19 at 8:56 am
Posted on 6/26/19 at 9:01 am to ShortyRob
quote:It punishes “wanton” behavior which results in injury only when a deadly weapon is involved.
Assault 2nd Degree (KRS § 508.020): a person is guilty of assault in the second degree when ...the person intentionally causes serious physical injury to another person....
By contrast, the misdemeanor assault allows prosecution for ANY “wanton” behavior which causes injury.
Gregory was the aggressor, but I see no evidence that she intended to hurt Ms Durning. Her behavior was “wanton” under Kentucky law, and she was overcharged.
quote:Had she not been overcharged by a zealous prosecutor who likely shared Ms Durning’s political views. Gregory would likely be facing misdemeanor charges today. Instead, she is a free woman. There is no one to blame for that fact other than the prosecutor.
“Wantonly” — A person acts wantonly with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur or that the circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that disregard thereof constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation. A person who creates such a risk but is unaware thereof solely by reason of voluntary intoxication also acts wantonly with respect thereto.
quote:In responsee to your edit, yes this would qualify as a serious injury. Like most laypersons, you are failing to examine each element of the offense and focusing upon only one of them
kinda think a broken femur qualifies as serious.
Only a blind partisan would make a politics issue of this simple matter of statutory definition.
This post was edited on 6/26/19 at 9:08 am
Posted on 6/26/19 at 9:05 am to Crimson Wraith
Why in the hell was this even brought before a grand jury?
I’m guessing the DA is up for election soon and didn’t want to be the one to bring the charges?
I’m guessing the DA is up for election soon and didn’t want to be the one to bring the charges?
This post was edited on 6/26/19 at 9:07 am
Posted on 6/26/19 at 9:06 am to AggieHank86
quote:False.
It punishes “wanton” behavior which results in injury only when a deadly weapon is involved.
There's a reason for the word "or" when used in English. Paragraph A says jack shite about weapons.
quote:She intended to assault her. Injury is always a possible result of assault. That's why assaulting someone isn't a great idea. Because you can't actually predict the result. I could punch one person as hard as I can and just end up getting my arse kicked. Then, punch another person as hard as I can and cause brain damage.
Gregory was the aggressor, but I see no evidence that she intended to hurt Ms Durning.
The result follows the punch backwards. Otherwise, EVERYONE could argue, "what, I didn't MEAN to cause brain damage!!!"
Sheesh man. Take your shite to someone dumb enough to not see what you're doing.
Posted on 6/26/19 at 9:07 am to AggieHank86
quote:Um, paragraph A says intentionally cause serious injury.
In responsee to your edit, yes this would qualify as a serious injury. Like most laypersons, you are failing to examine each element of the offense and focusing upon only one of them
She intentionally assaulted her and it resulted in serious injury.
Go take your silliness elsewhere.
Posted on 6/26/19 at 9:12 am to AggieHank86
quote:
you are failing to examine each element of the offense and focusing upon only one of them
Oh. By the way. I actually took the time to
A) Watch the video before opining
and then, because I didn't know
B) Look up Kentucky law on the subject because assault laws vary from state to state.
Those are the actions of someone who actually gives a frick about trying to be accurate
Posted on 6/26/19 at 9:17 am to ShortyRob
Trying to explain even the simplest matter of statutory interpretation to a layperson sometimes seems pointless, especially when that layperson has predecided the matter and is not listening. Nonetheless
Kentucky delineates between intentional and wanton conduct. Gregory clearly disregarded Ms Durning’s safety, but that is WANTON behavior, not intentional behavior.
Yes, the 2nd degree statute has three alternate sets of elements. Under the set that punishes “wanton” behavior, one must have used a deadly weapon. Under the set that you focus upon (serious injury), one must act INTENTIONALLY. “Wanton” behavior. is inadequate, EVEN if the injury is “serious.”
To punish “wanton” behavior that does NOT involve a weapon, the only available avenue is found in the misdemeanor statute ... under which Gregory SHOULD have been charged and likely WOULD have been convicted.
Kentucky delineates between intentional and wanton conduct. Gregory clearly disregarded Ms Durning’s safety, but that is WANTON behavior, not intentional behavior.
Yes, the 2nd degree statute has three alternate sets of elements. Under the set that punishes “wanton” behavior, one must have used a deadly weapon. Under the set that you focus upon (serious injury), one must act INTENTIONALLY. “Wanton” behavior. is inadequate, EVEN if the injury is “serious.”
To punish “wanton” behavior that does NOT involve a weapon, the only available avenue is found in the misdemeanor statute ... under which Gregory SHOULD have been charged and likely WOULD have been convicted.
Posted on 6/26/19 at 9:18 am to Golfer
quote:Because a judge wouldn't sign off on the higher charge, so he thought he could convince a grand jury to do it.
Why in the hell was this even brought before a grand jury?
Posted on 6/26/19 at 9:18 am to AggieHank86
I have to study for the bar, Hank. Your lack of clients allows you to play out your libertarian charade here, sadly.
This post was edited on 6/26/19 at 9:19 am
Posted on 6/26/19 at 9:19 am to ShortyRob
quote:That is lovely sentiment. It is also the statutory definition of “wanton” in Kentucky.
She intended to assault her. Injury is always a possible result of assault.
Posted on 6/26/19 at 9:23 am to ChristianSlater
quote:
Unfortunate that these bible thumpers feel the need to get involved in other's lives.
You talking about the lives of those about to be cut into pieces?
Bible Thumpers??? Since when is killing people strictly a religious thing?
Posted on 6/26/19 at 9:23 am to ShortyRob
quote:Which is clearly not equivalent to understanding it.
I actually took the time to ... Look up Kentucky law
This post was edited on 6/26/19 at 9:24 am
Posted on 6/26/19 at 9:28 am to Revelator
quote:
Unfortunate that these bible thumpers feel the need to get involved in other's lives.
quote:
As opposed to leftists that only want to interject themselves into every aspect of our lives with the force of goverment laws and mandates.
why does it have to be as opposed to? Why can't this incident be discussed without trying to find other incidences to counter it with?
I didn't see that lady attack the elderly lady. The video shows her rapidly approach with her hands down.
Posted on 6/26/19 at 9:28 am to t00f
quote:
Normally does not take much for a grand jury to indict.
Exactly. This was simply a Democrat DA that didn’t want to prosecute for political reasons. Violence is allowed if you align with the left.
Posted on 6/26/19 at 9:35 am to jrodLSUke
quote:He DID prosecute.
This was simply a Democrat DA that didn’t want to prosecute for political reasons. Violence is allowed if you align with the left.
One MIGHT argue that he intentionally overcharged, knowing that the Grand Jury would reject an overreaching indictment and allowing himself to claim that he is “tough on crime” (the standard DA election claim) while not actually putting Gregory at risk of jail time.
But anyone actually MAKING that argument should invest in a tinfoil hat.
As an aside, the Kentucky electorate is Pro-Life by 57:36. If the DA were to pander, if would likely be in favor of Ms Durning, not in favor of Gregory. THAT may explain the overcharging.
This post was edited on 6/26/19 at 9:43 am
Posted on 6/26/19 at 9:45 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Trying to explain even the simplest matter of statutory interpretation to a layperson sometimes seems pointless, especially when that layperson has predecided the matter and is not listening. Nonetheless
If I had predecided the matter, I wouldn't have wasted time looking for law in the actual state it occurred. So, you can save that bullshite for someone else.
quote:
Kentucky delineates between intentional and wanton conduct. Gregory clearly disregarded Ms Durning’s safety, but that is WANTON behavior, not intentional behavior.
quote:Again, I understand the use of the word "or" when it is used in the English language.
Under KRS § 501.020, intentional conduct is when a person's "conscious objective is to cause that result OR........OR...........OR..... to engage in that conduct."
So, try again.
She CLEARLY intended to walk right thru the woman which quite obviously, is assault. And, that assault reusulted in serious injury.
Save your pretense that you're just soooo much smarter than me.
You aren't.
Posted on 6/26/19 at 9:50 am to ShortyRob
quote:Except that it is not. Under Kentucky law, that is WANTON conduct, unless Gregory had actual, affirmative intent to harm Ms Durning ... in which case, her behavior would be INTENTIONAL and 2nd Degree Assault would apply.
She CLEARLY intended to walk right thru the woman which quite obviously, is assault.
quote:I have no idea what you do for a living, but let’s assume you are a physicist. I would not argue the finer points of particle physics with you, and it is ridiculous to watch you making (completely erroneous) arguments regarding statutory interpretation with me. You simply don’t know what you’re talking about, regardless of what your raw intellect may be.
Save your pretense that you're just soooo much smarter than me. You aren't.
I am quite aware of my own intelligence level, and I can read a normal distribution. Until quite recently, I did consider you to be one of the posters on this board that fell in or near the same SD. That opinion has not changed, but my views regarding your objectivity have changed markedly.
This post was edited on 6/26/19 at 9:53 am
Posted on 6/26/19 at 9:55 am to AggieHank86
quote:
affirmative intent to harm Ms Durning
Kentucky law say nothing about affirmative intent.
quote:
intentional conduct is when a person's "conscious objective is to cause that result or to engage in that conduct."
Hell. If it did, the defense would always be, "didn't mean to hurt her" in pretty much all cases of physical non weapon violence.
quote:
I have no idea what you do for a living, but let’s assume you are a physicist. I would not argue the finer points of particle physics with you, and it is ridiculous to watch you making (completely erroneous) arguments regarding statutory interpretation with me.
Unlike Physicists, lawyers are literally paid to be dishonest on behalf of their clients within VERY wide limits.
Also. Lawyers literally go into court EVERY DAY and take fundamentally opposing positions on the exact same laws. Hell. It would be a VERY simple exercise to find 10 KY lawyers who take a fundamentally different view than you in THIS case. So, sorry, you equating it to particle physics is pretentious and asinine.
This post was edited on 6/26/19 at 9:56 am
Posted on 6/26/19 at 9:58 am to ChristianSlater
ChristanSlater
Unfortunate you didn’t turn out better than the POS you are . Your parents must really be very unhappy
Unfortunate you didn’t turn out better than the POS you are . Your parents must really be very unhappy
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News