Colorado student charged in "glitter bomb" of Romney

[phill4paul]

L.E. butt out. You're not modding. Ya got a problem report me. This has more to do with just this post. I realize you might not understand that. But in this one instance I'll take it back to the original post that set me off.

Good. This is a crime. A misdemeanor, but a crime nonetheless. A violation of Romney's liberty.

It's some frikken glitter. Sheesh.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Double post.

 

[LibertyEagle]

L.E. butt out. You're not modding. Ya got a problem report me.

I did. But no, I'm not going to butt out, because you keep on going, adding to the insults. He's a rather new member and he's not your personal punching bag for you to do with what you want.

This has more to do with just this post. I realize you might not understand that. But in this one instance I'll take it back to the original post that set me off.

It's some frikken glitter. Sheesh.

I saw it, earlier. Why couldn't you just show him the folly of involving government in these types of issues?

You're usually not like this, Phil. I only decided to say something, because seriously, you went too far and even kept it up in another thread. To me, if I sat idly by while you did that, it would make me as guilty as you.

 

[phill4paul]

Let it go L.E.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Let it go L.E.

I will if you will, Phil.

 

[Xenophage]

I hate glitter.

 

[phill4paul]

I will if you will, Phil.

For now. Future events, with difference to past events, notwithstanding. Tip o' the hat.

 

[libertythor]

Haha they are both high schools, Chula Vista doesn't perform anymore though, due to the budget cuts they aren't allowed to do show choir anymore. They will have a competition at the end of April, which I'm sure Bonita Vista will attend. I have a friend who lives in Tijuana too haha.

LOL I know Tijuana better than the San Diego area because I was only in San Diego while in the military and moved to Tijuana right after. Yes I now recognize the names of the high schools, but I was thinking Bonita Vista as in the neighborhood Bonita.

 

[Louis Vouid]

It's a crime if there is an injury or property damage. Civil suit. It is frikken glitter. No one who has ever been truly 'assaulted' would even consider this to be an assault.

No..it is a crime regardless. There does NOT have to be injury or property damage for it to be a crime. Read up on the laws. You can be charged with assault for simply SHOWING someone a knife or gun, for example.

And of course, if someone did this to Ron Paul, no one here would be saying "It's just some harmless glitter!" I assume you don't want two sets of laws.

And this is not even bringing up the fact that to 99.9999999% of people who saw it, the only ones who looks bad from these incidents are the glitter bombers. It doesn't hurt the targets credibility or public standing at all.

 

[phill4paul]

No..it is a crime regardless. There does NOT have to be injury or property damage for it to be a crime. Read up on the laws. You can be charged with assault for simply SHOWING someone a knife or gun, for example.

And of course, if someone did this to Ron Paul, no one here would be saying "It's some harmless glitter!" I assume you don't want two sets of laws.

Oh yeah. Glitter should now be considered to be a knife or a gun. As I said earlier law enforcement, abiding by 'force continuum' rules should first use 'glitter' before pepper spray or a taser. And by the by someone did do it to Dr. Paul. It was actually funny in that the 'bomber' did not shout about pro-gay rights. The 'bombing" was followed by the excoriation of ""Housing and healthcare are human rights not privileges!"

The Ron Paul Campaign called for an apology and restitution over a supporters physical injuries to his foot from the Gingrich campaign.

I've yet to hear Ron Paul or the campaign call for charges against a glitter 'bomber.'

Oh my. The word 'bomber' is SCARY and should be investigated by Homeland Security. Pfft.

Edit: And welcome new member. Interesting that your first post would be in this thread.

 

[PauliticsPolitics]

Third Degree Assault (the mildest infraction) in Denver (and Colorado in general) is defined as:"knowingly or recklessly causing bodily injury to another person." (In rare cases, a different definition is used based on accidentally causing injury with a deadly weapon, but that definition is not relevant here since the act in not "accidental" and the weapon is not "deadly".) Regardless, notice that there has to be "injury" in order for the charge to be supported. "Pain," by itself, does constitute injury - even if there was no physical damage to the person assaulted. In some cases, "pain" defined as "injury" can include psychological pain, such as "fear of violence." (This "fear of violence" logic usually covers incidents where a perpetrator shows a weapon in order to persuade the victim to take part in undesired actions.) The maximum sentence for Third Degree Assault in Colorado is two years in the county jail.

So, by this relevant definition, it is technically possible to charge the person with Third Degree assault. The argument would be the following:
Did the glitter-bomber knowingly do the act? - - YES (relatively indisputable)
Did the action cause injury to the victim, such as psychological pain? - - YES (at least the victim is allowed to claim thusly)

So those are the only qualifications needed to charge the glitter-bomber.
However, being charged with something is way different than tried for something, let along being convicted.

But, by this bare-minimum qualification, one could charge a kid for shooting a spitball at another kid, even if the spitball misses... heck, even if the spitball is merely aimed at the kid, hence causing him "fear of violence." Since society generally does not want to take spitball-shooting kids to court, the legal system usually functions off of precedents. Courts look at prior cases to find a general principle or rule as to how any certain law is intended to be interpreted/enforced. As far as I know, no court has ever taken a spitball case to trial. Thus, if for some reason someone did manage to charge a kid with assault for shooting a spitball, the case would probably be thrown out very early in the process (in preliminary hearings) since the charge does not measure up to the accepted intention of the law.

By this principle, I contend that the glitter-bomb is akin to the spitball example. In fact, it can be argued that a potential spitball in the eye at high velocity is more eminently dangerous than falling glitter. Regardless, I would surmise that this charge will either be dropped by the complainant, or it will be dismissed in preliminary hearings. If it does happen to go to trial, I highly doubt that the court would convict this on assault. At worst, they would lower it to a different charge such as littering or some sort of negligence charge. The court would not want to convict on assault because that would set a new precedent as to what an assault conviction can be, basically expanding the accepted definition of assault to include many things that are merely nuisance behavior. An assault conviction on glitter-bombing would open up the court to a whole slew of trivial charges like spitballing, putting ice down people's shirts, pranks like writing on people while they sleep, pushing people in line, etc. Lawyers could then argue: "[stupid-thing-X] has been scientifically proven to cause more injury than glitter-bombing; glitter-bombing has been deemed as assault and therefore [stupid-thing-X] is also convictable assault." The courts do not have the time to deal with this garbage so they will avoid setting a precedent that allows for it.

Nonetheless, it is clear that the charge made on glitter-bombing is meant to send a message and make a public statement. This official charge got some headlines and is intended to deter future glitter-bombs on notable figures. Perhaps the court will play along and put the charge up for a hearing since it is a high profile case, but a full trial and conviction would set a super-dangerous precedent and therefore is very unlikely (an in my opinion imprudent and frivolous.)

There's my legal opinion for y'all.

 

[mrsat_98]

My joke was actually about the whole recent controversy surrounding Ellen DeGeneres' being chosen as a spokeswoman for JCPenney, and how all the religious right groups are up in arms about it.

Ellen DeGeneres, I heard was dead.She drowned and they found her face down in Ricki Lake.

 

[Nirvikalpa]

Oh, the infractions to give out on THIS thread... it's too early...

 

[Invi]

And of course, if someone did this to Ron Paul, no one here would be saying "It's just some harmless glitter!" I assume you don't want two sets of laws.

For the record, this did happen to Ron, on the 6th or so. Ableit, not for the same reasons it happened to the other candidates. Apparently Ron gets glitterbombed for not thinking healthcare and housing are rights, to be provided for you by other people.

 

[Louis Vouid]

Honestly phil...don't even TRY to bully me like you did with the other guy,. Because you will NOT win a battle of wits against me, little insignificant child.

The saddest part of your comments is that you actually have the attitude that anything YOU believe should be fact. Like
YOU are the authority of what is right or wrong. And from reading your posts (in other threads to...you are about the furthest thing the "right" on pretty much everything.

I don't know how old you are, but you seemed to stop maturing sometime around age 12. So...are you older than that?


And again..EVERY single time...a full 100%...of the glitterbombs have resulted in 100%...again...a full 100%...of people who witnessed it having negative thoughts against the glitter bomber...NOT the target.

And you wonder why Ron Paul can't get more support with your asinine attitude?

Come at me all you want. Just realize you are only embarrassing yourself.

 

[soulcyon]

ITS EFFING GLITTER! If throwing GLITTER is regarded as an assault, then might as well throw every kindergartner in juvey

these people need to really think before they speak >.> frikkin neocon commies

 

[Louis Vouid]

Since society generally does not want to take spitball-shooting kids to court, the legal system usually functions off of precedents. Courts look at prior cases to find a general principle or rule as to how any certain law is intended to be interpreted/enforced. As far as I know, no court has ever taken a spitball case to trial. Thus, if for some reason someone did manage to charge a kid with assault for shooting a spitball, the case would probably be thrown out very early in the process (in preliminary hearings) since the charge does not measure up to the accepted intention of the law.

The spitball example isn't really valid either since the glitterbombers are ADULTS. Try hurling bodily fluids on another human being as an adult...even in the form of your saliva on small pieces of paper. You WILL get charged with a crime. And probably more than a third degree assault since it involved bodily fluids.

The reason why kids don't often get arrested for spitballs is not because of the nature of the crime. It is their age. The same reason why a kid who throws a rock and breaks a window will likely be reprimanded and forced to pay for the window. But an adult doing the same thing will be arrested.

But again...with glitterbombing...who cares if it is a crime. It is just plain STUPID and counterproductive to ANY cause. It makes the bomber look like an immature child. Nothing else.

I know everyone who brings logic and common sense to arguments are often branded haters or traitors, but that doesn't change the fact that there is a LOT of juvenile behavior carried out in the name of the liberty movement, and it does nothing but HURT the cause with the masses.

 

[SCOTUSman]

SIGH. Read the article people. He IS NOT BEING CHARGED WITH ASSAULT!

 

[PauliticsPolitics]

The spitball example isn't really valid either since the glitterbombers are ADULTS. Try hurling bodily fluids on another human being as an adult...even in the form of your saliva on small pieces of paper. You WILL get charged with a crime. And probably more than a third degree assault since it involved bodily fluids.

The reason why kids don't often get arrested for spitballs is not because of the nature of the crime. It is their age. The same reason why a kid who throws a rock and breaks a window will likely be reprimanded and forced to pay for the window. But an adult doing the same thing will be arrested.

But again...with glitterbombing...who cares if it is a crime. It is just plain STUPID and counterproductive to ANY cause. It makes the bomber look like an immature child. Nothing else.

I know everyone who brings logic and common sense to arguments are often branded haters or traitors, but that doesn't change the fact that there is a LOT of juvenile behavior carried out in the name of the liberty movement, and it does nothing but HURT the cause with the masses.

Eh, it doesn't matter what example I use. Spitballing was just an easy example of nuisance behavior. You can change it to college kids with spitballs if you want to make them not minors. Or change it to people throwing popcorn at chatty people in a movie theater. The goal was to establish that just because something can technically be charged as assault, does not mean that a court would be willing to put up a trial and convict people of it.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

But what about that serial confetti menace Curly Neal??

I think this decades long crime spree has gone on long enough. Someone could lose an eye.

Confetti is not the same thing as glitter. I think it's pretty reasonable to assume that something that small, if it gets in your eyes or your lungs, can be harmful to one's health. The thing about glitter is that you can't control it because it's too small. If confetti lands on your eye, it is pretty easy to remove. If it goes into your mouth, you can spit it out. Not so with glitter.