Colorado student charged in "glitter bomb" of Romney

[PaulConventionWV]

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.


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.

LE, let me point out the holes in your logic for once. It does not make you as guilty as he. Does that mean people who watch a crime and do nothing should be charged with the same crime as the person who committed the crime? It may be cowardly, but it is not illegal. When the crime only involves personal insults, which isn't actually a crime, I would say you're pretty clean. I don't mean to get on your case, but you don't need to make excuses to involve yourself in a discussion like this. Reporting the guy is enough.

 

[xFiFtyOnE]

It's glitter. Lord Romney the Great needs to calm down.

 

[Gray Fullbuster]

If any of the GOP candidates come to South Jersey other than Paul, ESPECIALLY SANTORUM, I'm gliterring the crap out of them. Take me to juvie, I don't care.

 

[cheapseats]

Seven pages, nearly a thousand views...how does this qualify as RON PAUL GRASSROOTS CENTRAL?

 

[bobburn]

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.

Well assault is not what you think it is. Any intentional act to cause harm or offense that causes an apprehension of imminent harm or offense is assault. Any intentional harmful or offensive act that causes a touching of the victim is a battery. It doesn't have to cause harm, merely offense.

 

[ctiger2]

Glitter = WMD = Terrorist = Military Arrest = No Judge/Jury/Trial = Indefinite Detention In Foreign Prison

 

[LisaNY]

all the other candidates were glitterbombed and no one was arrested, I guess because they didn't have the ss protecting them. I wonder if Romney will get to keep his ss detail should he lose a few more states?

 

[kathy88]

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

"he was cited on misdemeanor charges of creating a disturbance, throwing a missile and an unlawful act on school property, Denver Police spokesman Sonny Jackson said."

So.... he gets charged.... what's going on with the dude who BROKE EDDIE'S foot?

 

[Jamesiv1]

Try hurling bodily fluids on another human being as an adult...

ewww. Don't go Miggs on me.

 

[LibertyEagle]

LE, let me point out the holes in your logic for once. It does not make you as guilty as he. Does that mean people who watch a crime and do nothing should be charged with the same crime as the person who committed the crime? It may be cowardly, but it is not illegal. When the crime only involves personal insults, which isn't actually a crime, I would say you're pretty clean. I don't mean to get on your case, but you don't need to make excuses to involve yourself in a discussion like this. Reporting the guy is enough.

It has to do with morality, Paul. Maybe that is the difference between your generation and mine.

 

[SCOTUSman]

"he was cited on misdemeanor charges of creating a disturbance, throwing a missile and an unlawful act on school property, Denver Police spokesman Sonny Jackson said."

So.... he gets charged.... what's going on with the dude who BROKE EDDIE'S foot?

Yes he got charged, but not for assault. Injury is irrelevant.

As for that case? I haven't been following it too closely. I know he is filing a civil suit. Don't know if he pressed charges yet and whether the police and DA has done anything with it.

 

[SCOTUSman]

It has to do with morality, Paul. Maybe that is the difference between your generation and mine.

Yep. This generation has no morality for the most part. And I'm not talking about homosexuality and that type stuff...I'm talking about how you treat people. Another person.

I've seen so much disrespect for other people, hate, animosity against other people. I see people on here talk about how could Ron Paul get booed for talking about the golden rule, yet they themselves disparage other people, name call, and do those types of things.

Even when people treat you with disrespect, insult you...you should always try to give them a chance....people you disagree with aren't the devil....still respect them. I'm not perfect by any means, but I try to apply the golden rule constantly in my life.

 

[affa]

I don't know. Glitterbombs don't bother me. But neither do pie in the faces. Yes, I can see where they are technically assault. Yes, I would never do it. Yes, I'd be a bit peeved for a day if it happened to me. I can see where could cause some unintended injury on rare occassions. But in the grand scheme of things? Minor civil disobedience; the target of the pie/glitter is a public figure, symbolic of many causes.

That sort of thing has a long history... rotten tomatoes, eggs... heck, even the super-violent tar and feathering. Glitterbombs and whipcream pies are a pretty significant improvement over that.

I guess while I'd never do it myself, I understand that these sort of events are going to happen. I'd rather it be glitter, or a pie, than something worse. It's meant to be non-violent, more of a symbol than an assault.

Meanwhile, kids are sent of to fight the wars, and tazers are used far too frequently.

 

[NancyNYC]

I would say glitter-bombing could more accurately be described as “menacing” rather than “assault.” And yes, menacing is a crime.

Anyone resorting to approaching a public figure and throwing even a rather benign substance like glitter at them is demonstrating the fact that that person is a physically vulnerable target, and that that person’s stance on whatever matter with which the thrower has an issue is being declared by the thrower as justification for more than a verbal response. It is, at its essence, the initiation of force, and therefore deserves to be condemned as such.

 

[RockEnds]

Whether or not glitter bombing should be allowed/excused or whatever, I don't have any sympathy for someone who does it at an event with Secret Service present. He didn't get in that room without realizing that he was in a high security environment. He made the decision to create drama for himself. What exactly did he think would happen when he threw something in the air at the one thing in the room that all those security guards were there to protect? Duh.

 

[affa]

Whether or not glitter bombing should be allowed/excused or whatever, I don't have any sympathy for someone who does it at an event with Secret Service present. He didn't get in that room without realizing that he was in a high security environment. He made the decision to create drama for himself. What exactly did he think would happen when he threw something in the air at the one thing in the room that all those security guards were there to protect? Duh.

Be careful not to underestimate people. There are plenty of people who have engaged in far more subversive behavior knowing full well there would be penalty. Your position assumes he did not think he would be punished, but ignores the possibility that he simply might be willing to take the punishment to make his point. As you said, he knew he was going into a secure event - what makes you think he thought he'd get away with it? It seems far more likely he thought he'd be penalized.

This isn't a defense of the actions themselves, just a reminder that we all have our breaking points. We all have our causes. We all have our methods. Just because we may disagree with each other on what causes are worth fighting for, or what methods are best to spread our message, doesn't necessarily make the other person ignorant. Though it doesn't mean they aren't, either... it simply shouldn't be assumed.

 

[RockEnds]

Be careful not to underestimate people. There are plenty of people who have engaged in far more subversive behavior knowing full well there would be penalty. Your position assumes he did not think he would be punished, but ignores the possibility that he simply might be willing to take the punishment to make his point. As you said, he knew he was going into a secure event - what makes you think he thought he'd get away with it? It seems far more likely he thought he'd be penalized.

This isn't a defense of the actions themselves, just a reminder that we all have our breaking points. We all have our causes. We all have our methods. Just because we may disagree with each other on what causes are worth fighting for, or what methods are best to spread our message, doesn't necessarily make the other person ignorant. Though it doesn't mean they aren't, either... it simply shouldn't be assumed.

I did take that into account, actually. I still think attempting to physically force something upon the person the SS is protecting is dumb. There are better ways to make a point.

 

[dannno]

Ron Paul looked happy to be glitter bombed.

We have a celebration here every year where they fill empty, cleaned egg shells with glitter and people go around smashing them on other's heads.

I've never heard of injuries from doing that.

 

[TheGrinch]

I would say glitter-bombing could more accurately be described as “menacing” rather than “assault.” And yes, menacing is a crime.

Anyone resorting to approaching a public figure and throwing even a rather benign substance like glitter at them is demonstrating the fact that that person is a physically vulnerable target, and that that person’s stance on whatever matter with which the thrower has an issue is being declared by the thrower as justification for more than a verbal response. It is, at its essence, the initiation of force, and therefore deserves to be condemned as such.

I agree with this.... Obviously in most cases where it is in innocent fun, no one is going to charge and certainly not convict someone even for a prank...

But you go up to a public figure and hurl something in their face at a public gathering (particularly something that is capable of causing bodily harm), then expect there to be repercussions.... As was mentioned earlier though, the guy wasn't even charged.

And to philforpaul, I suggest you take a look at the laws in place to protect us from violent and aggressive acts. This is not big government run amok. This is one of the few areas that Dr. Paul thinks the federal government should be involved (while of course using discretion, as they do in cases like this): protecting individual liberty and property from harm, etc. No actual harm is required to protect someone from the threat of harm,such as in a case like this where it's an aggressive action. I assume you'd feel differently if you got something like sand thrown in your face, but glitter can be similarly harmful (but again, does not remove the court's discretion to decide the degree of malevolent intent).

 

[Revolution9]

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

Huh. And I heard she died from the 50 pounds of crack Oprah had.

Rev9