The Mixon tape

Perhaps you forgot what a fucking pimple on the hairy ass of this site you are.

 

Awww, I pissed off Dickie again. Perhaps he feels that he has been emotionally battered.

 

Certainly not a lawyer, but I think you're incorrect here. Actual harm is not required to prove battery.

 

We will run across a topic someday on which OOP does not consider himself the board's leading authority.

Today is not that day. franticscribe and Whitman can take their fancy law degrees and build a fire.

 

Please see my response to Dickie's post. Even as a correct legal term, it is silly. The connotation of the word matters as well.

Of course, Dickie and scribe are both ducking the other part of my post. She did not "batter" him three times. She shoved him and smacked him, but she didn't grab him with her left hand. She simply placed it against his arm or chest (hard to tell which). Do you really think scribe's description of what happened fits what we saw in the video?

 

Please go on, Perry Mason.

 

Did I dispute Dickie's statement that it is a legal term? No. I don't doubt that. I pointed out that the connotation of the word matters as well and scribe's post is misleading. It is also inaccurate when he claims there were three blows, not two.

But hey, don't let the facts of a discussion get in your way. They never have before.

 

This is not yet as much fun as when OOP edumacates doctorquant on statistics, but it could get there.

 

Why? You haven't contradicted my point regarding the connotation of the word or the number of times the girl struck Mixon.

LTL continues to make up his own version of the discussion rather than respond to what was actually written. I acknowledged that it was a legal term the moment Dickie brought it up. It can be both a correct legal term and ridiculous in its use. Don't worry, LTL. I know reality makes your head hurt.

Some of you seem to need this.
Denotation and Connotation | Dictionary.com Blog

 

That's a question that can't get really murky moving from one jurisdiction to another. In some states you have a duty to retreat first before using force. In others you have no such responsibility and can use force if you're in a place where you are lawfully allowed to be and subsequently facing an imminent threat.

That's a little different than what you asked, but even if he followed her over to that table without invitation, the question in a so-called "stand your ground" state would be whether he could lawfully be in that place once she came after him. There seems to be some dispute, by the way, over whether she called him over to the table or he came over on his own after they had exchanged words outside.

 

Your "point regarding the connotation of the word" makes about as much sense as a mule with a harmonica. I wouldn't begin to know how to "contradict" it.

 

At least the second part of your statement is accurate. Regarding the first part, please see the link I posted above. You seem to need the help.

This legal issues are certainly part of the discussion, but not its entirety. The perception of the event matters as well, and that is where the connotation of the word becomes relevant. It was my understanding that the facts of this case were available a long time ago, but the video is why it is a story now. That is a matter of perception.

And you both continue to avoid the other point in my initial post. Are you really sticking by the notion that what she did with her left hand before slapping him with the right would fit any definition of batter?