Charges dropped against Trumps campaign manager

christiefan915 said:
That's the most surprising thing of all. Fields, a conservative woman working for a conservative website, and the conservatives are bashing her. Seems like it's not just Trump who's the misogynist.
Click to expand...

Do you have misogynist tattooed on your fat wrinkly ass?

:rofl2:

You cumtwats sure get yourselves off on that word
 
christiefan915 said:
That's the most surprising thing of all. Fields, a conservative woman working for a conservative website, and the conservatives are bashing her. Seems like it's not just Trump who's the misogynist.
Click to expand...

I don't care if she was Ronald-ette Reagan lol, she put herself in a position where she might be grabbed.
 
christiefan915 said:
That's the most surprising thing of all. Fields, a conservative woman working for a conservative website, and the conservatives are bashing her. Seems like it's not just Trump who's the misogynist.
Click to expand...

When liberals bash conservative women, are they misogynists?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
how odd....when I said the same thing the board's liberals went ballistic......
Click to expand...

Which part of this do you disagree with? It's from Findlaw.

Battery is a general intent offense. This means that the actor need not intend the specific harm that will result from the unwanted contact, but only to commit an act of unwanted contact. This also means that gross negligence or even recklessness may provide the required intent or (in criminal matters) mens rea to find a battery...

...if ... there is only the slightest intentional touching of another, which is harmful or offensive and also non-consensual (such as reaching out and touching a woman's thigh), a battery has occurred...

Non-consensual contact may be made with either a person or that person's extended personality. This means that if one person leans forward and yanks the jewelry necklace off another, a battery has occurred, even though the first person never actually touched the neck of the second person. If this act was preceded with an intent to cause the other to apprehend an impending violent yank of the necklace, both an assault and a battery have occurred...

A plaintiff or complainant in a case for battery does not have to prove an actual physical injury. Rather, the plaintiff must prove an unlawful and unpermitted contact with his or her person or property in a harmful or offensive manner. This, in and of itself, is deemed injurious. As in the case of the Texas hotel manager above, the harm may be offensive rather than physical, but equally worthy of compensation under the law.


See more at: http://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and...ements-of-a-battery.html#sthash.4R76hkgO.dpuf
 
christiefan915 said:
Which part of this do you disagree with? It's from Findlaw.

Battery is a general intent offense. This means that the actor need not intend the specific harm that will result from the unwanted contact, but only to commit an act of unwanted contact. This also means that gross negligence or even recklessness may provide the required intent or (in criminal matters) mens rea to find a battery...

...if ... there is only the slightest intentional touching of another, which is harmful or offensive and also non-consensual (such as reaching out and touching a woman's thigh), a battery has occurred...

Non-consensual contact may be made with either a person or that person's extended personality. This means that if one person leans forward and yanks the jewelry necklace off another, a battery has occurred, even though the first person never actually touched the neck of the second person. If this act was preceded with an intent to cause the other to apprehend an impending violent yank of the necklace, both an assault and a battery have occurred...

A plaintiff or complainant in a case for battery does not have to prove an actual physical injury. Rather, the plaintiff must prove an unlawful and unpermitted contact with his or her person or property in a harmful or offensive manner. This, in and of itself, is deemed injurious. As in the case of the Texas hotel manager above, the harm may be offensive rather than physical, but equally worthy of compensation under the law.


See more at: http://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and...ements-of-a-battery.html#sthash.4R76hkgO.dpuf
Click to expand...

What part can't you agree with:
NOT BRINGING CHARGES

:chesh:
 
christiefan915 said:
Which part of this do you disagree with? It's from Findlaw.

Battery is a general intent offense. This means that the actor need not intend the specific harm that will result from the unwanted contact, but only to commit an act of unwanted contact. This also means that gross negligence or even recklessness may provide the required intent or (in criminal matters) mens rea to find a battery...

...if ... there is only the slightest intentional touching of another, which is harmful or offensive and also non-consensual (such as reaching out and touching a woman's thigh), a battery has occurred...

Non-consensual contact may be made with either a person or that person's extended personality. This means that if one person leans forward and yanks the jewelry necklace off another, a battery has occurred, even though the first person never actually touched the neck of the second person. If this act was preceded with an intent to cause the other to apprehend an impending violent yank of the necklace, both an assault and a battery have occurred...

A plaintiff or complainant in a case for battery does not have to prove an actual physical injury. Rather, the plaintiff must prove an unlawful and unpermitted contact with his or her person or property in a harmful or offensive manner. This, in and of itself, is deemed injurious. As in the case of the Texas hotel manager above, the harm may be offensive rather than physical, but equally worthy of compensation under the law.


See more at: http://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and...ements-of-a-battery.html#sthash.4R76hkgO.dpuf
Click to expand...

why would I disagree with Findlaw.......what I objected to was the claim that videos showed a battery......I watched the videos and came to the same conclusion that the prosecuting attornies came to.......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
why would I disagree with Findlaw.......what I objected to was the claim that videos showed a battery......I watched the videos and came to the same conclusion that the prosecuting attornies came to.......
Click to expand...

The video showed that Lewandowski grabbed Fields by the arm. She also had the bruises to prove it. According to Findlaw that's a battery. It was just her bad luck that CL had a lot of money on his side.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top