Michigan Residents Could Face 5-Years Prison, $10,000 Fine for Using Wrong Pronouns

We can now close this thread since it has been established this is no different than laws such as the one that justify or not, someone shooting another person in self defense, even when that other person is not armed.

If you have a woman with a gun, who shoots and wounds a man, with no weapon, claiming she FEELS his words and presence are a threat to her, and he contests her story, the juries job will be to listen to both sides and witness testimony (where available), and determine if she reasonably did FEEL a threat, when she decided to shoot. If they agree that she reasonable would FEEL a threat in that spot, they will acquit her and find her self defense shooting justified. That is called the 'reasonable person' test.


EXACT SAME with this legislation. No one is guilty or innocent based on the accusation. A jury must assess the situation, just as above, and if they apply the same type of 'reasonable person' test and agree 'yes, the FEELING of threat was justified' the person will be guilty, and if not they will be innocent.

So therefore /thread and we all agree.
 
QP! said:
We can now close this thread since it has been established this is no different than laws such as the one that justify or not, someone shooting another person in self defense, even when that other person is not armed.

If you have a woman with a gun, who shoots and wounds a man, with no weapon, claiming she FEELS his words and presence are a threat to her, and he contests her story, the juries job will be to listen to both sides and witness testimony (where available), and determine if she reasonably did FEEL a threat, when she decided to shoot. If they agree that she reasonable would FEEL a threat in that spot, they will acquit her and find her self defense shooting justified. That is called the 'reasonable person' test.


EXACT SAME with this legislation. No one is guilty or innocent based on the accusation. A jury must assess the situation, just as above, and if they apply the same type of 'reasonable person' test and agree 'yes, the FEELING of threat was justified' the person will be guilty, and if not they will be innocent.

So therefore /thread and we all agree.
Click to expand...

We can now close this thread because QPI is a moron who got his ass handed to him and wants to hide from the humiliation of his idiocy.
 
QP! said:
We already went thru this TOP. They are EXACTLY similar in every way with regards to how 'threats' are assessed and 'adjudicated'.

When i asked you to explain what was different you could not.

So you now trying to preclude that FACT as you do not like it, is not going to fly.
Click to expand...

That is Toxic TOP's M.O. She's an attention whore and she's twerking for you. She doesn't really care about this subject; she's only here because you keep responding to her endless pointless questions. Your explanations and examples are perfectly clear to everyone else. IMO you are correct; this law -- just like the SYG laws -- is about perception. Let me try an example that Toxic might finally understand.

Let's say that I respond to one of Toxic's posts here with: "That's it, you lesbo bitch, I'm going to throw a brick through your front window tonight!" No reasonable person would take this threat seriously, since we have both revealed that we live hundreds of miles away from the other, plus it's an anonymous discussion board on the Internet.

But if I said the exact same thing to her face in person, it's quite possible that a reasonable person would take it seriously. Therefore, I would be charged with assault based on her FEELING that I was a danger to her. The slur "lesbo" could add a hate charge to the assault charge, since it's a slur about sexual orientation.
 
QP! said:
We already went thru this TOP. They are EXACTLY similar in every way with regards to how 'threats' are assessed and 'adjudicated'.

When i asked you to explain what was different you could not.

So you now trying to preclude that FACT as you do not like it, is not going to fly.
Click to expand...
They are nothing alike...I even asked for an example...and...nothing... Not to worry...but you are right in a way...it's (the law) is not going to fly...;)
 
QP! said:
Sure but i pointed out how you were wrong and remember you are the slum lord lawyer who does not understand the law or what you read.

What is left or crossed out does not change the FACT that a jury would be applying a 'reaonable man' test to determine the following.
Click to expand...

the fact you point at things does not make you right......how about you point to the line in statute that requires proof of malicious intent......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
the fact you point at things does not make you right......how about you point to the line in statute that requires proof of malicious intent......
Click to expand...
From my post above i will explain a term of legal art which you, as a lawyer should understand but clearly do not know.

"...A person is guilty of a hate crime if that person maliciously and intentionally does any of the following..."
Click to expand...


I need you to focus on the bolded and enlarged above. Those are what the jury would have to DETERMINE in their findings and judgement. If the jury does not find the person acted maliciously or intentionally, then the case does not proceed to a guilty verdict.


It is the EXACT same way a jury determines if you shoot a person knocking on your door if that person was a malicious or intentional threat, that you had a right to shoot under self defense or if they were merely the postman doing his job and thus your FEELINGS do not matter, and you are guilty.


In each instance NO ONE is getting found guilty if the one making the claim cannot get the jury to consider what they are saying and find, by apply a reasonable person standard, that threat was real and malicious and there was intent.
 
TOP said:
They are nothing alike...I even asked for an example...and...nothing... Not to worry...but you are right in a way...it's (the law) is not going to fly...;)
Click to expand...

Sorry but we already did the /thread. You lost.

We can now close this thread since it has been established this is no different than laws such as the one that justify or not, someone shooting another person in self defense, even when that other person is not armed.

If you have a woman with a gun, who shoots and wounds a man, with no weapon, claiming she FEELS his words and presence are a threat to her, and he contests her story, the juries job will be to listen to both sides and witness testimony (where available), and determine if she reasonably did FEEL a threat, when she decided to shoot. If they agree that she reasonable would FEEL a threat in that spot, they will acquit her and find her self defense shooting justified. That is called the 'reasonable person' test.


EXACT SAME with this legislation. No one is guilty or innocent based on the accusation. A jury must assess the situation, just as above, and if they apply the same type of 'reasonable person' test and agree 'yes, the FEELING of threat was justified' the person will be guilty, and if not they will be innocent.

So therefore /thread and we all agree.
Click to expand...
 
PostmodernProphet said:
don't bother...just go to the fucking statute and point out where malicious intent is an element of the fucking crime, dipshit.....
Click to expand...

I'll just keep citing from the statute you quoted in bold and big letters...


"...A person is guilty of a hate crime if that person maliciously and intentionally does any of the following..."
Click to expand...
 
PostmodernProphet said:
waste all the time you want.....perhaps one day you will read the rest of the amended statute......
Click to expand...

Right, and so your usual backpedal begins.

As always you NEVER win a point with me.

You start by screaming "...just go to the fucking statute and point out where malicious intent is an element of the fucking crime, dipshit..."


I say ok... and quote from the statute EXACTLY what you thought did not exist within it...

.A person is guilty of a hate crime if that person maliciously and intentionally does any of the following


You then pivot to an acknowledgement while saying 'whatabout the rest of the statute'.

FLOL


You are a hopeless debater. Embarrassingly bad, especially when it comes to matters of law. You lose 100% of the discussions you engage with me on, and ALWAYS try to pivot to save a point.

Your argument is now to claim the equivalent of the word 'save' does not appear in the prior sentence and when i quote it flipping to saying 'ya but not in the rest of the sentence'.

FLOLOLOL.
 
Frank Apisa said:
I hate to be in charge of making a list of the things that are beyond you, Dog.

You are a fool. But my guess is you can live with that.
Click to expand...

What if I told you that your boy, Biden, amended Title IX to include trans males, Frank? Do you even know what title 9 is?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top