Reviews:
 ·Mediacom
| OK but... ...she stopped and did not hit anyone. They did not have to run for their lives so I see no point in assault with a deadly weapon charge. Maybe threat with a deadly weapon charge but I'm sure there is no such thing.
But on the other hand I hate people who think their yards are sacred grounds. I think she should be shot and buried in the same trench with the fiber. |
|
 antwanpBeyond FM, Beyond AM, XM Satellite RadioPremium
join:2002-05-14
Cedar Hill, TX | The charges will probably be dropped to Threat with a deadly weapon(still serious), some psych treatment, and a long period of probation. Like someone said above, if this were in Texas those FiOs guys would've been shot... unless you're lucky enough to live in the Northern Suburbs of D/FW (Verizon Areas), then you would be happy that they were digging in the area... at least I would be!
-Antwan L. |
|
rick1991
join:2003-01-22
East Fultonham, OH | reply to Anonymous
There's no way should she be buried in the trench with the fiber. People like that probably have alien blood running through their veins that would eat through and destroy the fiber.  |
|
| reply to Anonymous
A lot of people get this confused. An sssault is the act of threatening.
Assault = raising your hand to hit someone.
Battery = hitting the person.
Assault with a deadly weapon = driving your car at someone
Attempted murder with a weapon = hitting person with your car
Murder = hitting and killing person with your car.
(I'm a law school graduate, though not an attorney.) |
|
 a
@rr.com | reply to Anonymous
Maybe she was trying to drive into the trench to be buried and the fios workers decided they could make a quick buck by suing her. |
|
Reviews:
·Mediacom
| reply to Falconeer999
Thanks for the info but it still does not make any sense.
BTW does law education include courses on how to detach from human feelings and be a complete asshole?
Don't get me wrong but it seems to me that lawyers only care about the money...
I was always curious about that. |
|
 nixenRockin' the BoxenPremium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA | reply to Anonymous
said by Anonymous:...she stopped and did not hit anyone. They did not have to run for their lives so I see no point in assault with a deadly weapon charge. Maybe threat with a deadly weapon charge but I'm sure there is no such thing. In legal terms, the charge of "assault" implies "threat". Actually carrying out the threat equates to things like battery (as in, "he was charged with assault and battery"), malicious wounding, murder, etc.
said by Anonymous:But on the other hand I hate people who think their yards are sacred grounds. I think she should be shot and buried in the same trench with the fiber. The rotting body might attract critters that might also gnaw on the fibre.
-tom
--
"Some people have morals, standards and ideals about quality, but I'm an American: I couldn't care less." --Tony Pierce (paraphrased) |
|
| reply to Anonymous
Take some law classes or read up on the subject and it will make perfect sense. BTW -- I hope your asshole comment was not directed at Falconeer since he was not rude in any way and did not deserve such a response... I'm going to assume you were just speaking in general terms. While it is true that many lawyers only care about money, there are the exceptions out there that fight to uphold the law and protect the common person's interests. Let me know if you find one.  |
|
kherrPremium
join:2000-09-04
Collinsville, IL | reply to Anonymous
Sounds like a terrorist to me. Invoke the Patriot Act and put her in prision for 15 years before she can see an attorny or get charged with something. |
|
|
|
1 edit | reply to LinuxJunkie
No that was not a personal attack  |
|
| reply to a
Oh, it all makes sense now! |
|
| reply to Anonymous
said by Anonymous:Thanks for the info but it still does not make any sense. BTW does law education include courses on how to detach from human feelings and be a complete asshole? Don't get me wrong but it seems to me that lawyers only care about the money... I was always curious about that. It makes complete sense.
To be charged with assault with a deadly weapon using a gun, it doesn't even have to be loaded. Why? Because the threat or belief of harm is all it takes for those charges to stick.
Example; I put a gun top you and demand money. Your first reaction is to think the gun is loaded. Therefore, in the eyes of the law, it is assault with a deadly weapon since you have NO way to know if it is loaded or not.
As for the car, if it suddenly went onto a lawn (not a road) and came towards you, you have no idea if the driver will stop in time nor their intent. Unless they had a legitimate medical emergency, the assault charge will stand.
The difference of assault and battery also make sense. If I take a swing at you, you will have a fear of me now since you do not know my intentions. If I hit you, that is a crime as well. |
|
 sapoCruising Down Memory LanePremium
join:2002-09-16
Sacramento, CA
kudos:1 | reply to kherr
said by kherr:Sounds like a terrorist to me. Invoke the Patriot Act and put her in prision for 15 years before she can see an attorny or get charged with something. Hehe
--
Boycott Sony |
|
