Why do you REFUSE to look at this with the eyes of a Hall of Fame Buttercup!!??

That is not very lawyerly of you!!

Ha. That gif actually has me convinced she's right.

If you represented Corey I would imagine the DA would decide to not prosecute him in about one guzzillionth of a second.

Ha.  Well get to work then.

Getting Corey freed from those charges would probably be the easiest trial in Aimless history.

Oh, please. Are you saying that the Secret Service detail was incompetent at threat analysis?

Why are you trying to confuse them with the facts?

Yes.

d³s/dt³

She was jerked backwards and downwards.  When riding a motorcycle, what degree of lateral displacement is needed for the perception of loss of control?  It's very small, inch[es].  The human body is very good at detecting accelerations, it's integral to all of our body mechanics.

She's not claiming TBI from the accelerations and rate of accelerations.

She stated that she was jerked backwards - which is substantiated in both videos.  She stated that she nearly lost her balance - which is substantiated by the overhead video showing where her feet are placed.  She stated that she was pulled downwards - which is substantiated by the second, ground level video - as well as by the general kinematics of grabbing someone's forearm where she was grabbed.

She stated that she received bruises on her forearm - and there are photos of the bruising.  The overhead video shows Lewandowski grabbing that forearm.

Fields had no access to any of the video surveillance prior to making her police report.  Her statements noted in the police report are not inconsistent with anything in the video[s].

And of course, politicians and their minions never do...

It seems clear that everyone sees what they want to see in the videos.

Very classy. Now I understand why Trump supporters like him so much. They have the same level of emotional maturity.

I don't want to see anything other than what I see...............and what I see is a Buttercup crying wolf.

Well, if we are going to use Aimless as a sock puppet ...
My Aimless sock puppet says a monkey could [successfully] prosecute this trial.

Your turn.

I thought I already gave my opinion.

Oh.........and that opinion is that that monkey would have an impossible time convicting him if I was on the jury.

Perhaps you're not sufficiently invested in the outcome of the nomination process to import your feelings on that subject into this one.

"Damn, busted, I was so close to getting my question in..."  

You are right...........Trump or Cruz get my vote in the general.

Also, were you aware of the Buttercup standard at play nowadays with battery/assault prosecutions?

Ahh, that old chestnut.  When the video evidence doesn't seem to go your way, just start screaming white knight and hope it all goes away.

Don't worry, it's going away.  Nobody cares about this anymore because the Donald stepped on his dick in a much bigger way yesterday.

This song is very apropos to this thread..................

FWIW to the "white knight" shouting crowd, would I have pressed charges for this?  Nope.  Do I think he should be tossed in jail and throw away the key?  Nope.  However, might I consider pressing charges has his response been to publicly deny the incident ever happened and slandered me as a liar who invented the entire incident out of whole cloth?  Absolutely, as that would be the only way to obtain the video proving that I wasn't a liar who made the entire incident up.  Especially since his and the Donald's emphatic denials and portrayal of me as a liar essentially cost me my job with my employer.

Furthermore to the white knighting, yes I was brought up to know that you don't grab a woman unless she really is some sort of physical threat, and only the biggest of pussies would think she was in this case.  She was grabbed because Corey didn't want the Donald getting questioned.  I think that's a cowardly thing for man to do.  If that makes me a white knight, then I am a white knight.

True, but the mens rea still applies to all criminal statutes.

That's not true.  There are strict liability crimes, such as statutory rape.  But there is intent required for battery.  But it's basically intent to touch.  So basically just not an accidental touching.  There really is no defense if there was a touching, other than jury nullification, or prosecutorial discretion, because it's stupid.

Some stuff I found on the law of battery in FL:



DEFINITION OF BATTERY
The crime of Simple Battery or Misdemeanor Battery is defined under Section 784.03, Florida Statutes. In Florida, the term battery means:

Any actual and intentional touching or striking of another person against that person’s will (non-consensual), or
The intentional causing of bodily harm to another person.
Where there are no aggravating factors or enhancements at play (such as use of a weapon, serious bodily injury, or domestic violence) the offense is known as “simple battery” or “misdemeanor battery.”

INTENT REQUIREMENT
Intent is a required element of a simple battery charge.  To constitute a crime, there must be “either a specific voluntary act or something that is substantially certain to result from the act.” C.B. v. State, 810 So.2d 1072 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). A defendant must intend to strike the person, or engage in conduct where he or she knows that a touch or strike “is substantially certain to result from his acts.” Id.

Thus, an accidental touching or a touching that is incidental to other conduct not aimed at making contact with another person, is insufficient to establish a battery. Beard v. State, 842 So.2d 174, 176-77 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Whether the accused had the requisite intent is a question for the jury to resolve by examining the surrounding facts and circumstances of the incident.

CONSENT AND MUTUAL COMBAT
In all Florida prosecutions, it is a required element of battery that the touching at issue occur without the consent of the alleged victim, or “against the person’s will.”

This issue frequently arises in cases where two people engage in a fight, or “mutual combat.” In Florida, ‘mutual combat’ is a recognized battery defense predicated upon both parties assenting to a physical altercation and therefore consenting to be touched as an understood consequence of that altercation. Both parties must be at fault, and the defendant must not be the primary aggressor or initiate the fight.  Eiland v. State, 112 So.2d 415 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959); A.L. v. State, 790 So.2d 1149 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).

The issue of consent is a jury question, and is examined in light of the surrounding circumstances. Testimony from the alleged victim that he or she did not consent is not required, so long as the state’s evidence can support a jury inference of a non-consensual touching. State v. Clyatt, 976 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 5th Dist. 2008).

In some cases, where proper procedures are followed, evidence of a defendant’s prior violent behaviors toward the victim is relevant to prove his or her intent to commit the crime of battery or the alleged victim’s lack of consent. This is known as “Williams Rule” evidence.

NO REQUIREMENT OF INJURY
To commit the crime of misdemeanor battery, an accused does not have to injure the alleged victim. The intentional touching against another person’s will is sufficient. In fact, where the allegation is that the touching was against the alleged victim’s will, the existence or extent of injury becomes irrelevant. See D.C. v. State, 436 So. 2d 203, 206 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).

I ain't so sure about that with battery................but that still doesn't mean Buttercup was the victim of battery...........it is a subjective judgment.

Never mind, Lawyer Up answered it.

Like I said.........the prosecutor should NOT put me on the jury.

i dont know.... If i was walking along talking to somebody and this guy grabbed my arm and jerked me around like he did that female...or had he done that to my wife/daughter...I would be inclined to rectify that situation very quickly.

If it were me or my wife, I can assure you that there would be video evidence of non-consensual touching...lots of non-consensual touching.

It is true and it still applies to a simple battery - a charge requires intent to inflict harm or injury or to do wrong.

Not only that, the SS dropped the ball, but Blunder Boy Corey was the superhero who saved the day!

That's going to leave a mark!

You most likely agree that every "Murder" is a "Homicide" but not every "Homicide" is a "Murder" right?


So then, you probably also agree that every "Battery" is an "Unwanted, intentional touch" but not every "Unwanted, intentional touch" is a "Battery".


This is the latter. Whether you "lied" or "misspoke" or "misremembered" doesn't change those "facts".

This was not a "Battery" based on the Totality of the Circumstances.

And law school ain't the real world.

That Statute does not exist in a vacuum.  Especially in the 4th DCA in Florida

You may not realize this, but the vast majority of those USSS agents on details are local office guys who normally chase fake $100 bills or other such nonsense and don't normally do 'dig details'....in fact, most of the ones I've talked to/worked with despise "dignitary season".

They are not the Super-SWAT-Ninja agents you may think they are. They don't receive "extensive" training for 'dig work'.  Most have never "live fired" a dignitary scenario on a range.

Most of what "everyone knows" about how LE work, to include local, state, and fed is what Hollywood teaches them.

I think it really comes down to consent.  A reporter in that environment knows that she may get jostled or grabbed in a crowd like that when she accosts a candidate trying to get out of the building.  Further, as Judge Napalitano pointed out, you can't enforce the statute literally because it would be absurd.  You cannot let someone decide after the fact that a form of touching was offensive.  Either the touching must is some sense be objectively offensive or there must be some indication that the touching is not wanted.  Otherwise you could arrest every child who played duck, duck, goose.  



 

Again, the issue now is not the physical altercation. I too agree there's not much there but it was inappropriate of Corey and a decent amount of force was used. That said, it's the 'coverup' that's the crux of the issue; the deliberate attempt to lie about it from the beginning.

Neither of you would make it because when the question "do you support Trump to be the Repubilcan nominee," you'd be excused.

I haven't looked but that may be the case I was talking about a few pages back.. I remember it, the ruling I referenced, coming from the 2nd DCA though. This current incident occurred in the 4th DCA area however as a general practice many SAO will abide by other rulings from the other DCA's


The case I'm thinking of had to do with a venue with a large crowd. They basically said that entering that venue in those circumstances you know the possibility of a bump or scuffle and accept that risk.


I'm surprised at all the "lawyers" here spouting off about the Statute on the books and think it exists in a vacuum and refuse to take in the totality of the circumstances.



Who knows, maybe they do trusts or wills or some such "lawyer work".

Mutual Combat?

Trump's War on Women^TM just got ratcheted up a notch.

I'm not a lawyer, nor a political strategist, but this just seems like an il-advised defense.

Well, you and I should both know that in there facts and the law are rarely important......that "feels" often time take center stage for the "grand show" called the "Justice system"

Ok, let's say she's lying her ass off...Explain the video, Corey clearly pulled her back (you see her shoulder jerk forward.) It's very much more than a touch; as I understand the law written; the facts are on her side. Doesn't matter what her 'past' is and the fact that Corey yanked that protester by the back of the shirt a week later is further evidence.

The overhead video appears to show him grabbing her upper arm.