ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann today got a very warm reception from her home state at a conference of conservative bloggers in Minneapolis, but a few gay rights protesters still managed to make her the latest victim of the glitter attacks that have already been waged on fellow GOP presidential candidates Newt Gingrich and Tim Pawlenty.
Why would this happen to Democrats? None of them are running for the GOP nomination and have stated they want a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
I thought the GOP was all about States rights? Guess that doesn't matter when it comes to discrimination.
Last edited by Gainzo; 06-20-2011 at 12:48 PM..
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
technically, putting glitter on someone against their wishes is assault. any act whose only cause is to agitate is considered assault.
on top of that, the victim in such a situation would have a right to claim self defense in response. given the fact that the victim does not know what is actually being dumped on them, a wide array of responses would be deemed approriate........might not be able to shoot the person, but you can really ruin their next few weeks.
such an attempt on me would go very far in stopping these kinds of tactics in the future.
love the chico-spin
+1. Any sort of unwanted contact is assault, pure and simple.
My guess is that you have never spent much time in a court room and have little practical application of the law.. assault is the intent to harm, battery is the harming about 99.9% would throw this out as frivolous..
You're just totally clueless. Assault is a criminal charge. There is no such thing as throwing a criminal charge out of court on the grounds that it is "frivolous."
For someone who is lecturing others about never being in a courtroom, you sure are displaying an awful lot of your own ignorance. You obviously have no clue regarding the distinction between a criminal versus a civil court.
BTW, your made up definition of assault simply is neither accurate nor complete.
By the way, let the record show that the moonbats in here are doing nothing but arguing over the definition of "assault" and not a single one of them has come up with an answer that I asked for in my very first post starting this thread.