Colorado student charged in "glitter bomb" of Romney

[sailingaway]

http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wxxi/news.newsmain/article/0/0/1902895/US/Colorado.student.charged.in.'glitter.bomb'.of.Romn ey

It was a matter of time. there was an article on the Hill today quoting an eye doctor about how glitter could cut your eyes and impair your vision and that if you breathed it in it could go into your sinuses and require surgery for resulting infection etc.

[PaleoPaul]

He should have bought Mitt something from JCPenney instead.

[libertythor]

He should have bought Mitt something from JCPenney instead.

:p That was actually a pretty funny play on stereotypes +rep

Seriously though, the glitter bombers aren't helping their cause at all. I am a homosexual who is disgusted at the flamboyant displays, like the guy with the gay caricature voice who glitter-bombed Newt Gingrich. On the other hand, I don't think that any charges should have been filed against the guy who glitter-bombed Mitt Romney beyond a very simple littering charge if even that.

[PaleoPaul]

:p That was actually a pretty funny play on stereotypes +rep
My joke was actually about the whole recent controversy surrounding Ellen DeGeneres' being chosen as a spokeswoman for JCPenney, and how all the religious right groups are up in arms about it.

[phill4paul]

Well if it is so 'less but lethal' maybe riot cops could start using them.

[libertythor]

My joke was actually about the whole recent controversy surrounding Ellen DeGeneres' being chosen as a spokeswoman for JCPenney, and how all the religious right groups are up in arms about it.

I wasn't aware of that controversy. My mind went to the fact that most male employees at the JCPenney in Chula Vista seem to be gay and the whole department store and clothing fashion stereotype from the British comedy Are You Being Served.

[gerryb]

Wait, I thought he was the official confetti thrower?

[RickyJ]

http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wxxi/news.newsmain/article/0/0/1902895/US/Colorado.student.charged.in.'glitter.bomb'.of.Romn ey

It was a matter of time. there was an article on the Hill today quoting an eye doctor about how glitter could cut your eyes and impair your vision and that if you breathed it in it could go into your sinuses and require surgery for resulting infection etc.

Good! This stuff needs to stop. The only problem with putting him in jail is he might enjoy it.

[phill4paul]

Good! This stuff needs to stop. The only problem with putting him to jail is he might enjoy it.

So what? Is that some kinda 'ghey' slur or what? Yuck. Yuck. Ya bigot.

[Okie RP fan]

:p That was actually a pretty funny play on stereotypes +rep

Seriously though, the glitter bombers aren't helping their cause at all. I am a homosexual who is disgusted at the flamboyant displays, like the guy with the gay caricature voice who glitter-bombed Newt Gingrich. On the other hand, I don't think that any charges should have been filed against the guy who glitter-bombed Mitt Romney beyond a very simple littering charge if even that.

Thank you, seriously.

My personal beliefs aside, this is what it really comes down to for me: the flamboyancy(?) of people like the "glitterbombers."
I appreciate hearing that from a homosexual, honestly.

[phill4paul]

Pieing...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pieing

Nyuck..nyuck...nyuck...whoop..whoop..whoop.

[No Free Beer]

good.

this is assault in my book.

[SCOTUSman]

Good. This is a crime. A misdemeanor, but a crime nonetheless. A violation of Romney's liberty.

[phill4paul]

Good. This is a crime. A misdemeanor, but a crime nonetheless. A violation of Romney's liberty.

It's a crime if there is an injury or property damage. Civil suit. It is frikken glitter. No one who has ever been truly 'assaulted' would even consider this to be an assault.

[Oddone]

Good! This stuff needs to stop. The only problem with putting him in jail is he might enjoy it.

One of many anti-gay post by RickyJ!

[giovannile07]

I wasn't aware of that controversy. My mind went to the fact that most male employees at the JCPenney in Chula Vista seem to be gay and the whole department store and clothing fashion stereotype from the British comedy Are You Being Served.
Oh you're from Chula Vista! Chula Vista has two good show choirs, Chula Vista "Main Attraction" and Bonita Vista "The Music Machine," by the way not stereotyping that gay people are in show choir, just saying because I was in show choir and that's all I really know about Chula Vista other than the area is pretty nice.

[Oddone]

So what? Is that some kinda 'ghey' slur or what? Yuck. Yuck. Ya bigot.

He does that a lot. Any time this subject is brought up.

[phill4paul]

One of many anti-gay post by RickyJ!

Hadn't known about others but this one was pretty evident.

[libertythor]

Oh you're from Chula Vista! Chula Vista has two good show choirs, Chula Vista "Main Attraction" and Bonita Vista "The Music Machine," by the way not stereotyping that gay people are in show choir, just saying because I was in show choir and that's all I really know about Chula Vista other than the area is pretty nice.

I live in Tijuana and generally go to Chula Vista when crossing the border and will look up future performances of those groups.

[Wolfgang Bohringer]

All points bulletin out now on Curly Neal and the Globetrotters:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2772/4204380908_89da2af35d.jpg

[libertythor]

Good! This stuff needs to stop. The only problem with putting him in jail is he might enjoy it.

Sorry, but most gay people don't enjoy getting raped or raping. What happens in prison is apart from sexual orientation.

[SCOTUSman]

It's a crime if there is an injury or property damage. Civil suit. It is frikken glitter. No one who has ever been truly 'assaulted' would even consider this to be an assault.

Wrong. You don't have to injure someone for it to be a crime. That is an absolutely silly statement. Throw a punch at someone and don't hurt them, it is hardly not a crime.

You can hurt someone, yes with glitter. Their eyes. I've seen it happen on accident before. Glitter thrown up in the air and catch some in someone's eyes. Cut their cornea.

[Feelgood]

I heard Mittens was supposed to be getting secret service protection, since he has already been anointed by the GOP establishment. That being said, you're a double dumbass to throw anything at someone being protected by the SS. :)

:pun intended:

[RonPaulFanInGA]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glitter_bombing


Glitter bombing is an act of protest in the United States in which activists throw glitter on people at public events. Glitter bombers have frequently been motivated by their targets' opposition to same-sex marriage. Glitter bombing is "technically assault and battery" according to Mark R. Vernazza, a legal associate at Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge LLP...

[Wolfgang Bohringer]

Good! This stuff needs to stop. The only problem with putting him in jail is he might enjoy it.

I've always been intrigued by the increasing popularity of prison rape humor in the US. For example, the ATF was surprised recently when some people objected to their using good ol' American prison rape humor in one of their ads:

http://www.ridersforjustice.com/Alerts/project_exile.html
(http://www.ridersforjustice.com/Alerts/project_exile.html)

[SCOTUSman]

Also he was not charged with assault, further showing that injury isn't needing to be involved.

[Wolfgang Bohringer]

Wrong. You don't have to injure someone for it to be a crime.

But what about that serial confetti menace Curly Neal??

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-94bcKjvEfOQ/Tofvc56KmUI/AAAAAAAAAN8/I8mjA_bn0iw/s1600/confetti.jpg

I think this decades long crime spree has gone on long enough. Someone could lose an eye.

[phill4paul]

Wrong. You don't have to injure someone for it to be a crime. That is an absolutely silly statement. Throw a punch at someone and don't hurt them, it is hardly not a crime.

You can hurt someone, yes with glitter. Their eyes. I've seen it happen on accident before. Glitter thrown up in the air and catch some in someone's eyes. Cut their cornea.


Your such a pansy to believe that every little personal affrontery should be a crime enforced by government. Lol. Pathetic.

edit: I do not disparage pansies in this questioning of your manhood. Pansies are some tough flowers.

[SCOTUSman]

Your such a pansy to believe that every little personal affrontery should be a crime enforced by government. Lol. Pathetic.

I'm giving you the law. Sorry. I'm a pansy for being able to read a law and know what it says. And you call me pansy. You are pathetic. You live in denying reality. The reality of the law does not require injury for crimes he is charged with. Get over it.

[phill4paul]

I'm giving you the law. Sorry. I'm a pansy for being able to read a law and know what it says. And you call me pansy. You are pathetic. You live in denying reality. The reality of the law does not require injury for crimes he is charged with. Get over it.

Keep going flower child. You're amusing. Slightly.

[affa]

Good! This stuff needs to stop. The only problem with putting him in jail is he might enjoy it.

Posts like this are better off stopping, as well.

[LibertasPraesidium]

Must I remind anyone that when speaking with the security when they stopped at the HQ for MN, the man said the glitterbomber found them not the otherway around, but they shrugged it off, and Ron actually laughed. (he was like a foot away when I asked the security guy.)

[Ekrub]

I wish they wouldn't glitterbomb. I really think it hurts a cause that is making great strides.

[Kregisen]

Good! This stuff needs to stop. The only problem with putting him in jail is he might enjoy it.

I heard it's only prison where dropping the soap occurs. Jail is different.

[giovannile07]

I live in Tijuana and generally go to Chula Vista when crossing the border and will look up future performances of those groups.
Haha they are both high schools, Chula Vista doesn't perform anymore though, due to the budget cuts they aren't allowed to do show choir anymore. :( They will have a competition at the end of April, which I'm sure Bonita Vista will attend. I have a friend who lives in Tijuana too haha.

[phill4paul]

Must I remind anyone that when speaking with the security when they stopped at the HQ for MN, the man said the glitterbomber found them not the otherway around, but they shrugged it off, and Ron actually laughed. (he was like a foot away when I asked the security guy.)

I had heard that Ron also got 'glitter bombed.' I had not heard specifics. Do you have a link?

[LibertyEagle]

Your such a pansy to believe that every little personal affrontery should be a crime enforced by government. Lol. Pathetic.

edit: I do not disparage pansies in this questioning of your manhood. Pansies are some tough flowers.

You are WAY out of line! What the hell do you think you are doing?

[phill4paul]

I heard it's only prison where dropping the soap occurs. Jail is different.

Yeah, 'prison' is that place where non-violent heterosexuals go because of the 'war on drugs' and find their inner homosexuality through rape by other inmats. Jail is different. In many instances it is the gaolers that introduce them to it.

[phill4paul]

You are WAY out of line! What the hell do you think you are doing?

Doing what I do. Calling B.S. Got a problem?

[LibertyEagle]

Doing what I do. Calling B.S. Got a problem?

Yes, I do. You are insulting the hell out of the guy. If you cannot make your point without resorting to personal insults, then you don't have a point at all.

[phill4paul]

L.E. butt out. You're not modding. Ya got a problem report me. This has more to do with just this post. I realize you might not understand that. But in this one instance I'll take it back to the original post that set me off.


Good. This is a crime. A misdemeanor, but a crime nonetheless. A violation of Romney's liberty.

It's some frikken glitter. Sheesh. :rolleyes:

[LibertyEagle]

Double post.

[LibertyEagle]

L.E. butt out. You're not modding. Ya got a problem report me.

I did. But no, I'm not going to butt out, because you keep on going, adding to the insults. He's a rather new member and he's not your personal punching bag for you to do with what you want.


This has more to do with just this post. I realize you might not understand that. But in this one instance I'll take it back to the original post that set me off.

It's some frikken glitter. Sheesh. :rolleyes:
I saw it, earlier. Why couldn't you just show him the folly of involving government in these types of issues?

You're usually not like this, Phil. I only decided to say something, because seriously, you went too far and even kept it up in another thread. To me, if I sat idly by while you did that, it would make me as guilty as you.

[phill4paul]

Let it go L.E.

[LibertyEagle]

Let it go L.E.

I will if you will, Phil.

[Xenophage]

I hate glitter.

[phill4paul]

I will if you will, Phil.

For now. Future events, with difference to past events, notwithstanding. Tip o' the hat.

[libertythor]

Haha they are both high schools, Chula Vista doesn't perform anymore though, due to the budget cuts they aren't allowed to do show choir anymore. :( They will have a competition at the end of April, which I'm sure Bonita Vista will attend. I have a friend who lives in Tijuana too haha.

LOL I know Tijuana better than the San Diego area because I was only in San Diego while in the military and moved to Tijuana right after. Yes I now recognize the names of the high schools, but I was thinking Bonita Vista as in the neighborhood Bonita.

[Louis Vouid]

It's a crime if there is an injury or property damage. Civil suit. It is frikken glitter. No one who has ever been truly 'assaulted' would even consider this to be an assault.

No..it is a crime regardless. There does NOT have to be injury or property damage for it to be a crime. Read up on the laws. You can be charged with assault for simply SHOWING someone a knife or gun, for example.

And of course, if someone did this to Ron Paul, no one here would be saying "It's just some harmless glitter!" I assume you don't want two sets of laws.

And this is not even bringing up the fact that to 99.9999999% of people who saw it, the only ones who looks bad from these incidents are the glitter bombers. It doesn't hurt the targets credibility or public standing at all.

[phill4paul]

No..it is a crime regardless. There does NOT have to be injury or property damage for it to be a crime. Read up on the laws. You can be charged with assault for simply SHOWING someone a knife or gun, for example.

And of course, if someone did this to Ron Paul, no one here would be saying "It's some harmless glitter!" I assume you don't want two sets of laws.

Oh yeah. Glitter should now be considered to be a knife or a gun. As I said earlier law enforcement, abiding by 'force continuum' rules should first use 'glitter' before pepper spray or a taser. And by the by someone did do it to Dr. Paul. It was actually funny in that the 'bomber' did not shout about pro-gay rights. The 'bombing" was followed by the excoriation of ""Housing and healthcare are human rights not privileges!"

The Ron Paul Campaign called for an apology and restitution over a supporters physical injuries to his foot from the Gingrich campaign.

I've yet to hear Ron Paul or the campaign call for charges against a glitter 'bomber.'

Oh my. The word 'bomber' is SCARY and should be investigated by Homeland Security. Pfft. :rolleyes:

Edit: And welcome new member. Interesting that your first post would be in this thread.

[PauliticsPolitics]

Third Degree Assault (the mildest infraction) in Denver (and Colorado in general) is defined as:"knowingly or recklessly causing bodily injury to another person." (In rare cases, a different definition is used based on accidentally causing injury with a deadly weapon, but that definition is not relevant here since the act in not "accidental" and the weapon is not "deadly".) Regardless, notice that there has to be "injury" in order for the charge to be supported. "Pain," by itself, does constitute injury - even if there was no physical damage to the person assaulted. In some cases, "pain" defined as "injury" can include psychological pain, such as "fear of violence." (This "fear of violence" logic usually covers incidents where a perpetrator shows a weapon in order to persuade the victim to take part in undesired actions.) The maximum sentence for Third Degree Assault in Colorado is two years in the county jail.

So, by this relevant definition, it is technically possible to charge the person with Third Degree assault. The argument would be the following:
Did the glitter-bomber knowingly do the act? - - YES (relatively indisputable)
Did the action cause injury to the victim, such as psychological pain? - - YES (at least the victim is allowed to claim thusly)

So those are the only qualifications needed to charge the glitter-bomber.
However, being charged with something is way different than tried for something, let along being convicted.

But, by this bare-minimum qualification, one could charge a kid for shooting a spitball at another kid, even if the spitball misses... heck, even if the spitball is merely aimed at the kid, hence causing him "fear of violence." Since society generally does not want to take spitball-shooting kids to court, the legal system usually functions off of precedents. Courts look at prior cases to find a general principle or rule as to how any certain law is intended to be interpreted/enforced. As far as I know, no court has ever taken a spitball case to trial. Thus, if for some reason someone did manage to charge a kid with assault for shooting a spitball, the case would probably be thrown out very early in the process (in preliminary hearings) since the charge does not measure up to the accepted intention of the law.

By this principle, I contend that the glitter-bomb is akin to the spitball example. In fact, it can be argued that a potential spitball in the eye at high velocity is more eminently dangerous than falling glitter. Regardless, I would surmise that this charge will either be dropped by the complainant, or it will be dismissed in preliminary hearings. If it does happen to go to trial, I highly doubt that the court would convict this on assault. At worst, they would lower it to a different charge such as littering or some sort of negligence charge. The court would not want to convict on assault because that would set a new precedent as to what an assault conviction can be, basically expanding the accepted definition of assault to include many things that are merely nuisance behavior. An assault conviction on glitter-bombing would open up the court to a whole slew of trivial charges like spitballing, putting ice down people's shirts, pranks like writing on people while they sleep, pushing people in line, etc. Lawyers could then argue: "[stupid-thing-X] has been scientifically proven to cause more injury than glitter-bombing; glitter-bombing has been deemed as assault and therefore [stupid-thing-X] is also convictable assault." The courts do not have the time to deal with this garbage so they will avoid setting a precedent that allows for it.

Nonetheless, it is clear that the charge made on glitter-bombing is meant to send a message and make a public statement. This official charge got some headlines and is intended to deter future glitter-bombs on notable figures. Perhaps the court will play along and put the charge up for a hearing since it is a high profile case, but a full trial and conviction would set a super-dangerous precedent and therefore is very unlikely (an in my opinion imprudent and frivolous.)

There's my legal opinion for y'all.

[mrsat_98]

My joke was actually about the whole recent controversy surrounding Ellen DeGeneres' being chosen as a spokeswoman for JCPenney, and how all the religious right groups are up in arms about it.

Ellen DeGeneres, I heard was dead.She drowned and they found her face down in Ricki Lake.

[Nirvikalpa]

Oh, the infractions to give out on THIS thread... it's too early...

[Invi]

And of course, if someone did this to Ron Paul, no one here would be saying "It's just some harmless glitter!" I assume you don't want two sets of laws.

For the record, this did happen to Ron, on the 6th or so. Ableit, not for the same reasons it happened to the other candidates. Apparently Ron gets glitterbombed for not thinking healthcare and housing are rights, to be provided for you by other people.

[Louis Vouid]

Honestly phil...don't even TRY to bully me like you did with the other guy,. Because you will NOT win a battle of wits against me, little insignificant child.

The saddest part of your comments is that you actually have the attitude that anything YOU believe should be fact. Like
YOU are the authority of what is right or wrong. And from reading your posts (in other threads to...you are about the furthest thing the "right" on pretty much everything.

I don't know how old you are, but you seemed to stop maturing sometime around age 12. So...are you older than that?


And again..EVERY single time...a full 100%...of the glitterbombs have resulted in 100%...again...a full 100%...of people who witnessed it having negative thoughts against the glitter bomber...NOT the target.

And you wonder why Ron Paul can't get more support with your asinine attitude?

Come at me all you want. Just realize you are only embarrassing yourself.

[soulcyon]

ITS EFFING GLITTER! If throwing GLITTER is regarded as an assault, then might as well throw every kindergartner in juvey

these people need to really think before they speak >.> frikkin neocon commies

[Louis Vouid]

Since society generally does not want to take spitball-shooting kids to court, the legal system usually functions off of precedents. Courts look at prior cases to find a general principle or rule as to how any certain law is intended to be interpreted/enforced. As far as I know, no court has ever taken a spitball case to trial. Thus, if for some reason someone did manage to charge a kid with assault for shooting a spitball, the case would probably be thrown out very early in the process (in preliminary hearings) since the charge does not measure up to the accepted intention of the law.



The spitball example isn't really valid either since the glitterbombers are ADULTS. Try hurling bodily fluids on another human being as an adult...even in the form of your saliva on small pieces of paper. You WILL get charged with a crime. And probably more than a third degree assault since it involved bodily fluids.

The reason why kids don't often get arrested for spitballs is not because of the nature of the crime. It is their age. The same reason why a kid who throws a rock and breaks a window will likely be reprimanded and forced to pay for the window. But an adult doing the same thing will be arrested.

But again...with glitterbombing...who cares if it is a crime. It is just plain STUPID and counterproductive to ANY cause. It makes the bomber look like an immature child. Nothing else.

I know everyone who brings logic and common sense to arguments are often branded haters or traitors, but that doesn't change the fact that there is a LOT of juvenile behavior carried out in the name of the liberty movement, and it does nothing but HURT the cause with the masses.

[SCOTUSman]

SIGH. Read the article people. He IS NOT BEING CHARGED WITH ASSAULT!

[PauliticsPolitics]

The spitball example isn't really valid either since the glitterbombers are ADULTS. Try hurling bodily fluids on another human being as an adult...even in the form of your saliva on small pieces of paper. You WILL get charged with a crime. And probably more than a third degree assault since it involved bodily fluids.

The reason why kids don't often get arrested for spitballs is not because of the nature of the crime. It is their age. The same reason why a kid who throws a rock and breaks a window will likely be reprimanded and forced to pay for the window. But an adult doing the same thing will be arrested.

But again...with glitterbombing...who cares if it is a crime. It is just plain STUPID and counterproductive to ANY cause. It makes the bomber look like an immature child. Nothing else.

I know everyone who brings logic and common sense to arguments are often branded haters or traitors, but that doesn't change the fact that there is a LOT of juvenile behavior carried out in the name of the liberty movement, and it does nothing but HURT the cause with the masses.

Eh, it doesn't matter what example I use. Spitballing was just an easy example of nuisance behavior. You can change it to college kids with spitballs if you want to make them not minors. Or change it to people throwing popcorn at chatty people in a movie theater. The goal was to establish that just because something can technically be charged as assault, does not mean that a court would be willing to put up a trial and convict people of it.

[PaulConventionWV]

But what about that serial confetti menace Curly Neal??

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-94bcKjvEfOQ/Tofvc56KmUI/AAAAAAAAAN8/I8mjA_bn0iw/s1600/confetti.jpg

I think this decades long crime spree has gone on long enough. Someone could lose an eye.

Confetti is not the same thing as glitter. I think it's pretty reasonable to assume that something that small, if it gets in your eyes or your lungs, can be harmful to one's health. The thing about glitter is that you can't control it because it's too small. If confetti lands on your eye, it is pretty easy to remove. If it goes into your mouth, you can spit it out. Not so with glitter.

[PaulConventionWV]

I did. But no, I'm not going to butt out, because you keep on going, adding to the insults. He's a rather new member and he's not your personal punching bag for you to do with what you want.


I saw it, earlier. Why couldn't you just show him the folly of involving government in these types of issues?

You're usually not like this, Phil. I only decided to say something, because seriously, you went too far and even kept it up in another thread. To me, if I sat idly by while you did that, it would make me as guilty as you.

LE, let me point out the holes in your logic for once. It does not make you as guilty as he. Does that mean people who watch a crime and do nothing should be charged with the same crime as the person who committed the crime? It may be cowardly, but it is not illegal. When the crime only involves personal insults, which isn't actually a crime, I would say you're pretty clean. I don't mean to get on your case, but you don't need to make excuses to involve yourself in a discussion like this. Reporting the guy is enough.

[xFiFtyOnE]

It's glitter. Lord Romney the Great needs to calm down.

[Gray Fullbuster]

If any of the GOP candidates come to South Jersey other than Paul, ESPECIALLY SANTORUM, I'm gliterring the crap out of them. Take me to juvie, I don't care.

[cheapseats]

Seven pages, nearly a thousand views...how does this qualify as RON PAUL GRASSROOTS CENTRAL?

[bobburn]

It's a crime if there is an injury or property damage. Civil suit. It is frikken glitter. No one who has ever been truly 'assaulted' would even consider this to be an assault.

Well assault is not what you think it is. Any intentional act to cause harm or offense that causes an apprehension of imminent harm or offense is assault. Any intentional harmful or offensive act that causes a touching of the victim is a battery. It doesn't have to cause harm, merely offense.

[ctiger2]

Glitter = WMD = Terrorist = Military Arrest = No Judge/Jury/Trial = Indefinite Detention In Foreign Prison

[LisaNY]

all the other candidates were glitterbombed and no one was arrested, I guess because they didn't have the ss protecting them. I wonder if Romney will get to keep his ss detail should he lose a few more states?

[kathy88]

SIGH. Read the article people. He IS NOT BEING CHARGED WITH ASSAULT!

"he was cited on misdemeanor charges of creating a disturbance, throwing a missile and an unlawful act on school property, Denver Police spokesman Sonny Jackson said."

So.... he gets charged.... what's going on with the dude who BROKE EDDIE'S foot?

[Jamesiv1]

Try hurling bodily fluids on another human being as an adult...

ewww. Don't go Miggs on me.

[LibertyEagle]

LE, let me point out the holes in your logic for once. It does not make you as guilty as he. Does that mean people who watch a crime and do nothing should be charged with the same crime as the person who committed the crime? It may be cowardly, but it is not illegal. When the crime only involves personal insults, which isn't actually a crime, I would say you're pretty clean. I don't mean to get on your case, but you don't need to make excuses to involve yourself in a discussion like this. Reporting the guy is enough.

It has to do with morality, Paul. Maybe that is the difference between your generation and mine.

[SCOTUSman]

"he was cited on misdemeanor charges of creating a disturbance, throwing a missile and an unlawful act on school property, Denver Police spokesman Sonny Jackson said."

So.... he gets charged.... what's going on with the dude who BROKE EDDIE'S foot?

Yes he got charged, but not for assault. Injury is irrelevant.

As for that case? I haven't been following it too closely. I know he is filing a civil suit. Don't know if he pressed charges yet and whether the police and DA has done anything with it.

[SCOTUSman]

It has to do with morality, Paul. Maybe that is the difference between your generation and mine.

Yep. This generation has no morality for the most part. And I'm not talking about homosexuality and that type stuff...I'm talking about how you treat people. Another person.

I've seen so much disrespect for other people, hate, animosity against other people. I see people on here talk about how could Ron Paul get booed for talking about the golden rule, yet they themselves disparage other people, name call, and do those types of things.

Even when people treat you with disrespect, insult you...you should always try to give them a chance....people you disagree with aren't the devil....still respect them. I'm not perfect by any means, but I try to apply the golden rule constantly in my life.

[affa]

I don't know. Glitterbombs don't bother me. But neither do pie in the faces. Yes, I can see where they are technically assault. Yes, I would never do it. Yes, I'd be a bit peeved for a day if it happened to me. I can see where could cause some unintended injury on rare occassions. But in the grand scheme of things? Minor civil disobedience; the target of the pie/glitter is a public figure, symbolic of many causes.

That sort of thing has a long history... rotten tomatoes, eggs... heck, even the super-violent tar and feathering. Glitterbombs and whipcream pies are a pretty significant improvement over that.

I guess while I'd never do it myself, I understand that these sort of events are going to happen. I'd rather it be glitter, or a pie, than something worse. It's meant to be non-violent, more of a symbol than an assault.

Meanwhile, kids are sent of to fight the wars, and tazers are used far too frequently.

[NancyNYC]

I would say glitter-bombing could more accurately be described as “menacing” rather than “assault.” And yes, menacing is a crime.

Anyone resorting to approaching a public figure and throwing even a rather benign substance like glitter at them is demonstrating the fact that that person is a physically vulnerable target, and that that person’s stance on whatever matter with which the thrower has an issue is being declared by the thrower as justification for more than a verbal response. It is, at its essence, the initiation of force, and therefore deserves to be condemned as such.

[RockEnds]

Whether or not glitter bombing should be allowed/excused or whatever, I don't have any sympathy for someone who does it at an event with Secret Service present. He didn't get in that room without realizing that he was in a high security environment. He made the decision to create drama for himself. What exactly did he think would happen when he threw something in the air at the one thing in the room that all those security guards were there to protect? Duh.

[affa]

Whether or not glitter bombing should be allowed/excused or whatever, I don't have any sympathy for someone who does it at an event with Secret Service present. He didn't get in that room without realizing that he was in a high security environment. He made the decision to create drama for himself. What exactly did he think would happen when he threw something in the air at the one thing in the room that all those security guards were there to protect? Duh.

Be careful not to underestimate people. There are plenty of people who have engaged in far more subversive behavior knowing full well there would be penalty. Your position assumes he did not think he would be punished, but ignores the possibility that he simply might be willing to take the punishment to make his point. As you said, he knew he was going into a secure event - what makes you think he thought he'd get away with it? It seems far more likely he thought he'd be penalized.

This isn't a defense of the actions themselves, just a reminder that we all have our breaking points. We all have our causes. We all have our methods. Just because we may disagree with each other on what causes are worth fighting for, or what methods are best to spread our message, doesn't necessarily make the other person ignorant. Though it doesn't mean they aren't, either... it simply shouldn't be assumed.

[RockEnds]

Be careful not to underestimate people. There are plenty of people who have engaged in far more subversive behavior knowing full well there would be penalty. Your position assumes he did not think he would be punished, but ignores the possibility that he simply might be willing to take the punishment to make his point. As you said, he knew he was going into a secure event - what makes you think he thought he'd get away with it? It seems far more likely he thought he'd be penalized.

This isn't a defense of the actions themselves, just a reminder that we all have our breaking points. We all have our causes. We all have our methods. Just because we may disagree with each other on what causes are worth fighting for, or what methods are best to spread our message, doesn't necessarily make the other person ignorant. Though it doesn't mean they aren't, either... it simply shouldn't be assumed.

I did take that into account, actually. I still think attempting to physically force something upon the person the SS is protecting is dumb. There are better ways to make a point.

[dannno]

Ron Paul looked happy to be glitter bombed.

We have a celebration here every year where they fill empty, cleaned egg shells with glitter and people go around smashing them on other's heads.

I've never heard of injuries from doing that.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-khLJstmZQqw/Tn7K5FbYOuI/AAAAAAAAGo0/VAjdqoMGqV0/s1600/DIY+Confetti+Egg+Game+3.jpg

[TheGrinch]

I would say glitter-bombing could more accurately be described as “menacing” rather than “assault.” And yes, menacing is a crime.

Anyone resorting to approaching a public figure and throwing even a rather benign substance like glitter at them is demonstrating the fact that that person is a physically vulnerable target, and that that person’s stance on whatever matter with which the thrower has an issue is being declared by the thrower as justification for more than a verbal response. It is, at its essence, the initiation of force, and therefore deserves to be condemned as such.

I agree with this.... Obviously in most cases where it is in innocent fun, no one is going to charge and certainly not convict someone even for a prank...

But you go up to a public figure and hurl something in their face at a public gathering (particularly something that is capable of causing bodily harm), then expect there to be repercussions.... As was mentioned earlier though, the guy wasn't even charged.

And to philforpaul, I suggest you take a look at the laws in place to protect us from violent and aggressive acts. This is not big government run amok. This is one of the few areas that Dr. Paul thinks the federal government should be involved (while of course using discretion, as they do in cases like this): protecting individual liberty and property from harm, etc. No actual harm is required to protect someone from the threat of harm,such as in a case like this where it's an aggressive action. I assume you'd feel differently if you got something like sand thrown in your face, but glitter can be similarly harmful (but again, does not remove the court's discretion to decide the degree of malevolent intent).

[Revolution9]

Ellen DeGeneres, I heard was dead.She drowned and they found her face down in Ricki Lake.

Huh. And I heard she died from the 50 pounds of crack Oprah had.

Rev9

[gerryb]

And to philforpaul, I suggest you take a look at the laws in place to protect us from violent and aggressive acts. This is not big government run amok. This is one of the few areas that Dr. Paul thinks the federal government should be involved (while of course using discretion, as they do in cases like this): protecting individual liberty and property from harm, etc.

Actually that isn't accurate.

This isn't even for the state to deal with.

This is a local sheriff's duty. No Big Government necessary or wanted.

[SCOTUSman]

Ron Paul looked happy to be glitter bombed.

We have a celebration here every year where they fill empty, cleaned egg shells with glitter and people go around smashing them on other's heads.

I've never heard of injuries from doing that.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-khLJstmZQqw/Tn7K5FbYOuI/AAAAAAAAGo0/VAjdqoMGqV0/s1600/DIY+Confetti+Egg+Game+3.jpg

Girl on left has glasses protecting her...girl on right is getting it directly from behind, so no danger to the eyes. But I have seen it happen before, getting glitter bombed to the face cut someone's cornea.

[Revolution9]

I don't know. Glitterbombs don't bother me. But neither do pie in the faces. Yes, I can see where they are technically assault. Yes, I would never do it. Yes, I'd be a bit peeved for a day if it happened to me. I can see where could cause some unintended injury on rare occassions. But in the grand scheme of things? Minor civil disobedience; the target of the pie/glitter is a public figure, symbolic of many causes.

That sort of thing has a long history... rotten tomatoes, eggs... heck, even the super-violent tar and feathering. Glitterbombs and whipcream pies are a pretty significant improvement over that.

I guess while I'd never do it myself, I understand that these sort of events are going to happen. I'd rather it be glitter, or a pie, than something worse. It's meant to be non-violent, more of a symbol than an assault.

Meanwhile, kids are sent of to fight the wars, and tazers are used far too frequently.

I once wanted to put up a site and think about it now and then. There was no good domain name for it left though. The idea was public figures were voted up onto a pie in the face board and then pledges were made as a bounty for who was able to cream pie that public figure and have a youtube of it. It would possibly risk arrest for the pie thrower so I would have a bounty kitty to pay for bail and court charges. I still think it would make a shit ton but I haven't figured out the implications of the operator and what laws or legal statutes they would violate. I can imagine a 2.5 million bounty piled up to cream pie Kissinger, 5 million for old Rothschild. I guess you would have to have a no sitting presidents rule or SS would shut the site down in a hurry with two emotionless drones questioning me for hours and just not getting that it is supposed to be funny. Imagine Kissinger watching everywhere he went for the pie thrower. That next waiter at the fab power restaurant just may value the bounty more than his tip and the job.

Rev9

[dannno]

Girl on left has glasses protecting her...girl on right is getting it directly from behind, so no danger to the eyes. But I have seen it happen before, getting glitter bombed to the face cut someone's cornea.

What is the relevancy of your post?

I just used that picture as an example to show what goes on in my town every year. There are probably a dozen or so Mexican families that sit on the sidewalk selling the eggs for about $.25/piece, each of the families or groups makes hundreds of them... So we have THOUSANDS of eggs, bought by thousands of drunk people smashing them on other people's heads, and I've never heard of an injury. It's a tradition that has been going on for decades.

[Revolution9]

I did take that into account, actually. I still think attempting to physically force something upon the person the SS is protecting is dumb. There are better ways to make a point.

But if yer a bar queen this is two groovy loop snaps in the air miss thang. Frikkin' feminized clownage.

Rev9

[Revolution9]

Just to put things in proper perspective here. Chances are ya throw glitter dust on me and it ain't no cha cha party I am gonna throw a hit at you for violating my space and thinking yer gonna get the better of me out of nowhere. Romney shoulda decked the pantywaist.:D


Rev9

[SCOTUSman]

What is the relevancy of your post?

I just used that picture as an example to show what goes on in my town every year. There are probably a dozen or so Mexican families that sit on the sidewalk selling the eggs for about $.25/piece, each of the families or groups makes hundreds of them... So we have THOUSANDS of eggs, bought by thousands of drunk people smashing them on other people's heads, and I've never heard of an injury. It's a tradition that has been going on for decades.

About as relevant as the rest of the stuff in this thread. But I say it in jest.

Interesting tradition. Seems fun and good games. Good there has never been an injury. I'm sure people are probably safe, and not throwing it or breaking it over people's eyes. And don't get me wrong, glitter cutting someone's eyes is very very rare...but it can happen. When you throw something...anything at someone's eyes, it can be dangerous. That is all I was saying.

[TheGrinch]

Actually that isn't accurate.

This isn't even for the state to deal with.

This is a local sheriff's duty. No Big Government necessary or wanted.
Ba, that was a misstatement. I realize that crimes are handled as locally as possible, as they should be, but it can go as high as the federal level in the Supreme Court if necessary to ensure protection of liberty and property, is all I meant by that... I should have just left the federal part out, because the guy didn't get charged at the federal level anyway, did he?

Anyways, as if this thread isn't full of enough nitpicking anyway... The point of that post is that there's a difference in "glitterbombing" your buddy and doing it in an aggressive manner to a public figure, or any stranger for that matter. When you're out in public, it doesn't take a ton to cause a public disturbance. Even tossing a water balloon, as relatively harmless as that may be, is going to be seen in a far different light when tossed at a stranger in aggression in public, rather that as a simple soaking of a friend in private.

But it changes nothing of my view here, that this is not a matter of big government. Assault laws are in place to protect individual liberty, not strip it.

[RockEnds]

Just to put things in proper perspective here. Chances are ya throw glitter dust on me and it ain't no cha cha party I am gonna throw a hit at you for violating my space and thinking yer gonna get the better of me out of nowhere. Romney shoulda decked the pantywaist.:D


Rev9

I feel the same way. And I'm a girl.

[TheGrinch]

Just to put things in proper perspective here. Chances are ya throw glitter dust on me and it ain't no cha cha party I am gonna throw a hit at you for violating my space and thinking yer gonna get the better of me out of nowhere. Romney shoulda decked the pantywaist.:D


Rev9

A good succinct (albeit a bit aggressive yourself ;)) way to put it.

I think too many are letting their emotions that they feel about Romney justify an action that you wouldn't want done to you. Imagine if you're at a rally and Romney came up and threw a glitter-bomb in your face? Many of these same folks would be calling for his head.