Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Tape Has Disappeared!":
You should learn the difference between civil and criminal offenses there, Perry Mason, aka anonymous
Civil Battery (Tort)
A battery is an intentional tort, as opposed to an act resulting from negligence. The elements to establish the tort of battery are the same as for criminal battery (details below), excepting that criminal intent need not be present. The elements of civil battery are:
Intent (not criminal intent to cause injury, necessarily, but intent to commit the act)
Contact (non-consensual contact with the individual or his/her effects, such as clothing)
Harm/Damages (the battery caused actual injuries, not limited to just physical harm)
For a tortuous battery to occur, the requisite intent is merely to touch or make contact without consent. It need not be an intention to do wrong and the wrongdoer need not intend to cause the particular harm that occurs. Non-consensual touching is all that is required.
The Elements of Civil Assault
Unlike battery, civil assault doesn’t require that the defendant have any physical contact with the victim. In a civil suit for assault, the plaintiff will have to prove that the following elements were present:
An intentional attempt or threat to inflict injury on another person,
Coupled with an apparent ability to cause the harm,
Which creates a reasonable apprehension of bodily harm or offensive contact in the victim
As long as the victim is placed in fear of imminent contact, no actual physical contact or injury need occur. For example, if a defendant intended to scare the plaintiff by swinging a baseball bat near him, and the plaintiff was put in fear of physical injury, the plaintiff would have a case for civil assault.
You must wonder what Belize bob was thinking.
ReplyDeletePerhaps he did not know the law, perhaps he felt Norman was recording his bad side,or perhaps he felt his clothing was not suitable for such a epic meeting.
I got a kick out of the big bad cc threatening to call the law on Norman when they should of been calling them on Belize bob.
Now I wish to express my opinion ,it's my opinion and mine only.
I can only wonder if Bob is frustrated with Norman .he has battled with the fat man for a
Long tine in court and from rumors I have seen through advising the SO.
A ex teacher and minister and part time activist has beat Belize bob at his own game time and time again.he has embarrassed the SO the CC and other in his battles.
He has not got a beer can to toss at you, or a pistol or hand cuffs,No cat like reflexes or killer ninja moves,no law license to threaten people with. He has not dropped people on the ground and stood over them screaming say I'm not a real cop now,or denied the FBI was investigating his dept. He has no alleged international criminal as a arch enemy and he's not hiding under a desk or hiding in the court house to avoid being served.
But he is feared his weapons are mighty,he has the book of truth the the blog of spread the word the lance of justice and the shield of good all on his side .this seems to scare the he'll out of his arch enemy's and it also seems to provoke them.
They are indeed brave to pick on a old fat man .I can only wonder what would happen if the faced a man who was not scared of beer cans and not impressed by Podunk crooked cops on a ego trip.
Someone who really did not give a dam what they think . Someone who would stand up and say screw you face to face and dare them to cross the line with them.
Some one who not only could talk the talk buy walk the walk and had the balls and the cash to back them up. Probally no such person exists .after all the powers that be scare people right no one would stand up to them . Wait I know who did but he's just a ordinary man not a reformed gangster he's not got a lot of money he's the fat man and yes he scares the he'll out of them by asking questions. They hate him I think because his weapons of truth justice and ethics are mighty and feared by many.
Who knows what the future will bring in a few years ,rumor has it the devil went down to Georgia buy you never know when that bastard will come back.
If you look at my comment in defining assault and battery, I was responding to the poster who said Martin was "guilty" of assault and battery. "Guilty" implies criminal, not civil. If it were civil, he would be "liable" for assault and battery. So, this is Perry Mason, once again pointing out the difference correctly. Some folks, like John L., think they know the law, but the end result for them is the same: wrong, wrong, wrong, at all levels.
ReplyDeleteNorman should sue Martin and the CC for civil battery and assault. Request $10,000 in damages. Actual financial loss is irrelevant. The harm was interference with Norman's First Amendment right to record a public meeting. Also file for civil assault. Martin, who normally wears a sidearm, spoke angrily to Norman and approached Norman in an aggressive manner, prior to the offensive contact. Martin has been involved in violent incidents before, leading a person to reasonably believe he was being attacked. Maybe this is why the tape disappeared. Evidence. But Norman has the video. Slam dunk case on the civil battery due to Norman having the video. Possible win on the assault. Ask for 10 grand and see what the judge thinks. Be prepared to appeal.
ReplyDeleteI do not blame Belize bob for carrying a gun if I had international crime figures who allegedly did not like me I'd carry a big gun also,maybe two of them.
ReplyDeleteMaybe he should go back to Belize he might make more than 36000 a year there as a banister.
He could change his name to Elmer fudd cut his hair and be anonymous.