Using Your Cellphone During a Movie? Have a Bullet.

With the caveat that there's a lot I can't see and nothing I can hear in the video, I have a hard time believing this was justified.

It may be the totality of the decedent's behavior (snatching the popcorn [technically theft], throwing it at the shooter [technically assault], standing over him, his tone of voice, etc.) presented a credible threat and so made defense legally justifiable, but this is about the most marginal case that I could imagine.

But the jury heard the evidence and came to their conclusion, so it's done.

I'll say another real crime is that the case took eight years to be adjudicated. Wheels of justice aren't turning very swiftly.

Oh, bull crap. Unwanted touching is illegal, but it's not assault. Every assault law I've ever read has two major components that even the police ignore. Intent and injury. No injury, no assault.

If I throw a punch at you and I miss, am I open to a charge of assault? I didn't injure you, after all...

Sure, throwing a bucket of popcorn at someone isn't likely to injure them. But in the circumstances, that could be seen as the commencement of violence.

Again, I have trouble with this being a justified shooting. But the man had his day in court and the jury said "not guilty" so...

I got the distinct impression prosecutors were hoping the old bastard would die and save them the trouble

Yep. They could've been trying to run out the clock.

Arizona Revised Statutes: LINK

No injury required, but there are three Misdemeanor levels of Assault.

Cornell Law Library: LINK

Cornell Law Library : LINK

No. No injury, no assault. I can't get any more clear than that.

I would have to know more specifics about your hypothetical situation because there may be other things in play. But, based solely on the words you typed with no reading between the lines or other shenanigans, there's no injury.

Assault requires an injury and Harassment requires a threat. If there's no injury, there's no Assault. If there's no threat, there's no Harassment.

Guess what? Our law reads almost the same way. But, as with MOST criminal statutes, it's not worth the paper its written on. What have the courts actually decided (precedent) and what do the commentaries say? What do other, competing laws say? I say, again, no injury? No assault. Our Assault 3rd law also says I can put you in jail for 365 days and/or $1,500 in fines. But, that's simply not true. I have another law that says I can only put in you in jail for 180 days and/or a maximum fine of $500.

So, don't EVER take a statute on face value. That's why we have lawyers.

You bolded the wrong part. I've fixed it for you. Cornell can say whatever they want, I have Federal Appeals Court precedent, Federal District Court precedent, State Supreme Court precedent, and Circuit Court precedent that I have to follow.

This is mine, and the DA's, fight with the Police every. day. A Detective comes to you and says Statute X says Y. I want a warrant for Y. I say, I don't care because Statue A says B and it was determined in State vs Smith that J, F, and K were found to be in play.

That's why the Police don't make probable cause determinations or return warrants to the court. It's why I sit in on a four hour Zoom meeting every month with the Alabama Supreme Court to get regular updates on precedent and legislative changes. Then, the day after, I sit in on another four hour Zoom meeting with all of the Judges and Magistrates in the Circuit, hosted by the Presiding Circuit Court Judge to see how those changes are actually going to be implemented in our Courts.

Lets use one of my favorite examples as a type of proof.

On the surface, just a general reading of the statute, there's probable cause to issue warrants for 90% of Wordforge members. Especially considering that the Supreme Court has determined that electronic communications can be prosecuted from where they originate OR where they are received.

In their infinite wisdom, the Supreme Court neutered that law. The Supreme Court determined that you have to CHOOSE to answer a phone call. You have to CHOOSE to read a text message, or e-mail, or a post on Facebook. Furthermore, unless you're next to the person when they make the call or send the text, you have no way of knowing it was actually them. It has been successfully argued in Court that someone with ill intent MAY HAVE spoofed a number and sent malicious text messages. So, none of that, at all, actually constitutes Harassment.

The Police don't know that. A citizen, based on a general reading of the law, doesn't know that. That's why the police and individual citizens don't make probable cause determinations and return warrants to the Court.

So, they arrest a guy for Harassing Communications and then, when I read the report, I deny the charge and release the defendant on no bond, no charge.

Another proof is a local Municipal Ordinance. The City has gotten serious about Code Enforcement, getting people to cut their grass and get junk cars, trash, and other junk out of their yards. They're applying for some big grant and the general appearance of the City is a factor.

But, I digress. The Code of Alabama says I can put someone in jail for a max of 180 days and/or up to $500 in fines specifically for a Municipal Ordinance violation. But, the actual Municipal Ordinance that's being enforced says the punishment is listed in Section 1-5 of the City's Charter. Section 1-5 specifically prohibits jail terms for Municipal Ordinance violations.

So, what do I do? Which "law" is correct? I choose to follow the actual wording of the ordinance and that understandably angers the Police Officers charged with Code Enforcement.

Edit: Any spelling or grammatical errors come from being in Court all day. I'm beat and I'm tired of thinking.

I don't want to sound like I'm defending the guy (again, I find the claim of self-defense here highly questionable), but...

The state's choice not to prosecute for marginal assault cases doesn't bind the defendant in a self-defense case to the same standard. The authorities might consider a punch that failed to land an assault not worth prosecuting, but if someone was throwing the punch at you, you very well might think it a credible threat. And understandably so. Imagine a judge giving this as part of the instructions to the jury: "The defendant is claiming he was assaulted and, while this is true per the letter of the law, we usually don't consider that real assault."

If the aggressor's actions plausibly meet the definition--no matter how marginally--of assault, and it is lawful to defend oneself with lethal force from assault, then the jury should find the defendant not guilty by reason of self-defense.

Well, Elwood, I have given evidence, you've only given your own assertions. As much as I respect your opinion on matters (and I truly do, as you know), your claims are not really bearing up under scrutiny.

Here's a Lawyer's blog:

https://www.yourarizonalegalteam.co... one can be charged,serious way to be charged.

Lawyers in California:

https://www.adanieldefense.com/difference-between-assault-and-aggravated-assault/

Lawyers in Texas.

https://www.reaveslegal.com/faqs/wh...-assault-and-aggravated-assault-in-texas-.cfm

I don't think you are. I'm merely having a conversation because, at the end of the day, I know I'm right.

Are we talking past each other, maybe? It's not that the State didn't choose to prosecute for some arbitrary reason, which is quite legal if you didn't know that. It's that the State CAN'T prosecute for that and the Prosecutor is going to tell a jury that. It's different when you're in Circuit Court and you're actually dealing with the District Attorney's Office. The lines are a little blurred, sometimes to the point of just downright silliness, when it comes to Municipal Courts in Alabama. I wear two, very different, hats.

I'm required to make a Probable Cause determination for every Violation (Traffic and Non-Traffic) and every Misdemeanor arrest my local Municipal and College Police Departments make. In the course of that Probable Cause hearing, I'm allowed to consider and subpoena all facts and evidence in the case. That includes the police report, depositions taken under oath, and having the police do line-ups, etc. But, to show the absurdity of it at times, when I'm actually hearing the case and determining reasonable doubt, I'm not allowed to consider the police report. I have to laser focus on the wording of the complaint and let the Prosecution and Defense argue their cases.

I said that to say this. In my court, your hypothetical situation is never even going to get to trial. Person A is having a verbal altercation with Person B. Person A swings and misses at Person B. Person B responds by beating the breaks off of Person A with their fists. The police didn't witness the event, so they can't arrest for it without a warrant. If asked by the Police or either of the parties, I'll then hold a probable cause hearing. I'll ask the questions I need to ask, get the testimony I need to get, and then I'll carefully consider the situation and either: A) Deny the warrant because mutual combat is not illegal in the State of Alabama, B) Deny the warrant because of the Supreme Court's guidance on fighting words, or C) Deny the warrant because unless the missed swing was part of a threat, no law was broken.

Lets have a short refresher on what constitutes a legal threat. Saying, "Paladin, I'm going to kick your butt" is NOT a threat in and of itself. However, saying, "Paladin, I'm going to kick your butt" while swinging and missing IS a threat. A threat has two components. 1) The communication of the threat "Paladin, I'm going to kick your butt." AND 2) display of the means of carrying it out (the swing and miss). That's a legal threat. No more. No less.

So, if Person A threatened Person B and Person B beat the brakes off of Person A, I'm certainly not going to issue a warrant for Person B's arrest. That's absurd. But, I may issue a warrant for Person A for Harassment (Language) for threatening Person B.

The real problem here is that we can spitball hypotheticals all day. Unless we're actually privy to ALL of the evidence, we can't make a proper determination as to what could or should happen. Each situation ahs a million, billion different variables that have to be taken into account when making a Probable Cause determination or when determining Reasonable Doubt. It's just...complicated. If it was simple, anyone could do it and they wouldn't need people like me.

Okay. You win. I'm a fraud and have no idea what I'm talking about. I don't have time or desire to argue with you. Have fun on ignore.

Paladin and I are having a conversation. You're posting links without adding to the conversation, you're playing "gotcha" games. I deal with people that try that at work every day. I'm not going to do it here.

...don't you mean battery?

Yes, threat of imminent injury is literally assault. Assault doesn't typically require contact, while battery typically does.



I don't get why @Elwood as law enforcement is not using the actual legal definition.

Section 13A-6-22
Assault in the third degree.
(a) A person commits the crime of assault in the third degree if:

(1) With intent to cause physical injury to another person, he causes physical injury to any person; or

(2) He recklessly causes physical injury to another person; or

(3) With criminal negligence he causes physical injury to another person by means of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument; or

(4) With intent to prevent a peace officer from performing a lawful duty, he causes physical injury to any person.

(b) Assault in the third degree is a Class A misdemeanor.

(Acts 1977, No. 607, p. 812, §2103.)

No injury, no assault. It's not that difficult of a concept.

Hush your slanderous mouth. I am not law enforcement. I'm Judicial and have been for quite some time. I'm a Magistrate and Administrative Law Judge. At least that's what my paycheck will say on Friday. Who knows?

Anyway, I've been in court all bloody day. I'm going to bed. Y'all can argue it out while I sleep.

That is far from the common definition of assault. That's like calling it murder when you accidentally kill someone.

What state is that from?

Could have sworn you represented yourself as law enforcement back in the day, but I may be mistaken. If you're a judge, mad respect to you.

Fair enough.

He was but he's moved up (or down depending on your point of view) in the world.

Got it. Definitely a step up in my opinion.

Is it not possible that this is one of those matters where the definition of a crime relies upon what a particular state's laws describe? Dude's citing AZ and TX law and you're familiar with AL law, but Zimmerman was tried under FL law. So I'm not sure that they accurately reflect on the situation in Florida, even if the laws in question might be similar.

he's a judge now. Alabama I believe. Former sheriff and jewelry store manager/guard (not sure which).

Sorry Elwood, if that's what's on your books there's a definite rewrite of common law going on. (If my civics class back in '02 is any source).

Well, since I'm on ignore, you won't see this but I'm going to speak my piece anyway.

You and I were friends once, I thought. I'm sorry that's changed for you, but if you're going to behave so childishly, maybe I'm better off. Nevertheless, I'm still here if you change your mind.

my god, conservatives are eating their own?!

has anyone else noticed we're getting along better since putin invaded Ukraine? He should have done it long ago to fix wordforge.

Cannibalism is an "across the aisle" pastime on Wordforge.

fucked up if true

Common enemy.

Think 1984.