Yes, We Cannibal!

[fossten]

Nice to see the tolerant left in action. The question is, can Johnny verify his whereabouts during this time window?

Part of finger bitten off at Calif. health protest
By SHAYA TAYEFE MOHAJER, Associated Press Writer Shaya Tayefe Mohajer, Associated Press Writer 17 mins ago

LOS ANGELES – One man bit off part of another man's finger when a health care reform demonstration turned violent.

William Rice said doctors did not reattach the bitten-off part of his left pinky after he got in the middle of a Southern California rally Wednesday night that he said was "very scary."

"I didn't go out to demonstrate my beliefs, I happened to be driving by and I stopped to ask people what their purpose was," Rice, 65, said in a telephone interview Thursday. "I had no signs, I was not part of the demonstration."

About 100 demonstrators in favor of health care reform had gathered on a Thousand Oaks street corner for an event organized by MoveOn.org. About 25 counterdemonstrators gathered across the street.

Rice declined to say Thursday which side of the debate he falls on.

Ventura County sheriff's spokesman Eric Buschow said a confrontation erupted after the biter crossed from the MoveOn.org side of the street to the counterprotest, where Rice was standing.

A loud scuffle ensued, punches were thrown, and the tip of Rice's finger was bitten off, Buschow said.

The biter fled before authorities arrived. He could face felony mayhem charges.

"We don't know the identity of the man who bit the finger off," Buschow said. "We want to contact him and get his side of the story."

Buschow said authorities are piecing together the events from witness interviews.

There are conflicting accounts of who started the fight, Buschow said. "There's a question about blurring the line between self-defense and who the primary aggressor was," he said.

Rice was treated at Los Robles Hospital and Medical Center. The top joint of his pinky, including his whole fingernail, was severed, hospital spokeswoman Kris Carraway-Bowman said.

She said his treatment was covered by Medicare.

Rice said he and his attacker did not have a conversation about health care unless "you want to call him screaming in my face that I'm an idiot a conversation."

MoveOn.org spokeswoman Ilyse Hogue said in a written statement that the incident is a "regrettable act of violence" but the group had few facts about the situation.

The group is in favor of health care reform that includes a "public option" providing government-sponsored insurance.

Scuffles and noisy protests over the proposed health care overhaul have broken out at recent town hall meetings hosted by members of Congress across the country.

 

[Calabrio]

Isn't it interesting (and predictable) how the media feels that it's important to note that the victim was covered by medicare?

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

The guy who got his finger bit off threw the first punch........

http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-finger-bitten-rally,0,7135717.story

The finger-biting incident occurred after a member of the group protesting health care reform, William Rice, 65, of Newbury Park, became involved in a heated discussion with a member of Code Pink, sheriff’s Capt. Ross Bonfiglio said.

After the argument, Rice returned to where his own group was standing.

A man from Moveon.org’s area then walked over to the opponents and verbally confronted Rice, allegedly calling him names and acting aggressively, Bonfiglio said.

Rice later told investigators he felt threatened by the man and punched him in the nose, Bonfiglio said.

The punch set off a fist fight between the two men, during which the tip of Rice’s left pinky finger was bitten off, Bonfiglio said.

I'm not justifying biting the guy's finger off, just like you can't justify punching the perp either.

And is IS hypocritical, as well as ironic, that the anti-reformer relied on Medicare to treat his finger.

 

[shagdrum]

I'm not justifying biting the guy's finger off, just like you can't justify punching the perp either.

And here in the real world...

It is perfectly justifiable to take action if and when you genuinely feel threatened (as was apparently the case here). To wait for someone else to "throw the first punch" is foolish at best and suicidal at worst.

Heck, simply the act of threatening someone is considered assault. At that point, self-defense is perfectly justified.

"Throwing the first punch" is perfectly justifiable. What is important is context; something you seem to be ignoring in promoting some irrational, arbitrary, foolish and naive standard of conduct on this guy.

In fact, if you read the whole story you posted, the finger biting guy was clearly the aggressor here. Now you are trying to characterize the victim as the aggressor. How about looking at this realistically and honestly instead of dishonestly attempting to promote an ideology by smearing others.

And is IS hypocritical, as well as ironic, that the anti-reformer relied on Medicare to treat his finger.

Considering the fact that the government drives up medical costs so much in this country through medicare and medicaid that it is impossible for most seniors to be able to afford healthcare (though I doubt you have any understanding as to how that happens), it is hardly hypocritical. But acknowledging that reality would deprive you of an opportunity to smear those against Obamacare through this guy, wouldn't it.

Do you even think about any of these responses before you post them, or do you just emotionally react?

 

[TheDude]

The guy who got his finger bit off threw the first punch........

This is what the tolerant Right does, they attack first, ask questions later.

 

[shagdrum]

This is what the intolerant Right does, they attack first, ask questions later.

Care to actually contribute to this forum? Or do you prefer to bait people and troll instead?

 

[TheDude]

Care to actually contribute to this forum? Or do you prefer to bait people and troll instead?

Funny, the guy who lacks all objectivity is making a stink.

What I said was inline with what Fossten said, except I replaced the word "Left", with "Right". Why didn't you cry at him for "baiting and trolling", son?

 

[Calabrio]

The reporting on this story is still a bit sketchy, but the guy was assaulted first and then responded with a punch... So he didn't "attack first" as you said.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

The reporting on this story is still a bit sketchy, but the guy was assaulted first and then responded with a punch... So he didn't "attack first" as you said.

:bsflag: How was he assaulted first? Care to provide the proof? We've been through this before, YELLING is not assault.

And show me where I used the word "attack".

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmem...finger-at-health-rally-may-not-be-charged.php

Rice told sheriffs deputies that the biter left the much larger pro-reform rally across a busy intersection in Thousand Oaks, CA, last night to have words with Rice at a small anti-reform rally that had set up across the street. Rice -- who our eyewitness said was aggressive and much bigger than the pro-reformer -- told deputies that the smaller man insulted him. "Rice says he felt threatened," Bonfiglio told me, "and decided to punch the guy in the nose."

So you crybaby RWWs are claiming an "insult" is now an "assault". You pansies need your diapers changed.

*owned*

 

[TheDude]

And show me where I used the word "attack".

I think that was directed at me, as I said "attacked first". Which seems is correct, according to your story's quoted bits.

Man was called a name by the 'liberal', man responded with a physical force, man ended up losing a bit of finger. Actually funny in an absurd way.

 

[MonsterMark]

.

 

[1bad4.6l]

Did that guy fart or what? lmao

 

[MonsterMark]

Johnny's kids at school...

YouTube - More Obama Indoctrination going on in schools


Tell me this doesn't freak you out.

CIVIL WAR here we come. The lines are being drawn in the sand.

 

[Calabrio]

:bsflag: How was he assaulted first? Care to provide the proof? We've been through this before, YELLING is not assault.

Actually, it is.
Assault is an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.

According to the news reports, the MoveonCodePink thug didn't initially commitbattery on the old man.

and show me where I used the word "attack".

I was talking to Dude...
try reading and understanding the thread before chiming in.
It'll save me time and it'll prevent you from looking any more bitter, reactionary, and irrational than you are already do.

*owned*

it takes a special kind of dumbass to say "owned" when they are demonstrably wrong on BOTH of their point.

 

[shagdrum]

:bsflag: How was he assaulted first? Care to provide the proof? We've been through this before, YELLING is not assault.

And show me where I used the word "attack".

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmem...finger-at-health-rally-may-not-be-charged.php



So you crybaby RWWs are claiming an "insult" is now an "assault". You pansies need your diapers changed.

*owned*

I never said that an "insult" was equivalent to an "assault". How about you counter my argument instead of those straw men you love to attack.

Do you think that it is morally wrong to act preemptively in self defense? If so, can you justify that view?

All I ever said was that threatening someone is considered assault. That is not some bold claim, that is LEGAL FACT. If "finger-biter" threatened Mr. Rice, that is, legally, ASSAULT. That is not something that can be debated, that is a fact.

I think that was directed at me, as I said "attacked first". Which seems is correct, according to your story's quoted bits.

Maybe you should read the full story...

How would you answer the same question I posed to Johnny; Do you think that it is morally wrong to act preemptively in self defense? If so, can you justify that view?

Man was called a name by the 'liberal', man responded with a physical force, man ended up losing a bit of finger. Actually funny in an absurd way.

We don't know what all happened so passing judgment on weather or not the punch was justified or not is premature at this point.

All we know is that "finger-biter" approached Rice in a confrontational manner and apparently called him an idiot. We don't know what else (or if something else) was communicated between them. We don't know if "finger-biter" approached Rice in an aggressive manner. We do know that Rice felt threatened and punched the guy.

So the question becomes weather or not that feeling of being threatened was justified or not. If so, then self-defense is perfectly justified.

 

[shagdrum]

Funny, the guy who lacks all objectivity is making a stink.

interesting that you claim I "lack objectivity" but you have never been able to show that. Yet there are countless examples throughout this forum of you showing that very lack of objectivity.

What I said was inline with what Fossten said, except I replaced the word "Left", with "Right".

What fossten said was, "Nice to see the tolerant left in action. The question is, can Johnny verify his whereabouts during this time window?"

That is in no way in line with what you said.

 

[fossten]

:bsflag: How was he assaulted first? Care to provide the proof? We've been through this before, YELLING is not assault.

And show me where I used the word "attack".

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmem...finger-at-health-rally-may-not-be-charged.php



So you crybaby RWWs are claiming an "insult" is now an "assault". You pansies need your diapers changed.

*owned*

Assault

At Common Law, an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.

An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm. It is both a crime and a tort and, therefore, may result in either criminal or civil liability. Generally, the common law definition is the same in criminal and Tort Law. There is, however, an additional Criminal Law category of assault consisting of an attempted but unsuccessful Battery.

*owned*

 

[lincolnx2]

So to verbally assualt someone is the same as physical assualt?

 

[shagdrum]

So to verbally assualt someone is the same as physical assualt?

"Verbal assault" is different. But, if the verbal assault is aimed at intentionally, "create(ing) an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact" then it is, legally, assault. There does not have to be any physical contact for an act to legally be considered assault.

Battery necessitates some form of actual contact; more along the lines of the "physical assault" you are thinking of.

 

[Calabrio]

So to verbally assault someone is the same as physical assault?

No, because "physical assault" as you understand it is actually called "battery."
Basically, once you touch the person, it becomes battery.

 

[lincolnx2]

"Verbal assault" is different. But, if the verbal assault is aimed at intentionally, "create(ing) an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact" then it is, legally, assault. There does not have to be any physical contact for an act to legally be considered assault.

Battery necessitates some form of actual contact; more along the lines of the "physical assault" you are thinking of.

Just asking, I know I can cross the line at times

 

[lincolnx2]

No, because "physical assault" as you understand it is actually called "battery."
Basically, once you touch the person, it becomes battery.

So if the guy who crossed to the other side never touched him, how was the other guy justified in punching him?

 

[shagdrum]

So if the guy who crossed to the other side never touched him, how was the other guy justified in punching him?

It is simply reasonable. If someone is approaching you with the intent to harm you are you going to wait for him to make the first move? If you do, you would be putting yourself at unnecessary risk because his first move may very well incapacitate and/or kill you.

To go with a hypothetical...

You have a gun in your hand and there is another gun on a table halfway between you and a Islamic terrorist intent on using it to kill you. Are you going to wait for him to get the gun and take the first shot, or are you going to shoot him first?

I know they are different situations, but I am showing the logic behind the idea of preemptive action in the name of self-defense. If you don't accept that notion then I would have to ask why. If you do accept that notion then the question simply becomes one of when preemptive self-defense is justified, not if it is justified.

So, do you feel preemptive self-defense is justified in some circumstances?

 

[TheDude]

interesting that you claim I "lack objectivity" but you have never been able to show that. Yet there are countless examples throughout this forum of you showing that very lack of objectivity.

What fossten said was, "Nice to see the tolerant left in action. The question is, can Johnny verify his whereabouts during this time window?"

That is in no way in line with what you said.

You do. The "no, you!" retort is priceless.

The Left was blanketed as a whole by biter-boy's actions. I then did the same to the Right with Mr. Punchy(equally foolish move), same thing, son. You didn't have a problem with the former, as you did you the later, Capt'N Objective.

 

[fossten]

So if the guy who crossed to the other side never touched him, how was the other guy justified in punching him?

This is an amusing question considering that the ultimate action of the 'never touched him' guy was to BITE OFF HIS FINGER.