Joey Porter arrested (1 Viewer)

[Christo]

Porter won't face charges

No charges will be filed against Joey Porter in connection with the football star's recent arrest on suspicion of DUI, battery on a peace officer and resisting arrest, according to the Kern County District Attorney's office.

"Based on the information we have, we don't believe there's a reasonable likelihood that a jury would find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt," prosecutor Mark Pafford said...

Guess I'm not the only one who thinks the charges are b.s.

Not that it matters in this forum. We're too busy dissecting the definition of "assault".

Don't worry about it. We're also the ones who actually read what the prosecutor said--as in him not believing a jury would find him guilty. He know juries (just like a lot of people here) don't have a lot of respect for cops, would ignore the evidence and find him not guilty even if the prosecutor made his case.

 

[zed2283]

Porter won't face charges

No charges will be filed against Joey Porter in connection with the football star's recent arrest on suspicion of DUI, battery on a peace officer and resisting arrest, according to the Kern County District Attorney's office.

"Based on the information we have, we don't believe there's a reasonable likelihood that a jury would find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt," prosecutor Mark Pafford said...

Guess I'm not the only one who thinks the charges are b.s.

Not that it matters in this forum. We're too busy dissecting the definition of "assault".

Don't worry about it. We're also the ones who actually read what the prosecutor said--as in him not believing a jury would find him guilty. He know juries (just like a lot of people here) don't have a lot of respect for cops, would ignore the evidence and find him not guilty even if the prosecutor made his case.

Well I believe that's one way the judicial branch checks the stupid laws/actions of the executive branch. Not sure if that's quite constitutionally accurate though.

 

[JamesTheScot]

Don't worry about it. We're also the ones who actually read what the prosecutor said--as in him not believing a jury would find him guilty. He know juries (just like a lot of people here) don't have a lot of respect for cops, would ignore the evidence and find him not guilty even if the prosecutor made his case.

Well I believe that's one way the judicial branch checks the stupid laws/actions of the executive branch. Not sure if that's quite constitutionally accurate though.

That's actually good posting, Zed.Although I wouldn't classify assault laws as stupid. You'd be alright with a stranger coming up to you and rubbing your back so long as he wasn't sexually stimulated by the act? What about if he followed you around for 5 mintes tapping you on the shoulder? Keep in mind that if you got mad and were to make physical contact with him in an attempt to get him to stop, you might be the one commiting the assault.BTW, there's a good chance the prosecutor just decided the likely media attention wasn't worth prosecuting Porter even if he thought he could get a conviction.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Don't worry about it. We're also the ones who actually read what the prosecutor said--as in him not believing a jury would find him guilty. He know juries (just like a lot of people here) don't have a lot of respect for cops, would ignore the evidence and find him not guilty even if the prosecutor made his case.

Well I believe that's one way the judicial branch checks the stupid laws/actions of the executive branch. Not sure if that's quite constitutionally accurate though.

That's actually good posting, Zed.Although I wouldn't classify assault laws as stupid. You'd be alright with a stranger coming up to you and rubbing your back so long as he wasn't sexually stimulated by the act? What about if he followed you around for 5 mintes tapping you on the shoulder? Keep in mind that if you got mad and were to make physical contact with him in an attempt to get him to stop, you might be the one commiting the assault.

BTW, there's a good chance the prosecutor just decided the likely media attention wasn't worth prosecuting Porter even if he thought he could get a conviction.

Battery is a harmful, painful, or offensive unwelcomed physical contact. Assault has no contact element.

 

[zed2283]

Don't worry about it. We're also the ones who actually read what the prosecutor said--as in him not believing a jury would find him guilty. He know juries (just like a lot of people here) don't have a lot of respect for cops, would ignore the evidence and find him not guilty even if the prosecutor made his case.

Well I believe that's one way the judicial branch checks the stupid laws/actions of the executive branch. Not sure if that's quite constitutionally accurate though.

That's actually good posting, Zed.Although I wouldn't classify assault laws as stupid. You'd be alright with a stranger coming up to you and rubbing your back so long as he wasn't sexually stimulated by the act? What about if he followed you around for 5 mintes tapping you on the shoulder? Keep in mind that if you got mad and were to make physical contact with him in an attempt to get him to stop, you might be the one commiting the assault.BTW, there's a good chance the prosecutor just decided the likely media attention wasn't worth prosecuting Porter even if he thought he could get a conviction.

Well, laws against assault aren't stupid, but I disagree with the way they're written. Although as several people pointed out, there can be degrees of assault, so I suppose that makes a bit more sense to me. Even so, they should call someone tapping me on the shoulder or slapping my hand something other than assault.

 

[JamesTheScot]

Don't worry about it. We're also the ones who actually read what the prosecutor said--as in him not believing a jury would find him guilty. He know juries (just like a lot of people here) don't have a lot of respect for cops, would ignore the evidence and find him not guilty even if the prosecutor made his case.

Well I believe that's one way the judicial branch checks the stupid laws/actions of the executive branch. Not sure if that's quite constitutionally accurate though.

That's actually good posting, Zed.Although I wouldn't classify assault laws as stupid. You'd be alright with a stranger coming up to you and rubbing your back so long as he wasn't sexually stimulated by the act? What about if he followed you around for 5 mintes tapping you on the shoulder? Keep in mind that if you got mad and were to make physical contact with him in an attempt to get him to stop, you might be the one commiting the assault.

BTW, there's a good chance the prosecutor just decided the likely media attention wasn't worth prosecuting Porter even if he thought he could get a conviction.

Battery is a harmful, painful, or offensive unwelcomed physical contact. Assault has no contact element.

Civil assault has no contact element. But Porter was charged with criminal assault. Huge difference.I'm not going to go dig up California penal law, but here's a handy example I didn't have to go look for that clearly shows that criminal assault does not always comport with civil assault.

Kentucky Revised Statutes

508.010 Assault in the first degree.

(1) A person is guilty of assault in the first degree when:

(a) He intentionally causes serious physical injury to another person by means of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument; or

(b) Under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life he wantonly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another and thereby causes serious physical injury to another person.

(2) Assault in the first degree is a Class B felony.

Kentucky Revised Statutes

508.020 Assault in the second degree.

(1) A person is guilty of assault in the second degree when:

(a) He intentionally causes serious physical injury to another person; or

(b) He intentionally causes physical injury to another person by means of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument; or

© He wantonly causes serious physical injury to another person by means of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument.

(2) Assault in the second degree is a Class C felony.

Kentucky Revised Statutes

508.030 Assault in the fourth degree.

(1) A person is guilty of assault in the fourth degree when:

(a) He intentionally or wantonly causes physical injury to another person; or

(b) With recklessness he causes physical injury to another person by means of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument.

(2) Assault in the fourth degree is a Class A misdemeanor.

Whether criminal assault has a physical contact requirement can vary from state to state.

 

[JamesTheScot]

Don't worry about it. We're also the ones who actually read what the prosecutor said--as in him not believing a jury would find him guilty. He know juries (just like a lot of people here) don't have a lot of respect for cops, would ignore the evidence and find him not guilty even if the prosecutor made his case.

Well I believe that's one way the judicial branch checks the stupid laws/actions of the executive branch. Not sure if that's quite constitutionally accurate though.

That's actually good posting, Zed.Although I wouldn't classify assault laws as stupid. You'd be alright with a stranger coming up to you and rubbing your back so long as he wasn't sexually stimulated by the act? What about if he followed you around for 5 mintes tapping you on the shoulder? Keep in mind that if you got mad and were to make physical contact with him in an attempt to get him to stop, you might be the one commiting the assault.

BTW, there's a good chance the prosecutor just decided the likely media attention wasn't worth prosecuting Porter even if he thought he could get a conviction.

Well, laws against assault aren't stupid, but I disagree with the way they're written. Although as several people pointed out, there can be degrees of assault, so I suppose that makes a bit more sense to me. Even so, they should call someone tapping me on the shoulder or slapping my hand something other than assault.

I understand where you are coming from.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Don't worry about it. We're also the ones who actually read what the prosecutor said--as in him not believing a jury would find him guilty. He know juries (just like a lot of people here) don't have a lot of respect for cops, would ignore the evidence and find him not guilty even if the prosecutor made his case.

Well I believe that's one way the judicial branch checks the stupid laws/actions of the executive branch. Not sure if that's quite constitutionally accurate though.

That's actually good posting, Zed.Although I wouldn't classify assault laws as stupid. You'd be alright with a stranger coming up to you and rubbing your back so long as he wasn't sexually stimulated by the act? What about if he followed you around for 5 mintes tapping you on the shoulder? Keep in mind that if you got mad and were to make physical contact with him in an attempt to get him to stop, you might be the one commiting the assault.

BTW, there's a good chance the prosecutor just decided the likely media attention wasn't worth prosecuting Porter even if he thought he could get a conviction.

Battery is a harmful, painful, or offensive unwelcomed physical contact. Assault has no contact element.

Civil assault has no contact element. But Porter was charged with criminal assault. Huge difference.I'm not going to go dig up California penal law, but here's a handy example I didn't have to go look for that clearly shows that criminal assault does not always comport with civil assault.

Kentucky Revised Statutes

508.010 Assault in the first degree.

(1) A person is guilty of assault in the first degree when:

(a) He intentionally causes serious physical injury to another person by means of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument; or

(b) Under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life he wantonly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another and thereby causes serious physical injury to another person.

(2) Assault in the first degree is a Class B felony.

Kentucky Revised Statutes

508.020 Assault in the second degree.

(1) A person is guilty of assault in the second degree when:

(a) He intentionally causes serious physical injury to another person; or

(b) He intentionally causes physical injury to another person by means of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument; or

© He wantonly causes serious physical injury to another person by means of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument.

(2) Assault in the second degree is a Class C felony.

Kentucky Revised Statutes

508.030 Assault in the fourth degree.

(1) A person is guilty of assault in the fourth degree when:

(a) He intentionally or wantonly causes physical injury to another person; or

(b) With recklessness he causes physical injury to another person by means of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument.

(2) Assault in the fourth degree is a Class A misdemeanor.

Whether criminal assault has a physical contact requirement can vary from state to state.

I am very well aware of the differences in law state to state and from civil to criminal. I believe my discussion in this thread might have lead to a more realistic understanding of the legal definition of the term 'assault" than has your loose use of the term. I was not striving for a Kentucky specific application. Had I been I might have noted that Kentucky does not use the term battery have merged the meaning of the terms. I was hoping to help Zed come to terms with his general understanding.

 

[Card Trader]

Hahah at the fail in this thread.

 

[thayman]

Don't worry about it. We're also the ones who actually read what the prosecutor said--as in him not believing a jury would find him guilty. He know juries (just like a lot of people here) don't have a lot of respect for cops, would ignore the evidence and find him not guilty even if the prosecutor made his case.

Well I believe that's one way the judicial branch checks the stupid laws/actions of the executive branch. Not sure if that's quite constitutionally accurate though.

That's actually good posting, Zed.Although I wouldn't classify assault laws as stupid. You'd be alright with a stranger coming up to you and rubbing your back so long as he wasn't sexually stimulated by the act? What about if he followed you around for 5 mintes tapping you on the shoulder? Keep in mind that if you got mad and were to make physical contact with him in an attempt to get him to stop, you might be the one commiting the assault.BTW, there's a good chance the prosecutor just decided the likely media attention wasn't worth prosecuting Porter even if he thought he could get a conviction.

Well, laws against assault aren't stupid, but I disagree with the way they're written. Although as several people pointed out, there can be degrees of assault, so I suppose that makes a bit more sense to me. Even so, they should call someone tapping me on the shoulder or slapping my hand something other than assault.

You should call your congressman then, instead of #####ing about cops.

 

[zed2283]

Don't worry about it. We're also the ones who actually read what the prosecutor said--as in him not believing a jury would find him guilty. He know juries (just like a lot of people here) don't have a lot of respect for cops, would ignore the evidence and find him not guilty even if the prosecutor made his case.

Well I believe that's one way the judicial branch checks the stupid laws/actions of the executive branch. Not sure if that's quite constitutionally accurate though.

That's actually good posting, Zed.Although I wouldn't classify assault laws as stupid. You'd be alright with a stranger coming up to you and rubbing your back so long as he wasn't sexually stimulated by the act? What about if he followed you around for 5 mintes tapping you on the shoulder? Keep in mind that if you got mad and were to make physical contact with him in an attempt to get him to stop, you might be the one commiting the assault.BTW, there's a good chance the prosecutor just decided the likely media attention wasn't worth prosecuting Porter even if he thought he could get a conviction.

Well, laws against assault aren't stupid, but I disagree with the way they're written. Although as several people pointed out, there can be degrees of assault, so I suppose that makes a bit more sense to me. Even so, they should call someone tapping me on the shoulder or slapping my hand something other than assault.

You should call your congressman then, instead of #####ing about cops.

The cops are the ones who arrested and charged him. And, as usual, they charged him with multiple trumped up counts hoping that something would stick, rather than simply charge him with an actual crime that he committed.

 

[Christo]

The cops are the ones who arrested and charged him. And, as usual, they charged him with multiple trumped up counts hoping that something would stick, rather than simply charge him with an actual crime that he committed.

Like assault, you know, for slapping a police officer.

 

[zed2283]

The cops are the ones who arrested and charged him. And, as usual, they charged him with multiple trumped up counts hoping that something would stick, rather than simply charge him with an actual crime that he committed.

Like assault, you know, for slapping a police officer.

I'm not familiar with California law but apparently it isn't, since they dropped the charges.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Under the California Penal Code Assualt has a particular definition different from the common law definition in that it requires an attempted violent touching, rather than an attempted unwelcome one. Under that circumstance a prosecutor might choose to not charge for a simple slapping. Resisting an officer, however, has a lesser threshold. These are sections 243 and 148 of the California Penal Code.

If I remember correctly California Municipalities can have seperate codes. I don't care to look it up in this case.

This definition of assualt would not be the prevailing definition in most jurisdictions.

Zed is cracking me up in this thread by insisting that legal definitions must comport to his lay understanding of those terms. Yet, in the end, the prosecution went his way.

 

[zed2283]

Under the California Penal Code Assualt has a particular definition different from the common law definition in that it requires an attempted violent touching, rather than an attempted unwelcome one. Under that circumstance a prosecutor might choose to not charge for a simple slapping. Resisting an officer, however, has a lesser threshold. These are sections 243 and 148 of the California Penal Code.If I remember correctly California Municipalities can have seperate codes. I don't care to look it up in this case.This definition of assualt would not be the prevailing definition in most jurisdictions.Zed is cracking me up in this thread by insisting that legal definitions must comport to his lay understanding of those terms. Yet, in the end, the prosecution went his way.

Heh heh... I'm cracking me up too.But in the end, legal definitions should match "lay" definitions, which are, in fact, actual definitions. It looks as though the California law is written that way.

 

[thayman]

The cops are the ones who arrested and charged him. And, as usual, they charged him with multiple trumped up counts hoping that something would stick, rather than simply charge him with an actual crime that he committed.

Like assault, you know, for slapping a police officer.

I'm not familiar with California law but apparently it isn't, since they dropped the charges.

You don't seem to understand the legal system very well.

 

[zed2283]

The cops are the ones who arrested and charged him. And, as usual, they charged him with multiple trumped up counts hoping that something would stick, rather than simply charge him with an actual crime that he committed.

Like assault, you know, for slapping a police officer.

I'm not familiar with California law but apparently it isn't, since they dropped the charges.

You don't seem to understand the legal system very well.

I understand it's stupid, and that pretty much covers it.

 

[Christo]

The cops are the ones who arrested and charged him. And, as usual, they charged him with multiple trumped up counts hoping that something would stick, rather than simply charge him with an actual crime that he committed.

Like assault, you know, for slapping a police officer.

I'm not familiar with California law but apparently it isn't, since they dropped the charges.

You don't seem to understand the legal system very well.

I understand it's stupid, and that pretty much covers it.

Yeah, we should all just be able to go around slapping people without any legal consequence.

 

[thayman]

The cops are the ones who arrested and charged him. And, as usual, they charged him with multiple trumped up counts hoping that something would stick, rather than simply charge him with an actual crime that he committed.

Like assault, you know, for slapping a police officer.

I'm not familiar with California law but apparently it isn't, since they dropped the charges.

You don't seem to understand the legal system very well.

I understand it's stupid, and that pretty much covers it.

Your overall ignorance of the system and how it works is what makes you think it is so stupid.

 

[zed2283]

Like assault, you know, for slapping a police officer.

I'm not familiar with California law but apparently it isn't, since they dropped the charges.

You don't seem to understand the legal system very well.

I understand it's stupid, and that pretty much covers it.

Your overall ignorance of the system and how it works is what makes you think it is so stupid.

You can name call all you want, but I'm pretty sure I have a firm grasp of how things work, and THAT is what makes me think it's stupid.Which parts do you feel don't I understand well enough?

 

[fatness]

Sounds like another b.s. charge by the police.

This guy called it.

 

[thayman]

You can name call all you want, but I'm pretty sure I have a firm grasp of how things work, and THAT is what makes me think it's stupid.Which parts do you feel don't I understand well enough?

From your posts I'd say just about all of it. And I don't recall ever calling you a name.

 

[zed2283]

You can name call all you want, but I'm pretty sure I have a firm grasp of how things work, and THAT is what makes me think it's stupid.Which parts do you feel don't I understand well enough?

From your posts I'd say just about all of it. And I don't recall ever calling you a name.

That's true, my bad. The ignorance comment put me off a little, but I didn't need to read it that way.But I still disagree. I can't understand something and think it's wrong? Maybe my comments on "assault" were misdirected towards the police rather than legislators? Is that the part I don't get? You can get technical with it, but that doesn't mean I don't understand the system.Are you in law enforcement?