2 ms·
The former. People have been over-charged for destroying the property of others, in the example given. But my point was comparative. Also, to clarify, it shoul
by mrangle 3y ago
The former. People have been over-charged for destroying the property of others, in the example given. But my point was comparative.
Also, to clarify, it should be difficult or impossible to charge someone for assault simply for destroying property. But according to how I understand assault laws, and leaving room for jurisdictional interpretation, if you do it while doing something else that can be read as intimidation then you could be vulnerable to an assault charge.
Whether or not the other person is actually intimidated won't ever be considered. Cop or civilian. The intention is what will be charged.
- mitt_romney_12 3y ago> The former. People have been over-charged for destroying the property of others, in the example given. But my point was comparative. This is a inaccurate comparison. She didn't destroy any else's property
- mrangle 3y agoIt would be inaccurate if the charges were limited to property destruction.
- 542354234235 3y agoThese aren’t comparative in the slightest. They aren’t being arrested for destroying an LGBT sign, they are being arrested for destroying someone else’s property. If you steal something from a police officer and destroy it, that is a “comparative” crime. You added false equiveillance examples because your “understanding” of assault laws has very little weight on its own. Considering there are actually many examples of anti-LGBT protestors that come armed [1] obviously to intimidate, it seems you attempting to mislead people as to the nature of anti-LGBT crimes and paint anti-LGBT crimes as “overcharged” seems telling. [1] https://www.opb.org/article/2022/10/30/eugene-drag-queen-storytime-carrys-on-despite-protests/ https://www.opb.org/article/2022/10/30/eugene-drag-queen-sto...