• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court Strikes Down Abortion Clinic Buffer Zones

AJiveMan said:
Not to mention women and doctors being accosted and confronted entering and leaving clinics at their doorsteps, which may get out of hand.
Click to expand...

They should just start packin heat. I know a bunch of people crowding around me, shouting at me, might put me in fear for my life.
 
Deuce said:
They should just start packin heat. I know a bunch of people crowding around me, shouting at me, might put me in fear for my life.
Click to expand...
Someone might get injured or killed though.
 
AJiveMan said:
Not to mention women and doctors being accosted and confronted entering and leaving clinics at their doorsteps, which may get out of hand.
Click to expand...

Then that is ASSAULT. Not protesting. You do know the difference?
 
Jack Hays said:
Free speech.
Click to expand...

Yeah, til that crosses over into physically blocking people from entering a clinic, lobbing objects at people entering clinics, following people from the clinics to their homes or places of business, pushing, shoving, touching, etc..
I see local police departments making arrests of pro lifers for harassment, obstruction, assault, the SCOTUS just opened a can of worms. You know many pro lifers aren't all that peaceful when it comes to confronting people, yes?
 
ChrisL said:
Then that is ASSAULT. Not protesting. You do know the difference?
Click to expand...

Accosting and confronting isn't illegal. Nor is protesting. read post # 57.
 
AJiveMan said:
Yeah, til that crosses over into physically blocking people from entering a clinic, lobbing objects at people entering clinics, following people from the clinics to their homes or places of business, pushing, shoving, touching, etc..
I see local police departments making arrests of pro lifers for harassment, obstruction, assault, the SCOTUS just opened a can of worms. You know many pro lifers aren't all that peaceful when it comes to confronting people, yes?
Click to expand...

The most committed pro-lifers and the most committed pro-choicers are equally disruptive. Free speech is not necessarily comfortable.:peace
 
AJiveMan said:
Accosting and confronting isn't illegal. Nor is protesting. read post # 57.
Click to expand...

You said "which may get out of hand." So what did you mean by that statement then? What was your point? If you are going to put rules on ONE group of protesters, then the same rules must apply to ALL protesters.
 
AJiveMan said:
Yeah, til that crosses over into physically blocking people from entering a clinic, lobbing objects at people entering clinics, following people from the clinics to their homes or places of business, pushing, shoving, touching, etc..
I see local police departments making arrests of pro lifers for harassment, obstruction, assault, the SCOTUS just opened a can of worms. You know many pro lifers aren't all that peaceful when it comes to confronting people, yes?
Click to expand...

This is ridiculous. AGAIN, you are talking about assault which is illegal.
 
ChrisL said:
You said "which may get out of hand." So what did you mean by that statement then? What was your point? If you are going to put rules on ONE group of protesters, then the same rules must apply to ALL protesters.
Click to expand...

Read post # 57 over again for some general description.
 
ChrisL said:
This is ridiculous. AGAIN, you are talking about assault which is illegal.
Click to expand...

Yes, Exactly ridiculous, which is why I think you missed something here, go back in the thread and read the post/s I responded to.

I know assault is illegal, but that's what pro lifers do, they attempt to intimidate people going to clinics.
 
AJiveMan said:
Read post # 57 over again for some general description.
Click to expand...

Post #57 is bupkus.

AJiveMan said:
Accosting and confronting isn't illegal.
Click to expand...
By definition you're wrong. Someone being accosted could (depending on the circumstance) be charged with battery, which is against the law. Proof? Why sure....

Definition of Battery:
battery legal definition of battery. battery synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

Tell me more about #57 and how confrontation couldn't be illegal especially when confrontation provided intent. Then all one needs to do is say the other person touched them inappropriately - or in any way. An injury or bruise is not required.
 
Jack Hays said:
The most committed pro-lifers and the most committed pro-choicers are equally disruptive. Free speech is not necessarily comfortable.:peace
Click to expand...

We're not talking peaceful demonstrations for pro lifers, we're talking about them becoming down right nasty.
 
Ockham said:
Post #57 is bupkus.

By definition you're wrong. Someone being accosted could (depending on the circumstance) be charged with battery, which is against the law. Proof? Why sure....

Definition of Battery:
battery legal definition of battery. battery synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

Tell me more about #57 and how confrontation couldn't be illegal especially when confrontation provided intent. Then all one needs to do is say the other person touched them inappropriately - or in any way. An injury or bruise is not required.
Click to expand...

Fail. You're wrong. Confronting or accosting is not battery.

con·front
kənˈfrənt/Submit
verb
meet (someone) face to face with hostile or argumentative intent.

ac·cost
əˈkôst,əˈkäst/Submit
verb
approach and address (someone) boldly or aggressively.

Battery is a criminal offense involving unlawful physical contact, distinct from assault which is the act of creating apprehension of such contact.

The first two and definitions are perfectly legal.

The third, battery is unlawful contact.

learn the differences, until people do learn the differences, they might be looking at fines or jail time.

To clarify;

Battery At common law, an intentional unpermitted act causing harmful or offensive contact with the "person" of another.

Battery is concerned with the right to have one's body left alone by others.

Battery is both a tort and a crime. Its essential element, harmful or offensive contact, is the same in both areas of the law. The main distinction between the two categories lies in the penalty imposed. A defendant sued for a tort is civilly liable to the plaintiff for damages. The punishment for criminal battery is a fine, imprisonment, or both. Usually battery is prosecuted as a crime only in cases involving serious harm to the victim.
Click to expand...

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/battery
 
Last edited:
AJiveMan said:
Yeah, til that crosses over into physically blocking people from entering a clinic, lobbing objects at people entering clinics, following people from the clinics to their homes or places of business, pushing, shoving, touching, etc..
I see local police departments making arrests of pro lifers for harassment, obstruction, assault, the SCOTUS just opened a can of worms. You know many pro lifers aren't all that peaceful when it comes to confronting people, yes?
Click to expand...

Have you personally observed harassment, obstruction, and assault? If so, in which American cities and when?
 
nota bene said:
Have you personally observed harassment, obstruction, and assault? If so, in which American cities and when?
Click to expand...

Harassment in my city @ Planned Parenthood. Pro lifers really got into people's faces who were trying to enter the clinic. Not even an abortion clinic.
 
AJiveMan said:
Fail. You're wrong. Confronting or accosting is not battery.
Click to expand...

I've just proven it can be. You're opinion is fine, but you don't get to redefine the facts. Fail on your own time not mine.
 
Ockham said:
I've just proven it can be. You're opinion is fine, but you don't get to redefine the facts. Fail on your own time not mine.
Click to expand...

I just proved you wrong defining the following;


accosting

harassing

and battery

and this is the retort? You're not a serious debater at all, in fact, it was so easy to poke holes in your argument,

but, have a nice evening, maybe I'll lock horns with you tomorrow.
 
AJiveMan said:
I just proved you wrong defining the following;
Click to expand...
More failure on your part. The LAW's definitions are not the dictionary's definitions.

AJiveMan said:
and this is the retort? You're not a serious debater at all, in fact, it was so easy to poke holes in your argument,

but, have a nice evening, maybe I'll lock horns with you tomorrow.
Click to expand...

You don't have a point, you haven't poked anything but yourself. I've already proven you wrong now you're trying to save face. Laughable if it wasn't pathetic.


You don't rate to even think about trying to lock horns with me. Stay in the minor leagues and learn a while is my advice.
 
Jack Hays said:
Free speech.
Click to expand...

Except the shoving and the elbows and the threats, anyway. Or the mailing of white powders. Or the bomb threats. Posting flyers with one of the nurse's address, phone number, license plate number around her neighborhood and information about her being a "baby-killer."

Those things aren't free speech, right?
 
Deuce said:
Except the shoving and the elbows and the threats, anyway. Or the mailing of white powders. Or the bomb threats. Posting flyers with one of the nurse's address, phone number, license plate number around her neighborhood and information about her being a "baby-killer."

Those things aren't free speech, right?
Click to expand...

Those have nothing to do with the ruling, and the pro-choicers can be equally loathsome.
 
Ockham said:
More failure on your part. The LAW's definitions are not the dictionary's definitions.



You don't have a point, you haven't poked anything but yourself. I've already proven you wrong now you're trying to save face. Laughable if it wasn't pathetic.


You don't rate to even think about trying to lock horns with me. Stay in the minor leagues and learn a while is my advice.
Click to expand...

That's why you keep replying to my posts with your failed BS. thanks for playing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom