#!markdown
Preface: I'm going to respond to all your comments on my original posting in
one comment rather than individually.
First If you just took the time to read the legal statues instead of pulling
things out of your behind, it would make for a better discussion. YES, it is
assault by definition under the US model penal code where the person has
attempted to cause bodily injury (pain) to the other person by use of physical
force. I'm not sure what the particular statute of this part of Canada says,
but I'm guessing it is something similar. NO, tapping someone on the shoulder
isn't assault, unless it is intended to cause that person bodily injury. Bruce
Lee could probably kill you by tapping you on the shoulder, but I'm guessing
if he wanted a "monster from the cooler at 7-11," as your amazing hypothetical
demonstrates below, he wouldn't be trying to hurt you (and excuse me if this
is "just speculation"). It doesn't matter if she "barely touched her," so long
as she did it to cause the other person pain. Why do you think we have laws?
Obviously, we don't want people going around poking each other with hiking
poles, because of the risk of escalation (see example we are currently
discussing).
Second, I'm considering (much in the same way a judge would consider) all the
evidence, not just the allegations by both parties. That includes my
deductions - not speculation as you dubiously claim. The bicyclist says she
stopped to take a photo, which is when the attack took place. It doesn't take
much force to push someone over on a small trail where they may be unbalanced,
especially if they are straddling or standing next to a bike. It doesn't take
much force to push someone over at all, actually. I'm guessing my grandma
could push you over if you weren't suspecting it, Cam, and she is 90. My point
is this: claiming you are too feeble to knock someone to the ground and hit
them with a pole is inconsistent with someone who has the physical ability to
hike and swim. If you can hike and swim, you can push and whack. SHE WAS
CLEARLY ABLE TO ENGAGE IN PHYSICAL CONFRONTATION as evidenced by her slapping
or grabbing the phone forcefully out of the girls hand. So there is evidence
to believe she could push her to the ground. Also, she was obviously attacking
the girl in a more sustained way then her account indicates. For the girl to
have the ability to bite the older woman's hand, there must have been some
degree of proximity between them, which seems to have more narrative coherence
with the girl's story rather than the old lady's story.
So my original points still stand despite your feeble attempts to undermine
me:
1\. This was assault
2\. The old woman's excuse about why she could never have pushed and whacked
the girl lack narrative coherence, and to me also lacks narrative fidelity.
Feb. 2, 2015, 10:24 p.m. - Sam Hodder
#!markdown Preface: I'm going to respond to all your comments on my original posting in one comment rather than individually. First If you just took the time to read the legal statues instead of pulling things out of your behind, it would make for a better discussion. YES, it is assault by definition under the US model penal code where the person has attempted to cause bodily injury (pain) to the other person by use of physical force. I'm not sure what the particular statute of this part of Canada says, but I'm guessing it is something similar. NO, tapping someone on the shoulder isn't assault, unless it is intended to cause that person bodily injury. Bruce Lee could probably kill you by tapping you on the shoulder, but I'm guessing if he wanted a "monster from the cooler at 7-11," as your amazing hypothetical demonstrates below, he wouldn't be trying to hurt you (and excuse me if this is "just speculation"). It doesn't matter if she "barely touched her," so long as she did it to cause the other person pain. Why do you think we have laws? Obviously, we don't want people going around poking each other with hiking poles, because of the risk of escalation (see example we are currently discussing). Second, I'm considering (much in the same way a judge would consider) all the evidence, not just the allegations by both parties. That includes my deductions - not speculation as you dubiously claim. The bicyclist says she stopped to take a photo, which is when the attack took place. It doesn't take much force to push someone over on a small trail where they may be unbalanced, especially if they are straddling or standing next to a bike. It doesn't take much force to push someone over at all, actually. I'm guessing my grandma could push you over if you weren't suspecting it, Cam, and she is 90. My point is this: claiming you are too feeble to knock someone to the ground and hit them with a pole is inconsistent with someone who has the physical ability to hike and swim. If you can hike and swim, you can push and whack. SHE WAS CLEARLY ABLE TO ENGAGE IN PHYSICAL CONFRONTATION as evidenced by her slapping or grabbing the phone forcefully out of the girls hand. So there is evidence to believe she could push her to the ground. Also, she was obviously attacking the girl in a more sustained way then her account indicates. For the girl to have the ability to bite the older woman's hand, there must have been some degree of proximity between them, which seems to have more narrative coherence with the girl's story rather than the old lady's story. So my original points still stand despite your feeble attempts to undermine me: 1\. This was assault 2\. The old woman's excuse about why she could never have pushed and whacked the girl lack narrative coherence, and to me also lacks narrative fidelity.