Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Arrested for asking for quiet in cinema
The Daily Telegraph (UK) ^ | February 11, 2006 | NICK PAPPS

Posted on 02/11/2006 9:05:58 PM PST by FreedomCalls

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-120 last
To: FreedomCalls

I'd like to thank the "victim" for helping reinforce the international stereotype that America is filled with fat, rude, ignorant thugs.


101 posted on 02/12/2006 7:17:50 AM PST by Wormwood (Iä! Iä! Cthulhu fhtagn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Evie Munchkin
"How many "ordinary Texans" would actually be watching Bareback Mountain in a theater?"

There are apparently plenty of various mutants, Andy Warhol-types, and curious potential tri-sexuals -- even in Texas.

102 posted on 02/12/2006 7:19:46 AM PST by F16Fighter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Echo Talon
In most civilized places, a mere tap on the arm to get one's attention does not rise to the level of actionable assault--civil or criminal.

The cell phone animal, on the other hand, should be charged with creating a public disturbance.

On the other hand, given where these two were at the time, they fully deserve each other. Charge 'em both.

103 posted on 02/12/2006 7:25:57 AM PST by JCEccles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls
She said she had been told a conviction would not affect her chances of re-entering the US. Police said it was a "little matter" and they would not be notifying US immigration authorities about any conviction.

Gee, that's certainly mighty white of them.

104 posted on 02/12/2006 7:29:56 AM PST by Fruitbat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle

The operative word under the statute is "reasonably." In most cases it isn't reasonable to conclude that a mere tap on the arm would be perceived as offensive. The prosecutor has to prove all elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Ties go to the defendant. Result: acquittal, followed by a suit for malicious prosecution.


105 posted on 02/12/2006 7:30:59 AM PST by JCEccles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: HIDEK6
In the words of my late mother-in-law, "Those people make my ass tired!"

Probably not a line you want to be saying in conjunction with Brokeback Mountain...

106 posted on 02/12/2006 7:31:36 AM PST by Koblenz (Holland: a very tolerant country. Until someone shoots you on a public street in broad daylight...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
Actually, that's called battery.

no battery is the damage from an assault.

107 posted on 02/12/2006 8:01:10 AM PST by Echo Talon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Echo Talon
No. Battery is "harmful or offensive contact." No damage or injury required.
108 posted on 02/12/2006 8:02:28 AM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
here I think your right, I believe I was charged with assault though for touching that guy on the shoulder not battery.
109 posted on 02/12/2006 9:10:12 AM PST by Echo Talon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
An assault is any unlawful attempt or offer with force or violence to do bodily harm to another, whether from ill will or extreme carelessness; for example, by striking at or holding up the fist at a person in a threatening or insulting manner, or with other circumstances that evidence an intention, coupled with a present ability, of actual violence against the person, such as by pointing a weapon at him when he is within reach of it. When the injury is actually inflicted, it amounts to a battery.

Thats why I was charged with assault and not battery because he wasn't battered or injured? eh no idea, that was like 12 years ago.

110 posted on 02/12/2006 9:13:16 AM PST by Echo Talon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Ainast; Windsong
"Maybe Texas will be known in the next decade as the "gay state"?"

"...please please please for the love of god don't say that."

You know, they're already making cowboy loafers...


111 posted on 02/12/2006 9:16:25 AM PST by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: SALChamps03; JCEccles
Getting someone's attention by lightly touching them is not the same as poking someone in the chest or grabbing their arm.

My point is that by touching her a second time she opened herself up to the possibility of arrest, as stupid as it was.

That said, I hope the cell phone woman gets her a$$ handed to her. In small pieces. Somehow I suspect there is a lot to be handed!

112 posted on 02/12/2006 9:18:22 AM PST by Balding_Eagle (God has blessed Republicans with political enemies who have dementia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

I'm a doc and I don't go to the theater if I am on call. Also I have in my office signs telling patients to turn off their phones.......I'm tired of being interrupted by trivial calls. If they don't I cancel their appointment.


113 posted on 02/12/2006 9:20:39 AM PST by Doctor Don
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls

Webster? Where is Webster? They're big enough to have a movie theater?BTAIM, the offended haystack has no case. Just another angry fatso.


114 posted on 02/12/2006 9:37:59 AM PST by muleskinner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls

"Don't mess with Texas"

Well, I'm no Texan, but I do know a REAL Texan has the courtesy not to talk on a cell phone in a movie theater. See, Texans are a polite bunch, not a bunch of rude broads.


115 posted on 02/12/2006 9:58:50 AM PST by CodeToad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: F16Fighter

"There are apparently plenty of various mutants, Andy Warhol-types, and curious potential tri-sexuals -- even in Texas."


And they all seemed to have come from the NE.


116 posted on 02/12/2006 10:00:51 AM PST by CodeToad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls

She should have taken her cell phone away from her, put in a sock and then beat her with it. If you have to go before the judge you ought to get your money's worth.


117 posted on 02/12/2006 10:04:10 AM PST by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls

Too bad she didn't have tourette's syndrome then she would be off the hook, at least on Free Republic.


118 posted on 02/12/2006 10:05:28 AM PST by bert (K.E. N.P. Slay Pinch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Daniel Ramsey
Well Daniel, I don't think it would work as in no time at all you'd be sued. a private movie house / club which requires membership? Think of all the undesirables in the public movie houses these days. The very people who make going to the movies so awful. One of them would sue and in this day and age I think they'd win.
If you could pull it off it would be wonderful. Going to the movies would be enjoyable again.
119 posted on 02/12/2006 10:49:40 AM PST by warsaw44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

Comment #120 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-120 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson