Showing posts with label fighting words. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fighting words. Show all posts

Saturday, February 22, 2020

Comments on Former Lake County Sheriff Mark Curran's Supposed Assault of William Kelly


     The following two bodies of text were written in response to a question by my former campaign manager, Phil Collins, asking me whether I think former Lake County Sheriff Mark Curran is guilty of a crime, in the supposed “assault” or “battery” which he allegedly inflicted upon former Illinois Governor candidate and political podcast host William Kelly.
     The second body of text was sent as a follow-up email. It has been edited, but only to make it more coherent; the content of the second body of text has not been changed. The first body of text has not been edited.
     I should note that I have written all of these comments without seeing the entire video showing Curran's alleged assault on Kelly. I do not know where that video can be accessed. I have watched the most important part (the alleged assault), but I have not seen what took place beforehand, nor afterwards. I have also watched Mark Curran being interviewed by police after the supposed assault.



     It's difficult to say whether a crime was committed, because Illinois Criminal Code says assault includes when a person "engages in conduct which places another in reasonable apprehension of receiving a battery", while battery is when a person "intentionally or knowingly without legal justification and by any means causes bodily harm to an individual or makes physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with an individual".
     I personally don't think that what Curran did should constitute assault. Curran was not attempting to cause Kelly any harm or pain, and I suspect that Kelly did not suffer any injury or pain as a result of Curran putting his hands on him. That could mean that Curran had no malice of forethought, and it could also mean that there is no actual physical evidence of any harm or injury or trauma.
     On the other hand, Curran did "engage in conduct which places another in reasonable apprehension of receiving a battery", when he placed both of his hands on Kelly's arms. That could be perceived as a provocation, because Curran used physical power to move Kelly. Curran didn't shove or push any part of Kelly's torso, but instead firmly placed his hands on Kelly's arms, and pushed him towards the door, but with minimal effort and arguably no actual force.
     What Curran did might technically fall within a very very loose definition of assault or battery, but since there was no injury (that I can detect), and also considering that Kelly was arguably trespassing at the time when Curran informed him that he was no longer welcome. But on the other hand, Curran waited only half a second after saying "get out of here" before he put his hands on Kelly.
     Kelly responded by asking whether Curran wanted to fight; this means that Curran arguably engaged in "conduct which places another in reasonable apprehension of receiving a battery", which is assault in Illinois. Arguably Curran wanted Kelly out in order to avoid a fight, but on the other hand, Curran should have had the sense to instruct Kelly to leave, and only consider using force or calling the police when Kelly refused to leave. Curran didn't give Kelly a reasonable amount of time to respond to his request to leave, and instead resorted to physical "force" (albeit arguably non-violent) to solve the problem.
     As a private citizen, I would say that this altercation doesn't bother me, but if I were a juror, I'd have to conclude that Curran did commit assault and/or battery, in the strict legal sense of how those words are defined. But if I were a juror, I'd also want to know about whether Kelly has a history of violence, or fighting, or being quick to fight, or being quick to assume that another person wants to fight when they do not. But whether Curran has a history of fighting, should also be taken into consideration.






     Watching the interview with Mark Curran, he seems to be exaggerating Kelly's "screaming" when he was pushed towards the door. On the other hand, it is also concerning that (according to Curran) Kelly has previously challenged Curran to physical fights such as boxing or wrestling matches.
     Kelly's behavior could arguably constitute stalking, if he were to begin making threats. If what Curran says is true, then Kelly has been following him around, trying to provoke him, and inviting him to take part in physical altercations (although they would be sanctioned). It's still concerning though, because Kelly seems to want a fight.
     It's hard to tell whom is the real provocateur in all this, but I'm leaning towards Kelly.





Post-Script, written February 22nd, 2020:

     Considering that Illinois defines battery as that which occurs when someone “intentionally or knowingly without legal justification and by any means causes bodily harm to an individual or makes physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with an individual", it is entirely possible that what William Kelly did, constitutes battery.
     That's because, if Curran is telling the truth when he says Kelly has repeatedly challenged him to fights before, then Kelly is the one whom is making “physical contact of a provoking nature with an individual”. However, that only constitutes battery if Kelly's following Curran around constitutes “physical contact”, which is debateable since there appears to be no evidence that Kelly has ever made any initial act of physically touching Curran in any way.

     Considering that Illinois defines assault as that which occurs when someone “engages in conduct which places another in reasonable apprehension of receiving a battery”, it is entirely possible that what William Kelly did, constitutes assault.
     That's because, if Curran is telling the truth when he says Kelly has repeatedly challenged him to fights before, it is Kelly who placed Curran “in reasonable apprehension of receiving a battery”. Curran could reasonably conclude that he could receive a beating, from the supposed fact that Kelly has repeatedly challenged him to fights (that is, if Curran is telling the truth).






Learn more about this case of supposed assault by visiting the following links:







Emails written on February 12
th, 2020
This article created and published on February 22nd, 2020



Friday, August 24, 2018

On When Speech Becomes Threatening and Incites Violence

     Maybe the Berkeley riots and fires of 2017 – called “leftists destroying their own communities”, even though only a small area was burned - were in response to people who are known to routinely dox people, demanding the right to surreptitiously out vulnerable people to mobs of angry xenophobia-trendies.
     Milo Yiannopoulos's speech was blockaded by anti-Alt-Right and anti-fascist protesters because Yiannopoulos had become infamous for speaking ill of transgender people, undocumented immigrants, and others. In late 2016 in Milwaukee, Yiannopoulos publicly named a transgender individual, and publicly mocked that person for filing a Title IX complaint about discriminatory bathroom access rules at the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee. According to The Independent (UK), protesters at Berkeley argued that Yiannopoulos had threatened to out undocumented immigrants.
     Yiannopoulos denied those claims. But whether that accusation is true or not, outing transgender people or undocumented immigrants, and spreading personal information about them, does potentially threaten their safety, especially if done in a mocking way. This behavior not only hints that such people should be targeted; it creates every element of a realistic, credible, and possibly even imminent risk of violence, by giving potential attackers virtually all of the information they will need to successfully target the vulnerable person who has been outed.
     I am not totally convinced of ideas like "fighting words", "suicide by cop", nor even necessarily "hate speech". But I do firmly believe that only speech which does not advocate harm against others should be protected.
     And telling a crowd of people the location and previous name of a transgender person, or telling a crowd of students that an undocumented immigrant attends their school and giving out their name and address, would look like deliberate attempts to provoke and incite people to commit acts of violence to me.
     While Yiannopoulos, Richard Spencer, and others in the Alt-Right have not exactly done that, they have helped to create an environment in which speech that incites violence is being increasingly accepted, and arguably even normalized, and thought of as part of our freedom of speech, and thus deserving of protection by the authorities.
     All of this demonstrates the purposes of the 4th and 9th Amendments to the Constitution perfectly; that we are supposed to remain secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects; that our rights do not come from a piece of paper; that we have the right to live without constantly having to show our papers to the authorities; and that we ought not have the obligation to reveal things about our identity which could endanger us. Especially when we are just trying to use the restroom.


Post-Script:
     Please click the link below to watch Milo Yiannopoulos dox a transgender student in late 2016 in Milwaukee:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CulQgP8JZKs&feature=youtu.be
    Click this link to read about reactions:
   http://www.thecut.com/2016/12/milo-yiannopoulos-harassed-a-trans-student-at-uw-milwaukee.html
    Click this link to watch the full video (the relevant part of the video begins at the 49:52 mark):
     http://youtu.be/-t1ufzttyUM



Originally Written on August 24th, 2018
Edited, and Post-Script Added, on February 15th, 2019

Links to Documentaries About Covid-19, Vaccine Hesitancy, A.Z.T., and Terrain Theory vs. Germ Theory

      Below is a list of links to documentaries regarding various topics related to Covid-19.      Topics addressed in these documentaries i...