Raghav_12 Posted October 2, 2014 Posted October 2, 2014 Here is the NY Law on Assault: http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article120.htm . As far as I can see' date= assault even the most basic form (third degree), means that the injury must have been caused. @Raghav_12. you have once again blatantly lied here: Whole article 120 is on Assualt. Section 120.00 to 120.70. You can clearly see there are few sections which don't include physical contact. Anyways, I have already posted generic definition of assault. And I never mentioned it was assault of third degree or so.
Crookbond Posted October 2, 2014 Posted October 2, 2014 One must wonder. There were even a good no. of protestors against Modi who had placards like Convict Modi, arrest Modi for 2002. And still there was no violence between these protestors and Modi fans there. Rajdeep is a known Modi hater, he said after 2007 elections victory that Gujarat women vote for Modi because of sex-appeal and that was on live TV. Such blatant hate that he even insulted women voting for him. Fact check - Did Rajdeep say that people vote because of sex appeal? ZITRMBzkGuc Rajdeep : "Women traditionally have been great supporters of Narendra Modi's politics. I hate to say this but it is almost as if Narendra Modi has a certain sex appeal amongst certain section of the people. There's a machismo, the Hindutva machismo of Narendra Modi has always been appealing about women." Other articles on Modi's sex appeal The Modi hotness quotient http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/nation/the-modi-hotness-quotient Sex-symbol status: Narendra Modi attracts female audience, but needs to show more tenderness http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-09-29/news/42482082_1_narendra-modi-hindu-hriday-samrat-bharat-maa Modi has been portrayed as "strong" and "macho". It is ONLY but likely that people like him for such qualities. We have seen such connotations on ICF itself.
coffee_rules Posted October 2, 2014 Posted October 2, 2014 The abuse/heckling started after he started asking regular NRIs obnoxious questions. Was that a sting operation? to ask people if they paid for the ticket, where are you from in India , will you go back to India (mockingly), what have you guys done in return to India, you have a pooja culture, bas photo kichwane aate ho! What was all that about? See full video for starters to see how it started with a Pied Piper of India comment... The "Rajdeep Murdabad" shouts started only at 5:40 into the clip after the so-called "uncomfortable" questions... http://headlinestoday.intoday.in/programme/rajdeep-sardesai-modi-crowd-frenzied-modi-fans-new-york/1/393219.html
seedhi Posted October 2, 2014 Posted October 2, 2014 Whole article 120 is on Assualt. Section 120.00 to 120.70. You can clearly see there are few sections which don't include physical contact. Anyways, I have already posted generic definition of assault. And I never mentioned it was assault of third degree or so.Another bare faced lie. It is "Assault and Related Offenses". All of the subsections on Assault are applicable only if the injury has been caused. Forget the generic definition. The incident took place in the state of New York where the NY law is applicable. It is meaningless to talk about what law is applicable in other parts of US, Europe, Saudi Arabia, India, or any another law which is not applicable in NY. This statement made by you (albeit with feigned authority) was a total lie: Absolutely Not. You need to improve on your understanding of terms. Physical contact is never a necessary condition for an incident being called assault.
FischerTal Posted October 2, 2014 Posted October 2, 2014 You can say whatever you want. It is meaningless. I have shown you definition of Assault from widely acknowledged source wikipedia. It is clearly written that "physical contact" is not a necessary condition for an incident to be called assault. Now you can bring further definition of third degree assaults or whatever, but by basic definition of assault doesn't require injury. Threat of battery was there or not, it is interpretation. If person has to be circled around by other human, i would believe threat was there. You can make 100's post calling me liar but that doesn't change the fact. Once again I am posting link for your reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: and this chap makes fun of smriti iranis education
Number Posted October 3, 2014 Posted October 3, 2014 Fact check - Did Rajdeep say that people vote because of sex appeal? ZITRMBzkGuc Rajdeep : "Women traditionally have been great supporters of Narendra Modi's politics. I hate to say this but it is almost as if Narendra Modi has a certain sex appeal amongst certain section of the people. There's a machismo, the Hindutva machismo of Narendra Modi has always been appealing about women." Other articles on Modi's sex appeal The Modi hotness quotient http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/nation/the-modi-hotness-quotient Sex-symbol status: Narendra Modi attracts female audience, but needs to show more tenderness http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-09-29/news/42482082_1_narendra-modi-hindu-hriday-samrat-bharat-maa Modi has been portrayed as "strong" and "macho". It is ONLY but likely that people like him for such qualities. We have seen such connotations on ICF itself. If you are saying Rajdeep didn't exactly say those words then yes, he didn't. But in my mind, there is no doubt what he really implied with those words and that to me was quite insulting for women voters of Gujarat. Secondly if you are saying Rajdeep was justified in using those words by quoting these 2 articles, then I don't agree. I find these 2 articles as absurd as Rajdeep's comments. Also relating strong leadership qualities, ability to take tough decision can't be related to sex-appeal.
Raghav_12 Posted October 3, 2014 Posted October 3, 2014 Another bare faced lie. It is "Assault and Related Offenses". All of the subsections on Assault are applicable only if the injury has been caused. Forget the generic definition. The incident took place in the state of New York where the NY law is applicable. It is meaningless to talk about what law is applicable in other parts of US, Europe, Saudi Arabia, India, or any another law which is not applicable in NY. This statement made by you (albeit with feigned authority) was a total lie: You have lost it man. How this is a lie? At the most you can say that I am wrong, which you are entitled to, but how this can be a called a Lie? When I am sharing with you some URL's where I support my definition. You lose your own credibility when you keep repeating same despite being proven wrong in your allegations. Some more links which supports the notion that physical contact is not necessary condition for an incident to be called an assault. 1) This one for New York law http://www.rochelleberliner.com/CriminalDefense/AssaultChargesViolentCrimes/MisdemeanorAssault.aspx One of the most commonly charged criminal offenses in New York City is misdemeanor assault (also known as "assault 3" or "assault third degree"). Allegations of assault can arise from a number of ways, including through the use of verbal threats or touching another person against their will. Under the laws of New York, the definition of assault means that a person is accused of hitting, slapping, biting, pinching, kicking, poking, pushing or verbally threatening another person. Other states generally call these types of crimes "battery" or "assault and battery." If an assault weapon is used or serious injury results from the contact, aggravated assault can be charged. 2) What is widely accepted legal definition of an assault http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/assault Generally, the essential elements of assault consist of an act intended to cause an apprehension of harmful or offensive contact that causes apprehension of such contact in the victim. 3. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assault a : a threat or attempt to inflict offensive physical contact or bodily harm on a person (as by lifting a fist in a threatening manner) that puts the person in immediate danger of or in apprehension of such harm or contact There are always multiple interpretations of legal terms. There are enough interpretation (not all interpretations) available to suggest as wider definition of assault physical contact is not a necessary condition. If I take up one of these interpretations, I may be wrong if interpretation i am referring to is wrong but it is not lying. Now go ahead and make few other posts saying I am a liar, but that would just reflect on your soreness. And I stand by my statement that Bhakts assaulted Rajdeep sardesai in Newyork.
seedhi Posted October 3, 2014 Posted October 3, 2014 You have lost it man. How this is a lie? At the most you can say that I am wrong' date= which you are entitled to, but how this can be a called a Lie? How can you make such a statement? I have shown that in NY law assault requires that the injury must be caused. Read the actual statement of the law : http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article120.htm . Then you claimed that the Article 120 was only about "Assault", when it clearly states that it is about "Assault and Related Offenses". This one was clearly a deliberate lie. You can stand by your so-called claim, but your lying has been exposed.You made the following blanket statement claiming that assault NEVER requires physical contact as a pre-condition (emphasis mine):
seedhi Posted October 3, 2014 Posted October 3, 2014 Those who claim that heckling and abusing amounts to assault, according to your logic Inzamam was assaulted by a spectator in the crowd in Toronto before the physical fight ? When spectators hoot or heckle cricketers, are they assaulting them?
Raghav_12 Posted October 3, 2014 Posted October 3, 2014 You made the following blanket statement claiming that assault NEVER requires physical contact as a pre-condition (emphasis mine): How can you make such a statement? I have shown that in NY law assault requires that the injury must be caused. Read the actual statement of the law : http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article120.htm . Then you claimed that the Article 120 was only about "Assault", when it clearly states that it is about "Assault and Related Offenses". This one was clearly a deliberate lie. You can stand by your so-called claim, but your lying has been exposed. Well I think you reading too much into this. When I made statement that Assualt never is necessary condition. My emphasis wasn't on NEVER part. Now you showed that in Newyork, definition of "assault of third degree" includes physical contact as necessary condition, it would at the most mean my information was incomplete. But again you are talking about "Assault of Third Degree" and link you provide doesn't give generic definition of Assault. I would admit that use of NEVER points towards my incomplete information. But it doesn't amount to lying, And as you have seen not all definitions of assault make Physical contact as necessary condition and most generic definitions which are given in dictionary don't make so yes if you subscribe to those definitions assault doesn't necessarily need physical contact. There is no lying in saying that section 120 is on assaults and it includes some sub-sections which doesn't require physical contact. At the most it can be called incomplete information.
Recommended Posts