ChrLzs Posted March 10, 2013 #101 Share Posted March 10, 2013 I can only judge by what others post (having blocked turbonium ages ago) but it seems we can now add the simple term "assault" to those turbonium doesn't understand. From Cornell.. ASSAULT1. Intentionally putting another person in reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact. No intent to cause physical injury needs to exist, and no physical injury needs to result. So defined in tort law and the criminal statutes of some states. 2. With the intent to cause physical injury, making another person reasonably apprehend an imminent harmful or offensive contact. Essentially, an attempted battery. So defined in the criminal statutes of some states. 3. With the intent to cause physical injury, actually causing such injury to another person. Essentially, the same as a battery. So defined in the criminal statutes of some states, and so understood in popular usage. Note the bolded parts... Turbonium, why do you think the legal term "battery" exists? I don't post on forums where I don't know the topics at hand - I know very little about, oh say, quantum physics or neurosurgery.. I might go there to ask a question or for references, but I'd rather NOT make a fool of myself by suggesting that neurosurgery was imaginary or quantum entanglement was a hoax and that I knew more than those who were experts - I would simply be revealing my ignorance/delusions. Even if I did try it, I would take a hint from a total lack of support... I wonder what we can learn from that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czero 101 Posted March 10, 2013 #102 Share Posted March 10, 2013 Is this a permanent state of childhood regression? Let's see now.. You never support your claims, because you say I haven't supported mine. You never list any of the claims. You must think I have telepathic powers! A few emoticons, mix in various loudmouth fonts and mindless insults. The only reply on topic shows you lack any proof. You failed to show that Sibrel assaulted Aldrin. You failed to prove Sibrel sued Aldrin. You say a court dismissed the case, but still show no proof. Turbs... read this post again... this time with your eyes open... it contains something you're not familiar with: E - V - I - D - E - N - C - E As for the things you haven't proven... PICK A TOPIC....any one of them... Cz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Commander Travis Posted March 10, 2013 #103 Share Posted March 10, 2013 Heavens, this thread has become a real testimony to the effects of monomania, hasn't it. One person with an unending obssession has managed to hijack it quite effectively in order to continue to pursue their endless obssession. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingswan Posted March 10, 2013 #104 Share Posted March 10, 2013 Heavens, this thread has become a real testimony to the effects of monomania, hasn't it. One person with an unending obssession has managed to hijack it quite effectively in order to continue to pursue their endless obssession. Maybe he took the title of the thread as a challenge? If he's equating "worst" to "the one with the weakest arguments", he's certainly making himself a candidate. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyrant lizard Posted March 13, 2013 #105 Share Posted March 13, 2013 Why be so emotional if you've got nothing to hide, or reputation as 'hero' to lose? So what you're saying is that the only people who are allowed be angry at being called a liar are the people who ARE lying? And the ones who are telling the truth should be quite happy about it? A moronic statement to go with most of your other one's regarding this case 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turbonium Posted March 16, 2013 #106 Share Posted March 16, 2013 is this all you do now is dodge and run away from questions posed to you? Who wouldn;t be afraid of invisible questions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turbonium Posted March 16, 2013 #107 Share Posted March 16, 2013 I can only judge by what others post (having blocked turbonium ages ago) but it seems we can now add the simple term "assault" to those turbonium doesn't understand. From Cornell.. Note the bolded parts... Turbonium, why do you think the legal term "battery" exists? Do you have a point to make, because I don't see it here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turbonium Posted March 16, 2013 #108 Share Posted March 16, 2013 Turbs... read this post again... this time with your eyes open... it contains something you're not familiar with: E - V - I - D - E - N - C - E As for the things you haven't proven... PICK A TOPIC....any one of them... It's not any better from another reading. Yahoo answers is obviously a reputable source, everyone knows that! I like the part about deadly Bible assault, too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czero 101 Posted March 16, 2013 #109 Share Posted March 16, 2013 It's not any better from another reading. Yahoo answers is obviously a reputable source, everyone knows that! I like the part about deadly Bible assault, too! Interesting how you completely ignore the article from the BBC and the Examiner. Hmmm... could that be because they are credible sources and provide more evidence that destroys your already ludicrous and tenuous position...? But then again, we've known for a long time that in your eyes, credibility of a source is of no importance to you. It only matters that what is being said confirms your willful ignorance: Look, the bottom line is finding out whether or not the story itself is valid. Not who reports the story. You're trying to discredit the source when it's only the material presented by that source which is relevant. Cz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turbonium Posted March 17, 2013 #110 Share Posted March 17, 2013 Interesting how you completely ignore the article from the BBC and the Examiner. Hmmm... could that be because they are credible sources and provide more evidence that destroys your already ludicrous and tenuous position...? I've already addressed the lying "witnesses",mentioned in the BBC article.... Beverly Hills police investigated the incident, which occurred 9 September, but said that the charges were dropped after witnesses came forward to say that Mr Sibrel had aggressively poked Mr Aldrin with the Bible before he was punched. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2272321.stm I asked you to prove those "witnesses" did not give false statements. You ignored my request, since the video actually proves Sibrel never "aggressively poked" Aldrin with his Bible! So the BBC article you're holding up as an irrefutable source...has just been refuted! So those claiming Sibrel assaulted Aldrin prior to the punch are wrong. And let's look at your other (supposedly) reliable, crebible source - the Examiner.. Aldrin threw a punch that rocked Sibrel. Sibrel later tried to file charges against Aldrin, but basically got laughed at[/b] Again, I asked you to prove Sibrel filed charges against Aldrin, or that Sibrel "tried to file charges". And again, you failed to prove your claim. It's entirely possible he did file charges, but I need some proof for it. So if you have any, show it. If you can't, it will show the Examiner is not a credible, reliable source. And I'd really like you to prove the Examiner's next claim - that Sibrel "basically got laughed at" when he allegedly filed these charges! For that matter, what kind of credible source would even say someone "basically got laughed at"? You obviously can't differentiate a news article from a biased piece littered with unfounded remarks. I can just imagine news like that - 'After Joe Smith was assaulted, he reported the incident at the Police Station. and he basically laughed at!' . There you go. Are you going to run away from it, or make lame excuses to avoid it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turbonium Posted March 17, 2013 #111 Share Posted March 17, 2013 The Los Angeles County district attorney's office issued a statement on the Aldrin-Sibrel incident. Here's an article on it... The Los Angeles County district attorney's office will not file charges against Apollo 11 astronaut Buzz Aldrin for hitting a man who has long insisted the U.S. moon landings were a hoax. Deputy Dist. Atty. Elizabeth Ratinoff, who is in charge of the district attorney's Beverly Hills office, said in a statement that Aldrin had been provoked into hitting Bart Sibrel of Nashville in the face in front of the Luxe Hotel in Beverly Hills last week. "Aldrin was confronted by ... Sibrel who arranged to surprise Aldrin and challenge his integrity about walking on the moon," Ratinoff said. "Video depicts Sibrel following Aldrin on the street and thrusting a Bible at Aldrin. Others attempted to protect Aldrin as he walked away from Sibrel. "Ultimately, Sibrel called Aldrin a thief, liar and coward. Video depicts Aldrin striking Sibrel once in the face with a fist. Sibrel immediately turns to the camera crew present and appears to twice state, 'Did you get that?' "Sibrel was not knocked down," Ratinoff said. "He sustained no visible injury. He did not seek medical attention. Aldrin has no prior criminal arrest history. "Based on the totality of the circumstances," she added, "it is unlikely a jury would find Aldrin guilty of a misdemeanor battery charge." The 72-year-old Aldrin's attorney, Robert O'Brien, said, "We welcome this decision and appreciate the prompt and professional manner in which the Beverly Hills Police Department and the Los Angeles district attorney's office handled this matter. "We expect that in the future Mr. Sibrel will refrain from harassing Dr. Aldrin and his fellow Apollo astronauts." Sibrel, at a Beverly Hills news conference, said he believed the district attorney's office was simply not inclined to prosecute a celebrity like Aldrin http://articles.latimes.com/2002/sep/21/local/me-buzz21 So let's go over a few comments... "Video depicts Sibrel following Aldrin on the street and thrusting a Bible at Aldrin." . Really? Sibrel was "thrusting" a Bible at Aldrin? Give me a break! ""Sibrel was not knocked down," Oh, right - it's not battery (or assault) if you're still standing up afterwards! That makes perfect sense! "He sustained no visible injury." You must have visible injuries or it isn't battery/assault. Damage to Internal organs is allowed, because it's usually not visible!! . [i[" He did not seek medical attention."[/i] You must chech into ER or it isn't battery/assault "Aldrin has no prior criminal arrest history". And iif he punched another guy, he still won't have an arrest history, and so on! A first offender is often given less punishment, but it is still considered an offence. "Based on the totality of the circumstances," she added, "it is unlikely a jury would find Aldrin guilty of a misdemeanor battery charge." More like this 'Based on the totality of our lame excuses, we can't let it go to a jury!' Yup Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now