Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

"That's What Hate Does"

LGBT Anti-Gay Demonstration Hate 2006

  • Please log in to reply
114 replies to this topic

#61 Anastashia

Anastashia

    Tyrant Matriarch and Pegan Too!

  • Islander
  • 11,777 posts

Posted 21 December 2006 - 11:35 PM

I'm not saying that he had a right to assault her. I'm saying that if she hadn't put herself in that position she wouldn't have been assaulted. She's an ACLU board member. She's no total innocent bystander in this. She was trying to provoke a reaction by what she did and she got it.

As to who's description of what happened is more credible, if you read my post #56 above and think about it you'll realize as I did that what she says happened is physically impossible.

Edited by Anastashia, 21 December 2006 - 11:45 PM.

The Science Fiction Examiner

In the quiet of Midden a young child grows.
Does the salvation of his people grow with him?
"Everything we do now is for the child"

"I made a mistake,
just follow along,
isn't that what tyranny is all about?"
Sheila M---my Praise Band Director

For as long as I shall live
I will testify to love
I'll be a witness in the silences when words are not enough
Testify to Love

Posted Image


#62 Banapis

Banapis

    Tilting at Shadow Depositories

  • Islander
  • 2,222 posts

Posted 22 December 2006 - 12:04 AM

View PostScottEVill, on Dec 21 2006, 11:26 PM, said:

same article linked up thread, Sgt Hazelhurst, a cop, says:

Quote

"He pushed her down and he admits that..."

Who knocked her down is not in dispute, Ani.  According to the cop, he admitted what he did on the scene, so either she's lying, or he contradicted himself a day later in the Boston Globe interview.  I know who I think has more credibility.

That same Sgt. backtracked and clarified in the article up-thread what Cirignano actually admitted:

Quote

Cirignano told the Boston Globe that he placed his arm on Loy’s back to escort her from the crowd but did not push her. Yet Worcester Police spokesman Sgt. Kerry Hazelhurst said regardless of whether Cirignano pushed her or simply held onto her back, his actions constitute assault.

“He put his hands on her, so that in itself is an assault and battery, and he didn’t deny that. So the elements of assault and battery are there … The admission is there and there were plenty of witnesses there, so that wasn’t refutable,” said Hazelhurst.

So what Sgt hazelhurst is saying is Cirignano's act in placing a hand on Loy's back meets the legal definition of assault: the offensive touching of another without their consent.  Even though it seems perfectly reasonable to escort someone out of where they are not supposed to be, in this situation Cirignano technically committed an assault.

Whether or not Loy chose to embellish the situation, and took a dive, is still unknown. However, given the long history of dives at protests to paint your opponent as the "bad guy" this instance fits the typical pattern.  Now you add to the fact that Loy is an ACLU Board Member and well aware that she had no business breaking through the lines and forcing her way into the "enemy" camp, well... I think there's very good reason to suspect just what exactly she was up to.

Banapis

#63 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 22 December 2006 - 12:11 AM

View PostScottEVill, on Dec 19 2006, 01:43 PM, said:

Can you provide links to examples of rallies where the anti-gay marriage discourse is -- as you say -- "reasonable?"  'Cause I could provide dozens of links to large, well-funded groups whose leaders say things quite similar to, "Heaven won't be heaven" if the government recognizes gay marriage.  

I guess I can't imagine how someone could term the attempt to legislate the articles of one's faith into the secular legal code--which has to work for us all, regardless of faith-- as "reasonable."  This is, by definition, UNreasonable.

Actually, my personal favorites are the Christians who saying letting gay couples marry will undermine marriage. I figure their form of marriage must be pretty pathetic if allowing their neighbors to marry will destroy their own marriages or the institution itself.

As for the idiot at the demonstration, I hope she sues both him and the police department for tacitly approving his conduct by not arresting him on the spot. Assault and battery is inexcusable.
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#64 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 22 December 2006 - 12:20 AM

View PostAnastashia, on Dec 21 2006, 08:35 PM, said:

I'm not saying that he had a right to assault her. I'm saying that if she hadn't put herself in that position she wouldn't have been assaulted. She's an ACLU board member. She's no total innocent bystander in this. She was trying to provoke a reaction by what she did and she got it.

As to who's description of what happened is more credible, if you read my post #56 above and think about it you'll realize as I did that what she says happened is physically impossible.


Okay so, assuming that she was attacked (if she wasn't then she's a liar and does a disservice to her cause), unless you're saying that the reaction that she was trying to provoke is that she'd get assaulted, which is pretty far out there, there is no justification at all, no matter how anyone spins it, for either the guy assaulting her or for the authorities tacitly approving it.  Period.

And arguing that there is or that she bears some responsibility for being HURT is for me exactly the same as arguing that Civil Rights activists in the 60's bore some responsibility for being attacked (or killed) by people who disagreed with them.  Violence is violence.

Lil
Posted Image

#65 Anastashia

Anastashia

    Tyrant Matriarch and Pegan Too!

  • Islander
  • 11,777 posts

Posted 22 December 2006 - 12:20 AM

View PostRhea, on Dec 22 2006, 12:11 AM, said:

View PostScottEVill, on Dec 19 2006, 01:43 PM, said:

Can you provide links to examples of rallies where the anti-gay marriage discourse is -- as you say -- "reasonable?"  'Cause I could provide dozens of links to large, well-funded groups whose leaders say things quite similar to, "Heaven won't be heaven" if the government recognizes gay marriage.  

I guess I can't imagine how someone could term the attempt to legislate the articles of one's faith into the secular legal code--which has to work for us all, regardless of faith-- as "reasonable."  This is, by definition, UNreasonable.

Actually, my personal favorites are the Christians who saying letting gay couples marry will undermine marriage. I figure their form of marriage must be pretty pathetic if allowing their neighbors to marry will destroy their own marriages or the institution itself.

As for the idiot at the demonstration, I hope she sues both him and the police department for tacitly approving his conduct by not arresting him on the spot. Assault and battery is inexcusable.

Rhea the police didn't see what happened, therefore they could not arrest him on the spot, they had to do an investigation to determine the probable circumstances before arresting anyone. I hope you're not saying you think police should go around arresting people based on someone's say so without properly investigating what happened.
The Science Fiction Examiner

In the quiet of Midden a young child grows.
Does the salvation of his people grow with him?
"Everything we do now is for the child"

"I made a mistake,
just follow along,
isn't that what tyranny is all about?"
Sheila M---my Praise Band Director

For as long as I shall live
I will testify to love
I'll be a witness in the silences when words are not enough
Testify to Love

Posted Image


#66 Anastashia

Anastashia

    Tyrant Matriarch and Pegan Too!

  • Islander
  • 11,777 posts

Posted 22 December 2006 - 12:28 AM

View PostUna Salus Lillius, on Dec 22 2006, 12:20 AM, said:

View PostAnastashia, on Dec 21 2006, 08:35 PM, said:

I'm not saying that he had a right to assault her. I'm saying that if she hadn't put herself in that position she wouldn't have been assaulted. She's an ACLU board member. She's no total innocent bystander in this. She was trying to provoke a reaction by what she did and she got it.

As to who's description of what happened is more credible, if you read my post #56 above and think about it you'll realize as I did that what she says happened is physically impossible.


Okay so, assuming that she was attacked (if she wasn't then she's a liar and does a disservice to her cause), unless you're saying that the reaction that she was trying to provoke is that she'd get assaulted, which is pretty far out there, there is no justification at all, no matter how anyone spins it, for either the guy assaulting her or for the authorities tacitly approving it.  Period.

And arguing that there is or that she bears some responsibility for being HURT is for me exactly the same as arguing that Civil Rights activists in the 60's bore some responsibility for being attacked (or killed) by people who disagreed with them.  Violence is violence.

Lil

No Lil I'm just saying that if she wasn't where she was she wouldn't have gotten hurt, that's a fact that no one can argue with. There was a perfectly viable avenue to make her point and she felt the need to go outside of that avenue. If she hadn't she wouldn't have gotten hurt. If you don't think that makes her somewhat responsible you have a right to your opinion, but you can't argue it wouldn't have happened.
The Science Fiction Examiner

In the quiet of Midden a young child grows.
Does the salvation of his people grow with him?
"Everything we do now is for the child"

"I made a mistake,
just follow along,
isn't that what tyranny is all about?"
Sheila M---my Praise Band Director

For as long as I shall live
I will testify to love
I'll be a witness in the silences when words are not enough
Testify to Love

Posted Image


#67 Mark

Mark
  • Islander
  • 5,269 posts

Posted 22 December 2006 - 01:43 AM

Mark: Judge not, and ye shall not be judged.
The Bible also has some pretty harsh things to say about the consequences of those hypocrites who don't practice what they are supposed to be preaching.
Jesus also tells anyone who will listen to love your enemies, and turn the other cheek when someone wrongs you...even if you have to do it 77 times (in other words there should be no limit to one's patience regarding your brothers/sisters/fellow men and women) !

Spoiler: click to show/hide
Look in St. Matthew 18; verse 15. It speaks specifically to what we should do when we've been wronged...if your brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault in private (between the two of you), and if he listens, and acknowledges his fault, then you've gained your brother (love is restored between you). If that doesn't work, Jesus tells us to go further. Read what the Bible says there...it's an interesting read of brotherhood, and love, and tolerance.


The man that pushed the lady made himself look very bad, and whatever message he was spewing has been forgotten (at least by me), because I hate injustice.

Edited by Mark, 22 December 2006 - 07:05 AM.

Mark
Discussion is an exchange of knowledge: argument is an exchange of ignorance.
Peace is not the absence of conflict, but the ability to cope with it.
APOGEE MESSAGE BOARD

#68 omegaman

omegaman
  • Just Washed Ashore
  • 17 posts

Posted 22 December 2006 - 02:16 AM

View PostRhea, on Dec 22 2006, 05:11 AM, said:

Actually, my personal favorites are the Christians who saying letting gay couples marry will undermine marriage. I figure their form of marriage must be pretty pathetic if allowing their neighbors to marry will destroy their own marriages or the institution itself.

I agree.  The first mistake Christians made was allowing the state to become a party to their marriage.  As such the state is well within its rights to issue licenses to whomever it pleases.  Originally a marriage was a covenant between a man, a woman and God.  No license (that is - permission to do something that is otherwise illegal) was issued by anybody.  

If someone wants to go to city hall with their  cabbage patch doll I could care less.  If two men want to get a state issued license to cohabitate I feel the same way.  It still doesn't make it a marriage in the sight of God.  No matter how much certain people don't like to hear that, its the truth.

Edited by SparkyCola, 26 December 2006 - 07:59 PM.
because it was Rhea's quote, not DWF

"Political Correctness: A doctrine... which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end." -- Stoney FAL Forum


You can't be brave if you've only had wonderful things happen to you.

Mary Tyler Moore

#69 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 22 December 2006 - 09:50 AM

View PostAnastashia, on Dec 21 2006, 11:35 PM, said:

I'm not saying that he had a right to assault her. I'm saying that if she hadn't put herself in that position she wouldn't have been assaulted. She's an ACLU board member. She's no total innocent bystander in this. She was trying to provoke a reaction by what she did and she got it.

As to who's description of what happened is more credible, if you read my post #56 above and think about it you'll realize as I did that what she says happened is physically impossible.

To me, that's a conspiracy theory.  As far as "provoking a reaction" -- How is that different from saying the scantily clad rape victim "was trying to provoke a reaction by what she [wore] and she got it?"

View PostBanapis, on Dec 22 2006, 12:04 AM, said:

View PostScottEVill, on Dec 21 2006, 11:26 PM, said:

same article linked up thread, Sgt Hazelhurst, a cop, says:

Quote

"He pushed her down and he admits that..."

Who knocked her down is not in dispute, Ani.  According to the cop, he admitted what he did on the scene, so either she's lying, or he contradicted himself a day later in the Boston Globe interview.  I know who I think has more credibility.

That same Sgt. backtracked and clarified in the article up-thread what Cirignano actually admitted:

Quote

Cirignano told the Boston Globe that he placed his arm on Loy’s back to escort her from the crowd but did not push her. Yet Worcester Police spokesman Sgt. Kerry Hazelhurst said regardless of whether Cirignano pushed her or simply held onto her back, his actions constitute assault.

“He put his hands on her, so that in itself is an assault and battery, and he didn’t deny that. So the elements of assault and battery are there … The admission is there and there were plenty of witnesses there, so that wasn’t refutable,” said Hazelhurst.

So what Sgt hazelhurst is saying is Cirignano's act in placing a hand on Loy's back meets the legal definition of assault: the offensive touching of another without their consent.

How is that backtracking on her earlier statement?  

Quote

Even though it seems perfectly reasonable to escort someone out of where they are not supposed to be, in this situation Cirignano technically committed an assault.

No, it's not!  The police were present -- Where did this guy get off deciding to play keystone cop?  (Not that that's what he was doing -- He got pissed off, and decided to assault the object of his rage.  End of story).
  

View PostAnastashia, on Dec 22 2006, 12:28 AM, said:

View PostUna Salus Lillius, on Dec 22 2006, 12:20 AM, said:

View PostAnastashia, on Dec 21 2006, 08:35 PM, said:

I'm not saying that he had a right to assault her. I'm saying that if she hadn't put herself in that position she wouldn't have been assaulted. She's an ACLU board member. She's no total innocent bystander in this. She was trying to provoke a reaction by what she did and she got it.

As to who's description of what happened is more credible, if you read my post #56 above and think about it you'll realize as I did that what she says happened is physically impossible.


Okay so, assuming that she was attacked (if she wasn't then she's a liar and does a disservice to her cause), unless you're saying that the reaction that she was trying to provoke is that she'd get assaulted, which is pretty far out there, there is no justification at all, no matter how anyone spins it, for either the guy assaulting her or for the authorities tacitly approving it.  Period.

And arguing that there is or that she bears some responsibility for being HURT is for me exactly the same as arguing that Civil Rights activists in the 60's bore some responsibility for being attacked (or killed) by people who disagreed with them.  Violence is violence.

Lil

No Lil I'm just saying that if she wasn't where she was she wouldn't have gotten hurt, that's a fact that no one can argue with.

Uh, no.  You're talking about the difference of "five or six feet," as I said up-thread.

Edited by ScottEVill, 22 December 2006 - 09:51 AM.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#70 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 22 December 2006 - 10:14 AM

View PostAnastashia, on Dec 21 2006, 09:55 PM, said:

If somebody is behind you and has one hand on each of your shoulders and you turn toward them how do they keep a hand on each shooulder in order to be able to push you? You wouldn't be able to turn more than 90 degrees before your falling backward would be precluded by their arm which would now be braced across your back.

Not only that, but . . .

Quote

As Cirignano pushed her back towards the edge of the crowd eventually she fell over backwards and landed on her side.

The use of the word "eventually" makes me wonder how long after the push she fell down. Seconds, minutes . . . hours?  :angel:

And also, if you fall over backwards, how do you land on your side!?

I think the person most responsible for the altercation is the terrible writer of this piece.  :devil:
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#71 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 22 December 2006 - 10:18 AM

View PostMark, on Dec 22 2006, 12:43 AM, said:

Mark: Judge not, and ye shall not be judged.

The bible is pretty clear that Christians have the responsibility to judge . . . other Christians. (But shouldn't judge those who don't call themselves Christians. That's God's purview.)
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#72 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 22 December 2006 - 10:31 AM

View Postomegaman, on Dec 22 2006, 02:16 AM, said:

View PostRhea, on Dec 22 2006, 05:11 AM, said:

Actually, my personal favorites are the Christians who saying letting gay couples marry will undermine marriage. I figure their form of marriage must be pretty pathetic if allowing their neighbors to marry will destroy their own marriages or the institution itself.

I agree.  The first mistake Christians made was allowing the state to become a party to their marriage.  As such the state is well within its rights to issue licenses to whomever it pleases.  Originally a marriage was a covenant between a man, a woman and God.  No license (that is - permission to do something that is otherwise illegal) was issued by anybody.  

If someone wants to go to city hall with their  cabbage patch doll I could care less.  If two men want to get a state issued license to cohabitate I feel the same way.  It still doesn't make it a marriage in the sight of God.  No matter how much certain people don't like to hear that, its the truth.

Let's not forget, though, that there are Christians who think that gay and lesbian couples are also eligible for the sacrament of marriage. And some ministers in mainstream congregations are willing to risk censure to perform marriages for gay and lesbian couples.

Here's a story about how a (straight) Presbyterian minister who is a descendant of ol' Jonathan Edwards is standing firm on her conduct of a marriage of two women:

http://www.pcusa.org.../2006/06598.htm


So, it's not just a matter of gays v Christians. There are gays who are Christian, and there are Christians who see gay relationships as spiritual equals of straight ones nd therefore think that a gay marriage IS "a marriage in the sight of God."

Edited by SparkyCola, 26 December 2006 - 07:58 PM.
to fix a quote-related problem

"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#73 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 22 December 2006 - 10:50 AM

BTW, Ani:

View PostAnastashia, on Dec 21 2006, 08:33 PM, said:

I went to your originally linked site. I saw no statements from any other witnesses.

Quote

The victim, Sarah Loy, 27, along with multiple witnesses, say Cirignano shoved Loy after she ventured into the VoteOnMarriage crowd holding a MassEquality sign, and as he pushed her toward the outer perimeter of the VoteOnMarriage crowd she fell backwards onto the pavement.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#74 Vapor Trails

Vapor Trails

    In a world where I feel so small, I can't stop thinking big.

  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 16,523 posts

Posted 22 December 2006 - 10:51 AM

View Postomegaman, on Dec 22 2006, 02:16 AM, said:

If someone wants to go to city hall with their  cabbage patch doll I could care less.  If two men want to get a state issued license to cohabitate I feel the same way.  It still doesn't make it a marriage in the sight of God.  No matter how much certain people don't like to hear that, its the truth.

(emphasis mine)

Uh-uh. Not so fast...

YOUR "truth".

To quote the late astronomer Carl Sagan...

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Who are gay folks hurting if they marry each other? Why does it affect other people's marriages? Why should anyone care?

Two consenting gay/lesbian adults love each other, and want to spend the rest of their lives together-with the same rights/privleges as heterosexual couples.

What's the problem? I don't see one.

:eh:

Edited by Digital Man, 22 December 2006 - 10:52 AM.

Posted Image

Politicians are like bananas; they hang together, they're all yellow, and there's not a straight one among them.

"We're relevant for $ and a vote once every two years. Beyond that, we're completely irrelevant, except of course to consume, and preach the gospel according to [insert political demigod here]."--Cait

#75 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 22 December 2006 - 11:04 AM

View Postomegaman, on Dec 22 2006, 02:16 AM, said:

If someone wants to go to city hall with their  cabbage patch doll I could care less.  If two men want to get a state issued license to cohabitate I feel the same way.  It still doesn't make it a marriage in the sight of God.  No matter how much certain people don't like to hear that, its the truth.

I agree with DM here, Omegaman -- How do you know what God sees?  Did you speak to Him?  Also, I'm not too crazy about your comparison of gay marriage to wedding one's Cabbage Patch Doll.

Edited by ScottEVill, 22 December 2006 - 11:09 AM.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#76 Vapor Trails

Vapor Trails

    In a world where I feel so small, I can't stop thinking big.

  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 16,523 posts

Posted 22 December 2006 - 11:20 AM

View PostScottEVill, on Dec 22 2006, 11:04 AM, said:

View Postomegaman, on Dec 22 2006, 02:16 AM, said:

If someone wants to go to city hall with their  cabbage patch doll I could care less.  If two men want to get a state issued license to cohabitate I feel the same way.  It still doesn't make it a marriage in the sight of God.  No matter how much certain people don't like to hear that, its the truth.

I agree with DM here, Omegaman -- How do you know what God sees?  Did you speak to Him?  Also, I'm not too crazy about your comparison of gay marriage to wedding one's Cabbage Patch Doll.


And to stoke the fires further...

What "God"? I don't believe in your "God", and I have plenty of reasons not to. I also think that if man is truly made "in God's image", we're all in BIG trouble. Man is a pathetic representation for this so-called Grand Creator.

And no matter how much some people don't like to hear this-that's my POV, which I will bring up whenever I see fit. And those people will have to deal with that, too.
Posted Image

Politicians are like bananas; they hang together, they're all yellow, and there's not a straight one among them.

"We're relevant for $ and a vote once every two years. Beyond that, we're completely irrelevant, except of course to consume, and preach the gospel according to [insert political demigod here]."--Cait

#77 Banapis

Banapis

    Tilting at Shadow Depositories

  • Islander
  • 2,222 posts

Posted 22 December 2006 - 11:38 AM

View PostScottEVill, on Dec 22 2006, 09:50 AM, said:

How is that backtracking on her earlier statement?

Um, because in the statement you quoted the Sgt said "He pushed her down and he admits that." That is a statement that the guy admitted shoving her down to the ground.  Then in the later statement all he is willing to say is that the guy admitted to was, "He put his hands on her, so that in itself is an assault and battery, and he didn’t deny that. So the elements of assault and battery are there."

So the only thing this guy apparently admitted to was the touching not the push.  Heck the guy admits to the touch in his e-mail as well.  Any sort of touch without consent, even a pat on the back satisfies, as the sgt. observes, "the elements" of the crime of the assualt and battery.

Quote

Quote

Even though it seems perfectly reasonable to escort someone out of where they are not supposed to be, in this situation Cirignano technically committed an assault.

No, it's not!  The police were present

And either overwhelmed or doing a lousy job since it known fact Loy managed to to walk across out of her area and intentionally get in the face of the opposition.  

And I'm sure this ACLU Board Member just "forgot" the rules of peaceful protest and keeping to her designated area...

Banapis

#78 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 22 December 2006 - 12:05 PM

View PostBanapis, on Dec 22 2006, 11:38 AM, said:

View PostScottEVill, on Dec 22 2006, 09:50 AM, said:

How is that backtracking on her earlier statement?

Um, because in the statement you quoted the Sgt said "He pushed her down and he admits that." That is a statement that the guy admitted shoving her down to the ground.  Then in the later statement all he is willing to say is that the guy admitted to was, "He put his hands on her, so that in itself is an assault and battery, and he didn’t deny that. So the elements of assault and battery are there."

Please read it again.  

Quote

Worcester Police spokesman Sgt. Kerry Hazelhurst said regardless of whether Cirignano pushed her or simply held onto her back, his actions constitute assault.

“He put his hands on her, so that in itself is an assault and battery, and he didn’t deny that. So the elements of assault and battery are there … The admission is there and there were plenty of witnesses there, so that wasn’t refutable,” said Hazelhurst.

This is not a retraction of Hazelhurst's earlier statement, it's an explanation why whether you accept what Cirignano admitted on the day (that he pushed her down) or the spin (to be generous) he gave to the Boston Globe the day after (that he "put his hand on her back" and she took a dive), it still constitutes assault.  

Quote

Quote

Quote

Even though it seems perfectly reasonable to escort someone out of where they are not supposed to be, in this situation Cirignano technically committed an assault.

No, it's not!  The police were present

And either overwhelmed or doing a lousy job since it known fact Loy managed to to walk across out of her area and intentionally get in the face of the opposition.  

And this gave him the right to assault her?  Sorry--No.  You're advocating vigilantism.

Edited by ScottEVill, 22 December 2006 - 12:12 PM.

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!

#79 Banapis

Banapis

    Tilting at Shadow Depositories

  • Islander
  • 2,222 posts

Posted 22 December 2006 - 12:54 PM

View PostScottEVill, on Dec 22 2006, 12:05 PM, said:

Please read it again.  

Quote

Worcester Police spokesman Sgt. Kerry Hazelhurst said regardless of whether Cirignano pushed her or simply held onto her back, his actions constitute assault.

Please read it again.  You're now underlining a lead-in paraphrase by the writer.  That's a segue by the journalist to the actual quote where the Sgt only says he admitted to laying hands on her - not the push.

Quote

And this gave him the right to assault her? Sorry--No. You're advocating vigilantism.

I said no such thing.  I simply said it was a reasonable thing for a layman to think he could do if he did it acording to the way he described.  He obviously failed to realize the possible consequences of what it maybe posibly could have lead to, namely sparking a brawl with counter-protesters.   And he failed to realize the ACLU has a long history of coaching dives at such rallies and anticipate that Loy may use the occasion to take a completely predictable flop.

Meanwhile, you continue to fail to acknowledge Loy's wilful disobedience of the police and rules meant to maintain order at these types of rallies and physically impossible descriptions of what transpired.   And you're just making too many assumptions and believing you can hop inside the mind of the guy involved here and "know" what happened.

In the end it's still just a "he said she said."  Even a witness who saw hands + a fall is still in the same position of a hockey ref trying to figure out if the opposing player was truly tripped or just took a dive while the stick was near his skate.  

We'll never know the truth.  But we will always know both of them were in the wrong that day.

Banapis

#80 BklnScott

BklnScott

    FKA ScottEVill

  • Islander
  • 18,142 posts

Posted 22 December 2006 - 01:28 PM

Quote

Quote

Worcester Police spokesman Sgt. Kerry Hazelhurst said regardless of whether Cirignano pushed her or simply held onto her back, his actions constitute assault.

Please read it again.  You're now underlining a lead-in paraphrase by the writer.  That's a segue by the journalist to the actual quote where the Sgt only says he admitted to laying hands on her - not the push.

I see nothing in those two 'graphs to make me think the cop is retracting his original statement.  He is elaborating based on Cirignano's self-contradiction in the Boston Globe piece.  The cop is saying, 'whether you believe what he said on the day (that he shoved her), or what he said to the Globe (that he merely put his hand on her), he still committed assault.'  Which is true.  

But, again, there are "multiple witnesses" who say he shoved her.  

Quote

Quote

And this gave him the right to assault her? Sorry--No. You're advocating vigilantism.

I said no such thing.  I simply said it was a reasonable thing for a layman to think he could do if he did it acording to the way he described.

It's not reasonable.  He was there to speak at the podium.  The police were there to provide security.  If he saw the need for the police to get involved, the reasonable course of action would've been to ask them to get involved, not to take it upon himself to do their job for them.  

And look what happened.  

Quote

In the end it's still just a "he said she said."

No, wrong.  Posting this for the third time now:

Quote

The victim, Sarah Loy, 27, along with multiple witnesses, say Cirignano shoved Loy.

Quote

We'll never know the truth.  But we will always know both of them were in the wrong that day.

Sure, in the same way people who refused to sit in the back of the bus and the KKK-types who attacked them were both in the wrong, 'cause--y'know--peaceful protest is equivalent to assault and battery.  :whistle:

Quote

There isn't enough mommy in the world to further a cause like yours!



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: LGBT, Anti-Gay Demonstration, Hate, 2006

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users