Confronting, yes. Assaulting, no.
The left you use to believe in has been usurped by the Satanic globalists now because it was weaker.
The axiom is no longer left - right. It’s “elites” vs the 99%.
Looks good something to take your mind off socialist dogma .
Soooo, you condone a mob showing up at someone’s home in the wee hours to shout vulgar threats at their family - I guess it’s not assault to you unless someone on the left, or some ‘person of color’ is targeted.
Castros selective list of donors and his smugness rhetoric is the Leftists continuing to fuel fires of divison in the country. Its not racist for Dems to omit Hispanic names, but racist if the Repubs include them on list for Dem candidates.
The names etc are public information and businesses will face Leftist inspired protests and personal intimidation.
Mad Maxine the Ghetto Grinch is racism personified. Her support is only from mentally retarded and brain dead voters .
Monte. The Leftists have consistently showed its good to assault those on the right during their protests and encouragement by their media enablers.
However, Monte isn’t a troll, but encourages thinking .
Covered this in a separate thread already!
No, not at all, and I didn’t say that.
This began with Southern claiming that “the left” has declared it perfectly acceptable to assault Trump supporters. I asked when and who has said such a thing. You chime in with a statement from Palosi about confronting Trump supporters.
Do you not see the difference between confronting and assaulting???
Are you gentlemen having difficulty with the definition of assault???
You are trying to pass off a argument on semantics! What do you think confront means? It begets violence or acts thereof! Confrontation is harassment which leads to conflict! No matter how you try to phrase it, your kind are encouraging this behaviour! So please spare us the semantics argument it’s dimwitted to do so!
Monte, how would you define the Leftists mobs outside Tucker Carlson’s home action.
Is that old fashioned "peaceful " protest or harrassment etc.
Threats of harm are by definition and statute assault/harassment.
Clearly harassment, but NOT assault…
As usual you are trying to pivot here for fear of exposing your vacuous mental facilities that fails to draw the parallels of harassment that leads to assault. Your mental gymnastics on display here to which you want to make such arguments is so weak that even a 12 year mowing the lawn can tell the difference!
She’s never been an honest broker of debate and won’t even engage with those who constantly show her to be a fraud.
Assault is a PHYSICAL attack…
So no, it’s not assault. Do I need to quote the dictionary for you…
Since you love semantic nit picking- I guess harassment in the form of terrorizing families is OK with you as long as it’s toward someone with whom you disagree.
Nobody can be that stupid. Most states have laws that also treat verbal assault as “assault”.
Yelling profanity at someone may just be harassment but when you add threats to it, it becomes assault and may also be treated as communicating a terrorist threat which carries even higher penalties.
Assault and Battery
In an act of physical violence by one person against another, “assault” is usually paired with battery. In an act of physical violence, assault refers to the act which causes the victim to apprehend imminent physical harm, while battery refers to the actual act causing the physical harm.
Criminal law statutes will sometimes merge the two terms of “assault” and “battery” into the one crime of “assault.”
In tort law, the act of assault and battery would be considered an intentional tort.