ManBearDovah Archive

Upvotes	Title	Category	Author	Subreddit	Date (UTC)

Upvotes	Comment on	Subreddit	Date (UTC)
1	Update in "Man Asks do I know you" case Many people think of it the same way because you often hear the charges assault and battery together in a situation where one person beats another. They are, however two (supposedly) distinct concepts. Edit: The crux of this won't come down to just the question. It is going to depend on whether he intended to place her in apprehension. The prosecution will likely try to prove this based on circumstantial evidence.	/r/MensRights	26/10/12 08:55 PM
2	Update in "Man Asks do I know you" case I am assuming he followed her because of the surrounding circumstances. He went up the stairwell as she was doing so, then when the girl noticed him he spoke with her. Upon a negative response, he turned around and left. If he was in fact going to a destination that was coincidentally on the same level of the parking structure as the girl's destination, he likely would not have left and continued on his path. This indicates to me that we was following her. it would seem to me like his intent wou…	/r/MensRights	26/10/12 08:46 PM
3	Update in "Man Asks do I know you" case I don't see the reason to. Paranoid delusions should be assumed. I don't think we should go so far as to assume that the girl was paranoid. She may have been more easily frightened than the typical person, but that is not going to help this guy if it goes to trial. See Doctrine of the Eggshell Skull Shouldn't he get the benefit of the doubt for using the stairs for a legitimate reason? Yes, he very well should and he likely will when the legal system sorts all of this out. But, for our purposes …	/r/MensRights	26/10/12 07:02 PM
3	Update in "Man Asks do I know you" case That was a simple mistake. The fact that it was the evening rather than late at night makes little difference. It does make it slightly less likely that he had a nefarious purpose but it is not dispositive.	/r/MensRights	26/10/12 06:50 PM
3	Update in "Man Asks do I know you" case You're not going to know his intent from these facts; that is usually shown circumstantially. He may have been stalking this girl, he may have been a serial offender, he may have a behavioral/mental disorder (in which case, he will likely present an insanity or similar defense, which would likely work), he may have thought that this girl was in fact a different girl and had the intent to harm this other girl, but once he realized that this girl wasn't her, decided to leave her alone. We do not k…	/r/MensRights	26/10/12 06:47 PM
5	Update in "Man Asks do I know you" case Well he followed her up the structure saying nothing until he was spotted and then proceeded to get quite close to her. I don't know any other facts than those presented in the bulletins, but it is possible that he did these things in a way that would seem menacing . I'm not saying he for certain committed assault in the third degree, but what I am saying is that we should not write off the possibility based on this description by the campus police.	/r/MensRights	26/10/12 05:15 PM
2	Update in "Man Asks do I know you" case No. It's not the question that is the trigger here. It is all of the surrounding circumstances. We don't know his demeanor, tone of voice, speed at which he walked towards her, exactly how close he got, how long he followed her, and so on. All of this matters. Giving the girl here the benefit of the doubt, it would seem there is at least a possibility that this is assault in the third degree, but the final determination rightfully rests with the court. The lawyers, judge and jury will sort this …	/r/MensRights	26/10/12 05:09 PM
3	Update in "Man Asks do I know you" case Assault has been defined the way it is in the statute here for ages, especially in the civil law context. Many jurisdictions have have imported to civil (tort) definition of assault into the criminal definition.	/r/MensRights	26/10/12 04:57 PM
7	Update in "Man Asks do I know you" case Certain crimes. Not all crimes require showing mens rea (guilty mind). Many crimes are known as strict liability offenses and the "perpetrator" need not have had guilty intentions to be convicted (e.g., statutory rape, there is no requirement in most jurisdictions that the person purposely had sex with a minor; the person need only have done the act, even if the person believed the minor was of the age of consent).	/r/MensRights	26/10/12 04:45 PM
13	Update in "Man Asks do I know you" case Law student here. It depends on if the person who put the trash out did so with the purpose of making the shadows look like someone pointing a gun. Under the statute (Revised Missouri Statute 565.070), it would qualify because his actions would put a reasonable person in apprehension of imminent bodily harm. Someone who sees a shadow of a person pointing a gun in a threatening manner would do so to most people. Now, if the "culprit" didn't purposely make the shadow, it is highly unlikely that he…	/r/MensRights	26/10/12 04:35 PM