The lie he committed was in cutting off his quote of the statute right before it got to the part about carrying a weapon, as I explained in the OP. If he’d quoted extra statute, and merely misinterpreted it as (I believe) you’ve done, that wouldn’t have been a lie. But he carefully trimmed his quote to make his case.
Nobody is claiming that the only way to commit an assault while carrying a weapon is to accost, impede, or beg someone while carrying it. That’d be an insane claim.
But solosam claimed that merely holding a weapon was sufficient to count as an assault. That claim is equally insane, and he had to cut off part of the definition of assault in order to make it.
That looks different here in Australia. Here it says nothing about “A judge and jury will decide if merely carrying pepper spray constitutes assault,” but instead says:
In other words if the person brandishing the pepper spray can convince a judge that they thought the other person was happy for them to do so, then the judge can instruct the jury to consider that as a defence.
Look, maybe he did cut off 265(1)(c) to bolster his case. I don’t know. However the application of the statute is as I said. If you do any of 265(1)(a), (b) or (c) you have committed an assault. The first two apply whether armed or not and obviously include threats with whatever weapon you have. In (c) being armed and committing one of the three acts constitutes an assault even without threats.
Now solosam is claiming that by having the pepper spray out in her hand she attempts or threatens, by an act or a gesture, to apply force to him i.e spray him with the pepper spray. This claim may be spurious but, nonetheless, I wouldn’t be terribly happy to find myself in an enclosed space with someone armed with pepper spray. Remember he claims the pepper spray is as much a weapon as a Glock. Would she be permitted to pull her Glock whenever she feels uncomfortable.
Now if he is really claiming that merely carrying the pepper spray constitutes the assault, plainly he is wrong, as 267 shows. However your OP indicated that he felt the assault resulted from her actions with the pepper spray.
You forgot to compliment him on taking weeks to get around to doing it, bringing back an old thread in the process. Because we were all totally waiting with bated breath for this and I can see why that took so long for him to write up.
That was the exact claim I asked him to justify; he justified it with the assault law he cited.
Except the assault law he cited makes it perfectly clear that his interpretation doesn’t apply, since they say that if you’re holding a weapon and you solicit from someone, that’s assault. If merely holding a weapon were assault, that clause would make no sense.
Except he didn’t cite that part of the law, because doing so would show he was wrong.
Huh? In post 418 you reference Canadian law, which seems to require both the carrying of a weapon and meeting the definition of assault in order to prove evidence of an assault. Merely carrying a weapon without indicating or stating an intent to use it doesn’t appear to qualify.
I have no idea how Australia sees things, but I’m in the US and merely carrying legal weapons does not constitute assault in an of itself.
I think he’s (she’s?) commenting on your post in which you say:
Don’t Ask is correct that item 4 only applies to a judge and jury deciding whether there was consent, since consent is a valid defense against assault.
That’ll happen on a message board I guess - nothing I can do about it. Nor do I care that much but a few things to consider:
~SA lays it out this way - “She saves her pics this way, she names them that way, she organizes them thusly…” and then asks you, based on the way* he* set it up, does it make sense? Well no, not the way he presented it. But none of that stuff is true. I can’t be blamed for his lack of imagination.
~I find this telling,
If I posted a second photo somewhere wouldn’t you think that with all he is going on about here he would just post a link to it? Even if I had deleted it my words would still be here. He isn’t because it isn’t true.
~Speaking of my words, I have never said or implied I was young or pretty. A search of my posts about myself will contradict all he is saying.
~I used to appreciate SA’s posts. I never agreed with them of course but it allowed me to understand the “other side”. And for the most part I did consider him honest. After disagreeing with him a few times we exchanged a few PMs and emails. There was an email I sent him that was something along the lines of the above. There were also some he’s leaving out. Him selectively posting some old PMs won’t prove anything.
The bottom line is I posted a wrong photo. There was no “dallying”. It was brought to my attention and I took it down. There was NEVER a second one. I have never uploaded any goth chic photo to anyplace on the internet other than my own Flickr account for my personal use and I never linked to it in any way.
SA was on the right track when he posted this
It’s not about that, it’s about his trying to get back at me for other stuff. SA clearly cares about this much more than I do. He’s apparently got more time to address it than I do. Hell, he’s even much better at arguing than I am. But at the end of the day none of that makes his bullshit right.
Again, no. The law doesn’t say “if you’re holding a weapon and you solicit from someone, that’s assault,” it is assault if you are "openly wearing or carrying a weapon or an imitation thereof’ while soliciting - not holding.
solosam is saying that as soon as you unholster your weapon, whether soliciting or not, you have, by an act or gesture threatened to apply force and are culpable under 265(1)(b).
May I direct your attention to your own words from post #325:
You yourself are the one who said you had lots of pics named “self portrait” and inadvertently submitted the wrong one to Arnold for the gallery. How on Earth is that any different from the scenario I described? I was going by your own words!
What you are claiming is that you have a folder or site somewhere where hundreds of photos of different people including yourself exist, each picture file with the same name, and in deciding to submit your photo to the gallery you just randomly picked out one and submitted it to Arnold without ever even looking at it. That doesn’t even begin to make sense. Anyone with half a brain under those circumstances would look to see if the photo they’d selected was actually one of them rather than of the many people filed away who aren’t them (not to mention wanting to find the most flattering or realistic photo representation of themselves) before sending it away to be posted to the gallery. Not to mention that most people would also check the gallery to see how their photo looked once it had been sized, captioned, etc. by Arnold.
As I said, your story doesn’t pass the smell test. Not by a long shot.
And then we have this:
This is not true either. There was never any email contact between us. A search of my email account has just substantiated this. As far as PMs go, there were only two from me and one from you, and they pertained almost solely to my postings in a “birther” thread. We were still somewhat friendly at that time and in the course of those PMs we expressed a mutual liking for one another despite our differences.
You have now attempted to characterize the PMs I sent you as being “several” rather than the two that they were, and as being “stalky-ish” and “creepy”. I’d be happy to post all three in their entirety if you’d like. Perhaps then everyone will learn not to believe a word you say because they contain nothing whatsoever that might honestly be categorized as stalky-ish or creepy.
So, more lies there.
I note that you’re posting lots of denials, but you’re not posting anything to prove your claims. And in every case where concrete evidence exists you’re being proven wrong.
So why should anyone believe your account in regard to anything?
The following posts will substantiate my claims both as to the length of time that lapsed between PlainJain’s posting a stolen photo as being her and its subsequent removal, and also her posting of a second stolen photograph in its place. The second photo may more properly be described as “emo” rather than “goth” but it’s the photo I’ve been referring to.