Abdul Carter
- Thread starter knickslions
- Start date
Again, making up stupid personal attacks because you don't like someone's view. This reflects poorly on you no matter what you make up about me. There are others here who view the situation differently but don't need to make it personal, because they are good and respectable people. You are showing yourself not to be one of them.
Why? There is still plenty of discussion. I don't understand why some are so quick to want to remove threads that they don't like when they could just not click on them.
No, there are "stupid personal attacks" because everyone has already proven your assertions entirely without merit, yet you keep repeating them, almost verbatim, over and over ... and over and over again. You provide no new insight, nor any attempts to even support your conclusion ... and you can't even be bothered to try to present any novel way to look at the situation or express yourself. So everyone's bored with you.
Look it up, don't be lazy.
Based upon the details, available
1. I don't think the tow driver needs to be
2. If he were to be charged, I'm 100% certain you would be here championing that it occurred.
3. The question was rhetorical. I didn't tag you expecting a response.
It was a play on your username.
No way! 🤣
That's the low hanging fruit bubby!
Regardless of what you or I think is the CORRECT, or more correct, course of action, the tow truck driver's actions, as described and currently known to us, were perfectly legal.
Carter's were not. And you can scream about made up wrongs that you want righted, but this is a settled area of the law, and his actions clearly were within the bounds of the law, as the facts are known to us at this time.
There's been a Freaky Friday'esque body swap, in which you've taken on Obliviax's persona of not admitting you're wrong, when all the facts are clearly against you, and you have nary a leg to stand on.It can be illegal if weaponry is involved.
Everything You Need to Know About Brandishing - U.S. LawShield
What Does Brandishing Mean? What Constitutes Brandishing a Firearm? Is Brandishing a Weapon a Felony? Jin us as we cover these important questions and more!www.uslawshield.com
You two need to stop arguing about the driver's actions being a "threat" because the tow truck driver was already legally assaulted. The legal definition of "assault" refers to the wrong act of causing someone to reasonably fear imminent harm. This means that the fear must be something a reasonable person would foresee as threatening to them.
The courts will look at the driver's action/response as self-defense.
assault and battery
Not touching or threatening someone is assault now? Good lord. Apparently any one of us could be charged with a crime at any time for any reason. I guess I could charge some posters in this thread for assault using your logic based on the personal attacks they've levied in lieu of logical retorts.You two need to stop arguing about the driver's actions being a "threat" because the tow truck driver was already legally assaulted. The legal definition of "assault" refers to the wrong act of causing someone to reasonably fear imminent harm. This means that the fear must be something a reasonable person would foresee as threatening to them.
The courts will look at the driver's action/response as self-defense.
assault and battery
www.law.cornell.edu
What's next thought crimes? It's bad enough that people cannot avoid not offending people because everything can be considered offensive to someone. Now any act can be perceived as causing someone to fear imminent harm, so it is an assault?
That response just proves how ignorant you are of the actual law, it's called assault and battery for a reason. It has nothing to do with my logic and everything to do with your ignorance of the law.
Yeah, you're definitely just trolling.
If you're so convinced of your complete misinterpretation of the law, why don't you go into a room with a woman you don't know, and close the door behind you ... then, just stand there, with your arms folded, in front of the door, not allowing the woman to vacate the premises. Don't say anything - i.e. don't make any verbal "threats." Also, don't touch the woman.
And when you get out of jail for the crimes you just committed, come back to the board and tell us how you didn't commit any crimes, OK, big guy?
And if there happens to be a steel bar in there and the woman picks it up and threatens you with it, you can cry to the board that you were wrongfully jailed, and she's the true criminal.
And we can all have a good laugh at your expense.
Last edited:
Assault and battery is a crime of unlawful physical attack or threat of violence on an individual, with or without actual injury.
Before the tow op had brandished a deadly weapon and approached Carter shouting threats of physical violence, Carter had not touched nor made a threat to the tow op.
The tow op committed assault and battery 1st in this incident. He also made a terroristic threat with a deadly weapon according to PA law. Charge the tow op and let the court decide.
You don't understand so you dream up your own legal definitions, assault is not the "physical" component of a crime, and "battery" is not required for assault to be considered a crime.
You just stated it, "threat of violence". Blocking an entry into your own vehicle is threat of violence. The tow truck driver was threatened by Carter.
You are wrong, wrong, wrong. The tow truck driver will not be charged despite your flailing, desperate, repetitive, babbling, illogical, ignorant, immature, protests to the contrary.
It was taken directly from a legal website where they also say that assault and battery are not separate charges in many jurisdictions.
Further, 100% before the tow op had brandished a deadly weapon and approached Carter shouting threats of physical violence, Carter had not touched nor made a threat to the tow op.
The tow op committed assault and battery 1st in this incident. He also made a terroristic threat with a deadly weapon according to PA law. Charge the tow op and let the court decide.
Blocking entry into your own vehicle when you are trying to take off with someone else's property without allowing for the authorities to show up is not a threat of violence. It is a delay tactic to prevent the tow op from fleeing the scene with $100k of his property.
The tow op tried to flee the scene 3 separate times before the authorities could arrive. He also took Carter's phone at one point in addition to coming at Carter with a deadly weapon shouting threats.
Tow op wasn't fleeing the scene, you continuing to claim such is laughable. He was doing his job because Carter parked illegally, he's not obligated to remain there for the cops to show up.
For the umpteenth time ... impeding someone's path, and not allowing them to leave ... even if you don't physically touch them ... is enough to satisfy assault, harassment and/or false imprisonment charges. You don't have to verbally threaten, and you don't have to physically touch.
We don't need to get into distinctions, or the lack thereof (in common law, statutory by jurisdiction, etc.) between assault and battery. Yes, in modern times, they often don't have a "battery" law ... they just bucket it all into assault with different degrees, but that's not material to the discussion here.
Last edited:
When you have to be somewhere, I'm going to stop you from getting to your car and demand the police be called. I'm going to yell that you're "fleeing the scene." It's reasonable, since you no doubt look and act shady. You're up to something. No good, no doubt.
He should be charged for coming at Carter with a deadly weapon shouting threats, not for trying to take off before authorities arrived. The 3 times attempting to flee the scene gives the context for Carter's actions which also deserved to be charged.
LOL... you're ignoring/missing the point, that assault can occur without physical contact.
Also, you're now twisting the facts, Carter blocked (an assault whether or not physical contact occurred) the driver from getting into his truck BEFORE he got the metal bar to defend himself. This is the wording from the OP, "Carter told him he was going to call 911 and used his forearm to block the driver from getting inside, according to the affidavit," based on that wording how do you know that physical contact did not occur? You're going to hurt yourself with all those silly leaps in logic.
The other ridiculous made up thing EC states is "terroristic threats" made by the tow driver. Completely distorting the facts. He said stay away to defend himself. To borrow your playbook what kind of world do we live in where saying stay away after someone has physically threatened you by not allowing you to get into your car is now a terroristic threat??
Your statements are so ridiculous and made up lies. You paint the toe truck driver as a criminal trying to steal Carter's car! You would be laughed out of court by any competent judge. He is doing his job. Again, he is doing his job! He is attempting to get into his truck and is PHYSICALLY THREATENED. Yes, that is correct, he was physically threatened. You can't admit that because you just want to perpetuate this argument forever despite your pathetic, ignorant rationale. Your behavior on this thread is just freak like and honestly scary and sad at the same time that you carry on like a spoiled brat.
Here's the other thing that is so laughable. If we move this same situation to Columbus and instead of Carter the football player was say Egbuka the WR for OSU then you would want 20 year prison sentence for Egbuka and you would never, ever, ever ever, ever, ever defend Egbuka by claiming the tow truck driver was at fault for brandishing a weapon after he was blocked from entering his vehicle.
Okay c'mon back with the same stupid, ignorant retort that the tow truck driver made terroristic threats with a deadly weapon and should be charged. C'mon. C'mon you can do it, c'mon. We are all waiting! LOL!!!
Your statements are so ridiculous and made up lies. You paint the toe truck driver as a criminal trying to steal Carter's car! You would be laughed out of court by any competent judge. He is doing his job. Again, he is doing his job! He is attempting to get into his truck and is PHYSICALLY THREATENED. Yes, that is correct, he was physically threatened. You can't admit that because you just want to perpetuate this argument forever despite your pathetic, ignorant rationale. Your behavior on this thread is just freak like and honestly scary and sad at the same time that you carry on like a spoiled brat.
Here's the other thing that is so laughable. If we move this same situation to Columbus and instead of Carter the football player was say Egbuka the WR for OSU then you would want 20 year prison sentence for Egbuka and you would never, ever, ever ever, ever, ever defend Egbuka by claiming the tow truck driver was at fault for brandishing a weapon after he was blocked from entering his vehicle.
Okay c'mon back with the same stupid, ignorant retort that the tow truck driver made terroristic threats with a deadly weapon and should be charged. C'mon. C'mon you can do it, c'mon. We are all waiting! LOL!!!
Assault can occur without physical contact, I haven't ignored it. When the driver approached Carter with a large metal bar shouting to threaten him, it was assault. It was also a terroristic threat with a deadly weapon according to PA law.
Putting your forearm across an open door to block the door is not an assault. And his only threat was to call 911. No one ever threatens to call 911 if they are assaulting someone or threatening to do so.
The tow driver must be charged. Let the court decide.
You weren’t even there and don’t know what happened except what you read on the internet. Give it a rest you are 100% wrong
Answer this question, Edwardo ... someone stands in front of you and denies you entry to your car. You try to juke them ... run to the other side ... to no avail. They never touch you ... they just get in your way. They never say a word.
In your opinion, they haven't wrong you in any way? This is perfectly legal behavior?
What if this keeps up for hours? At which point, if any, is this unacceptable behavior, in legal terms ... and why did it switch from acceptable to unacceptable?
If this is perfectly legal behavior, what recourse does the blocked person have? None? They're just perpetually kept out of their car?
What happens if the person who is being kept out of their car, tries to run past the person blocking them, and runs into that person, initiating contact? Is the person being blocked now guilty of committing some crime? If so, what?
Help me help you.
I can only go by exactly what is stated in the official report. Perhaps some evidence is not included. Based on the official report, the tow op committed crimes and must be charged.
Phil again for a 3rd time making baseless accusations simply because someone has a different point of view than he. Should I just start making false accusations about you? I'd have every right after you doing this repeatedly but I won't lower myself to the type of person you are making yourself out to be.
What time is Wapner on? I bet you think you're an excellent driver, too.
