This flour/glitter “bombing” shitte is totally battery, and I don’t understand why the police didn’t prosecute this case even though Kardashian supposedly didn’t want to “press charges” (which is legally meaningless, anyway). There must have been numerous witnesses to the crime, and unless these assholes doing this shitte suffer consequences, itte’s just going to escalate.
And yes, I am equally repulsed by left-wingers doing this shitte to vile right-wing scum.
UPDATE: And just to clarify. I’m obviously not arguing thatte these “bombers” should be thrown in jail. But protecting people’s right to bodily integrity–which includes the right not to have objects or substances intentionally and offensively induced to touch you–is a core purpose of criminal law. Fining these perps a couple hundred dollars for “bombing” other people seems very proportionate to the offense, and a reasonable deterrent.
12 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
Achrachno
March 24, 2012 at 8:56 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Hmmm. How do you feel about confetti and rice? More battery?
physioprof
March 24, 2012 at 9:01 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Throwing confetti or rice on someone without their consent and with the intent to cause offense is absolutely battery.
furtivezoog
March 24, 2012 at 10:37 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Thank you for saying this. Although I understand and sympathize with people who glitterbomb the nastily homophobic politicians, it is still assault, in my opinion, and definitely does not comport with tolerance of divergent opinions. I can only imagine how much our side would be screaming out if pro-LGBQT speakers were so targeted by the homophobes. I don’t think we are modeling good behavior, or good responses to bad behavior and opinions by the other side.
ambassadorfromverdammt
March 24, 2012 at 10:54 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I can sort of see it as a protest against the bigotry of Santorum et al, but a Kardashian? WTF! A waste of good flour; or if it is weevil infested, a waste of good weevil habitat.
Achrachno
March 24, 2012 at 12:47 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
“Throwing confetti or rice on someone without their consent and with the intent to cause offense is absolutely battery.”
And yet it happens all the time (prob. not with intent to cause offense). Are there other cases where an otherwise harmless act becomes a crime based on “intent to cause offense”? Has there been a single prosecution for the “crime” of glitter or confetti tossing in the history of the republic? I think claims of battery are way over the top for such a minor thing. A prosecutor would be laughed out of court, if you could even find one willing to make the charge.
Maybe we need a misdemeanor category with a $10 fine for aggravated glitter tossing, or similar. Or, maybe this could be prosecuted under existing littering statutes? Though, there’s be some danger of pigeons and mice eating the evidence I suppose, unless the evidence crew moves fast.
physioprof
March 24, 2012 at 12:51 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
You apparently don’t know jacke dicke about the crime of battery, and I’m not interested in giving you a primer here. Instead of continuing to make a fool of yourself, how about you look the shitte uppe?
Achrachno
March 24, 2012 at 1:19 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
OK. I gather you don’t know of any examples of someone being prosecuted for glitter tossing either. Maybe there’s been one, but you couldn’t prove it by us. I know there have been threats to prosecute, but has it happened? And is the prosecution going to be for “battery with glitter” or for “disturbing the peace” type things?
“the New York Times asked a First Amendment lawyer about the legality of glitter-bombing.
“[I]t’s awfully unlikely that there would be a prosecution if it’s just a bit of glitter,” said lawyer Floyd Abrams in an email to the paper at the time. “But in theory, the more that’s dropped, the more likely is prosecution.”
So, it sounds to me as if Santorum were to be buried in 1.5 tons of glitter, there’d probably be an issue. The usual handful — not so much.
physioprof
March 24, 2012 at 1:25 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Dumshitte, Abrams’s respone to the question about the *legality* of glitter bombing was a complete non sequitur, as all he addressed was the likelihood of a prosecutor exercising her discretion to prosecute. The whole point of this fucken post is thatte–in my opinion–prosecutors should not exercise their prosecutorial discretion by declining to prosecute, but rather should prosecute. And whatte the fucken fucke does me “proving” whether someone has been prosecuted for “bombing” have to do with anything?
Goddamn, your fucken reading comprehension is abysmal.
markkennedy
March 24, 2012 at 7:49 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Arachno. Whilst there is a law which allows the discretion for arrest or prosecution for an act, that act is illegal. Your analogy of rice throwing is no more sensible than to argue that contact sports are battery. In any given situation a person is entitled to assume consent where there is an understood social construct allowing contact with a person. Battery in most countries using a British common law system would use the phrase “the slightest touching” to describe what constitutes battery.
furtivezoog
March 24, 2012 at 7:56 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I would think being covered in glittery crap,–possibly getting one’s clothes ruined (I’ve spent a lot of time trying to get a small amount of art-craft glitter removed from things), not being able to continue as normal with one’s presentation or other business (I would be pretty self-conscious covered in glitter…), and possibly getting it in one’s eyes (I remember it happening as a simple prank at a college graduation and how much the target was blinking afterwards–it seemed unpleasant), etc., would count as assault (or, if successful glitterbombed, *battery*) since it is an offensive, unwanted threat of contact or contact. It doesn’t actually have to be a threat of physical harm.
Imagine that you were to start glitterbombing regular people on the street; I don’t think they will respond graceful or with feigned amusement–you’re gonna get an escalation to more serious physical assault really quickly. We have laws and rules of civil behavior so that people can go about the lives unmolested and also to prevent such escalations.
Anonymous Atheist
March 25, 2012 at 12:48 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
‘Eye doctor warns of dangers of political protest on gay marriage’
http://washingtonscene.thehill.com/in-the-know/36-news/14055-judy-kurtz
James Sweet
March 25, 2012 at 6:44 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
The exact crime would depend on the jurisdiction, but yeah, it’s a crime pretty much everywhere.
OTOH, I wouldn’t say I’m “repulsed” by glitter-bombing homophobic politicians, not one bit. I actually think it’s sort of awesome. But it also is a crime (yes, in certain circumstances crime can be awesome — who asked you anyway, grandpa?) and I think the perpetrators ought to be ready to pay the penalty, even if that includes some jail time.
As to whether the police should prosecute even if the victim doesn’t want to press charges, meh, I could see an argument either way. I’m not losing sleep over this one.
But yeah, that’s assault/battery/aggravated harassment/etc. depending on the jurisdiction. You’ll get no argument from me there.