Sparrow gets assaulted and a Goldenrod all in one video.

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
Interesting video. Probably not what constitutes assault in my mind but I would have thought that most Law Enforcement Officers would've have taken the behaviour of the scn'ists as threatening and intimidatory at the very least.

Badge #3915 obviously bought a "bill of goods" from the SO videographer.

Actually, it's more than assault; it's battery too, since the Scientologist actually touched him. It was already potentially assault as the guy made the threatening 'pistol' motions and approached him.

But, I'm not surprised that the cop didn't want to hear about it. Cops on the beat are more interested in 'keeping the peace' than the letter of the law in a lot of cases and Sparrow was pretty obviously unhurt.

Had Sparrow insisted on filing a police report, he probably could have, and, most likely the prosecutors office would dismiss the charges, leaving it up to Sparrow to file a civil case.

Zinj
 

thetanic

Gold Meritorious Patron
Zinj is right. Assault actually doesn't require touch. Assault and battery are often confused.
 

Panda Termint

Cabal Of One
Actually, it's more than assault; it's battery too, since the Scientologist actually touched him. It was already potentially assault as the guy made the threatening 'pistol' motions and approached him.

But, I'm not surprised that the cop didn't want to hear about it. Cops on the beat are more interested in 'keeping the peace' than the letter of the law in a lot of cases and Sparrow was pretty obviously unhurt.

Had Sparrow insisted on filing a police report, he probably could have, and, most likely the prosecutors office would dismiss the charges, leaving it up to Sparrow to file a civil case.

Zinj
Thanks for the clarification, Zinj, are you saying that, in US law, the threatening gestures constitute assault?
 
Last edited:

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
So, do we have evidence of death threats and assault in this thread from hired thugs of the Church of Scientology?

Why yes, I believe we do.
 

Type4_PTS

Diamond Invictus SP
Zinj is right. Assault actually doesn't require touch. Assault and battery are often confused.

Battery also doesn't require touching the actual person. It could involve touching something the person is holding in his hand, like a camera.
 

Type4_PTS

Diamond Invictus SP
So, do we have evidence of death threats and assault in this thread from hired thugs of the Church of Scientology?

Why yes, I believe we do.

CoS probably had these guys Clay Demo the Fair Game Policy. :yes:

I do believe that there are some media out there that would be quite interested in the clear video evidence of the CoS attempting to handle protesters using death threats and assault.
 
Last edited:

Div6

Crusader
CoS probably had these guys Clay Demo the Fair Game Policy. :yes:

I do believe that there are some media out there that would be quite interested in the clear video evidence of the CoS attempting to handle protesters using death threats and assault.

Yah...this Rocky Horror Harem show needs to be shown to ALL officials in DC and elsewhere. The cult HIRING these thugs to openly threaten death is an ugly turn for the worse in these affairs, and they need to be called to task on it BEFORE it goes any further.

Martyrs...we don't need no steenkin martyrs......
 

Telepathetic

Gold Meritorious Patron
I'm not familiar with the laws in DC but in SOME jurisdictions the offense against Sparrow would clearly fall under the definition of "Battery", which is a criminal offense. Here is a definition (below) I found..........and again, I have no idea if this particular definition would be accurate in that jurisdiction:

"At common law, an intentional unpermitted act causing harmful or offensive contact with the "person" of another.

Battery is concerned with the right to have one's body left alone by others.

Battery is both a tort and a crime. Its essential element, harmful or offensive contact, is the same in both areas of the law. The main distinction between the two categories lies in the penalty imposed. A defendant sued for a tort is civilly liable to the plaintiff for damages. The punishment for criminal battery is a fine, imprisonment, or both. Usually battery is prosecuted as a crime only in cases involving serious harm to the victim.
Elements

The following elements must be proven to establish a case for battery: (1) an act by a defendant; (2) an intent to cause harmful or offensive contact on the part of the defendant; and (3) harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiff.

The Act The act must result in one of two forms of contact. Causing any physical harm or injury to the victim—such as a cut, a burn, or a bullet wound—could constitute battery, but actual injury is not required. Even though there is no apparent bruise following harmful contact, the defendant can still be guilty of battery; occurrence of a physical illness subsequent to the contact may also be actionable. The second type of contact that may constitute battery causes no actual physical harm but is, instead, offensive or insulting to the victim. Examples include spitting in someone's face or offensively touching someone against his or her will.

Touching the person of someone is defined as including not only contacts with the body, but also with anything closely connected with the body, such as clothing or an item carried in the person's hand. For example, a battery may be committed by intentionally knocking a hat off someone's head or knocking a glass out of some-one's hand.

Intent Although the contact must be intended, there is no requirement that the defendant intend to harm or injure the victim. In Tort Law, the intent must be either specific intent—the contact was specifically intended—or general intent—the defendant was substantially certain that the act would cause the contact. The intent element is satisfied in Criminal Law when the act is done with an intent to injure or with criminal negligence—failure to use care to avoid criminal consequences. The intent for criminal law is also present when the defendant's conduct is unlawful even though it does not amount to criminal negligence.

Intent is not negated if the aim of the contact was a joke. As with all torts, however, consent is a defense. Under certain circumstances consent to a battery is assumed. A person who walks in a crowded area impliedly consents to a degree of contact that is inevitable and reasonable. Consent may also be assumed if the parties had a prior relationship unless the victim gave the defendant a previous warning.

There is no requirement that the plaintiff be aware of a battery at the time it is committed. The gist of the action is the lack of consent to contact. It is no defense that the victim was sleeping or unconscious at the time.

Harmful or Offensive Conduct It is not necessary for the defendant's wrongful act to result in direct contact with the victim. It is sufficient if the act sets in motion a force that results in the contact. A defendant who whipped a horse on which a plaintiff was riding, causing the plaintiff to fall and be injured, was found guilty of battery. Provided all other elements of the offense are present, the offense may also be committed by causing the victim to harm himself. A defendant who fails to act when he or she has a duty to do so is guilty—as where a nurse fails to warn a blind patient that he is headed toward an open window, causing him to fall and injure himself."

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/battery

:thumbsup:

TP
 

Tiger Lily

Gold Meritorious Patron
I sure would chuckle if somebody were to step in and take Sparrow's place in front of the DC Idle Org until August 12th.

They had to lower themselves considerably and admit they were "at effect" of an "SP" in order to get that hearing. So much for confronting and shattering suppression. I just wondering how they are handling that with the people they are regging for the PTS/SP course . . . . how can they promise someone an ability that they can't demonstrate themselves?

I think they are just very desperate -- I went back and watched some of the videos starting at the beginning - -they have tried several different "tactics" to no avail. I think they are completely at the end of their rope with him. . . to the point of admitting their own inability to "handle" him and resorting to "wog" law and "poor me" sympathy mongering. I can't imagine they feel very good about that. I wonder if there's any sliver of doubt creeping into their heads about the effectiveness of "SP" tech.

-TL
 

Div6

Crusader
Sparrow a free bird...

http://forums.whyweprotest.net/328-...sed-court-set-sept-10-a-70277/31/#post1302378

From AnonSparrow on WWP:
Hi everybody!

Well I'm out and about once again. It was an interesting experience to say the least.

The best news is that the charge has been lowered to attempted stalking which is only a misdemeanor. I like that part alot though don't know how or why it was changed - but I'll take it.

My next appearance is September 10 and I will appear before the judge with my lawyer who is already hot on the case.

The jail experience was pretty intense. I was sort of hoping for a nice relaxed atmosphere like in Andy Griffith's jail. But no - it was not to be. I might write up the thing in detail at some point but suffice it to say that it was alot tougher than I imagined. It's nice to do once, like taking Greyhound, but I don't know that I would recommend it.

So I'm looking forward to eating and sleeping and that's about it tonight. Tomorrow the preparations continue for what's to come and I feel very optimistic about it. I'm going to get back to everyone who has written and called by the end of the weekend.

Thanks so much for all the support. It meant a hell of a lot when I was sitting alone in a cell with time to think. I'll keep yas posted with any new updates (without compromising my case.)

Oh also, one of the other things that helped me get through all that jail time was knowing that, with any luck at all, this is what is in store for David Miscavige. And I don't think he will take it as well as I did. :)
 
Top