Community > General Religion Chat

Previous 1 2 … 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 … 32 33 Next

Topic: Creflo Dollar?
msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Sat 07/21/12 01:40 PM
§ 20.02. UNLAWFUL RESTRAINT. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly restrains another person so if you got caught with your child tied to a chair...you would play like you didn't intentionally know what you was doing....oh I see...you're going to use the insanity defense § 20.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter: (1) "Restrain" means to restrict a person's movements without consent, so as to interfere substantially with the person's liberty, by moving the person from one place to another or by confining the person. Restraint is "without consent" if it is accomplished by: so as long as the child "allows" the parent to tie them to the chair then it's not restraint ..you sure you don't want to rethink that? (A) force, intimidation, or deception; or (B) any means, including acquiescence of the victim, right...you as the parent didn't force or intimidate the child to be tied to the chair...the child likes to be tied and just jumped into the chair and ask you to tie them to it being 'tied to a chair' is not a condition for unlawful restraint MsHarmony...are you actually trying to argue the point that a child being tied to a chair by the parent is not unlawful restraint see.... now you're getting scary lol, IM not obsessed about tying people to chairs and noone has done that to me including my parents,,,, you should be scared of yourself and whats going on in your own head,,,, MsHarmony..you were the one that used the analogy "Unlawful restraint" with "grounding" as I said...you are the Mistress of Bad Analogies no clue what you are on about, per usual,,lol unlawful restraint is a legal term, defined as knowingly or purposely and without lawful authority restrains another so as to interfere substantially with the other person's liberty which implies there is a circumstance where people have LAWFUL AUTHORITY to interfere and circumstances where they are WITHOUT those without use methods referred to as grounding.. Grounding is a form of punishment, usually for older children, preteens and teenagers, that restricts their movement outside of the home, such as visiting friends or using the car. Sometimes it is combined with the withdrawal of privileges. in other words, the law gives PARENTS AUTHORITY over their children that it doesnt give CITIZENS over other ADULT CITIZENS,, reasonable,by nature of responsibility towards/for their children that doesnt exist for other ADULT CITIZENS

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Sat 07/21/12 01:42 PM
the point was LAWFUL vs UNLAWFUL those actions are UNLAWFUL but not if if:(i) the victim is a child who is less than 14 years of age or an incompetent person and the parent, guardian, or person or institution acting in loco parentis has not acquiesced in the movement or confinement; or(ii) the victim is a child who is 14 years of age or older and younger than 17 years of age, the victim is taken outside of the state and outside a 120-mile radius from the victim's residence, and the parent, guardian, or person or institution acting in loco parentis has not acquiesced in the movement MsHarmony...if you can not tell what level of pain is required to make a legal spanking into an illegal beating....then why bring up what is lawful or unlawful pertaining to inflicting pain upon a child you could believe you are giving the child a spanking but could in fact could be giving the level of pain to the child that would constitute as being an unlawful beating or vise versa so why not be safe and lawful and not inflict to the child a spanking of a beatdown I am lawful, spanking them on their behinds,, unlawful isnt determined by PAIN, unlawful is determined by the conditions I have already repeatedly posted,,,

funches Joined Sat 12/01/07 Posts: 12948	Sat 07/21/12 01:43 PM
morals are subjective, the laws are cultural,, but you choose a nice ad populum argument,,,, perhaps morals vs laws can be another thread,,,but good luck finding consensus on what is 'moral' or why beating a child isn't subjective ....just the morally of it is and restraint isnt subjective, however the circumstances dictate the LEGALITY of it and the morality of it will remain subjective,,, as the morality of anything else,,, MsHarmony...Restraint is what it is "Restraint"..restricting movement upon an unconsenting person ..... it's morally that is subjective and/or lies in the eyes of the beholder

funches Joined Sat 12/01/07 Posts: 12948	Sat 07/21/12 01:46 PM
To prevail under a false imprisonment claim, a plaintiff must prove: (1) willful detention; (2) without consent; and (3) without authority of law.(Restatement of the Law, Second, Torts) wrongful incarceration above should be changed to read 'false imprisonment' which does not require there to be 'bars' MsHarmony...the fact that you had to change wrongful incarceration to false imprisonment as an analogy to "being grounded".... only proves my point that your analogies are not only misleading but bad the fact that I changed wrongful incarceration to false imprisonment shows that there are 'legal' terms to describe actions that can be described in non legal terms as well except MsHarmony...for the fact that both "wrongful incarceration" and "false imprisonment" are both "legal terms" ...and neither should be used as an analogy with "being grounded"

funches Joined Sat 12/01/07 Posts: 12948	Sat 07/21/12 01:51 PM
'light' bruise is just vague enough that they could have been there from any number of causes besides a CHOKING<, which would probably cause more than 'light' bruising.... right...how many times have you looked in the mirror and notice light bruises around your neck without first being choked men of the cloth 'hurt' children, but I see no evidence this child was 'hurt' jeez...what you want them to do...show a nude picture of her ...that shoe Creflo beat her with might have travel places no man has gone before

funches Joined Sat 12/01/07 Posts: 12948	Sat 07/21/12 01:53 PM
in other words, the law gives PARENTS AUTHORITY over their children that it doesnt give CITIZENS over other ADULT CITIZENS,, reasonable,by nature of responsibility towards/for their children that doesnt exist for other ADULT CITIZENS so MsHarmony...if it was lawful to beat other adults...then you would?

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Sat 07/21/12 01:56 PM
To prevail under a false imprisonment claim, a plaintiff must prove: (1) willful detention; (2) without consent; and (3) without authority of law.(Restatement of the Law, Second, Torts) wrongful incarceration above should be changed to read 'false imprisonment' which does not require there to be 'bars' MsHarmony...the fact that you had to change wrongful incarceration to false imprisonment as an analogy to "being grounded".... only proves my point that your analogies are not only misleading but bad the fact that I changed wrongful incarceration to false imprisonment shows that there are 'legal' terms to describe actions that can be described in non legal terms as well except MsHarmony...for the fact that both "wrongful incarceration" and "false imprisonment" are both "legal terms" ...and neither should be used as an analogy with "being grounded" the analogy is clear let me repeat for the (4th?) Time false imprisonment -The illegal confinement of one individual against his or her will by another individual in such a manner as to violate the confined individual's right to be free from restraint of movement False imprisonment often involves the use of physical force, but such force is not required. The threat of force or arrest, or a belief on the part of the person being restrained that force will be used, is sufficient. The restraint can also be imposed by physical barriers or through unreasonable duress imposed on the person being restrained. grounding - Typically, a young person who is grounded is forbidden from leaving home or his/her room to go anywhere other than to attend required activities such as meals, school, church, work, music practice, etc. forbidden from LEAVING TO GO confinement, as to violate right to be 'free' analogy pretty clear .....the main difference is LEGAL AUTHORITY TO DO SO

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Sat 07/21/12 01:59 PM
'light' bruise is just vague enough that they could have been there from any number of causes besides a CHOKING<, which would probably cause more than 'light' bruising.... right...how many times have you looked in the mirror and notice light bruises around your neck without first being choked men of the cloth 'hurt' children, but I see no evidence this child was 'hurt' jeez...what you want them to do...show a nude picture of her ...that shoe Creflo beat her with might have travel places no man has gone before well, I have seen light bruises after I scratched myself, after I used a curling iron, after having my daughter knick me with her fingernail,,,,nothing conclusive with a 'choking' which usually leaves more than light bruising

funches Joined Sat 12/01/07 Posts: 12948	Sat 07/21/12 02:00 PM
To prevail under a false imprisonment claim, a plaintiff must prove: (1) willful detention; (2) without consent; and (3) without authority of law.(Restatement of the Law, Second, Torts) wrongful incarceration above should be changed to read 'false imprisonment' which does not require there to be 'bars' MsHarmony...the fact that you had to change wrongful incarceration to false imprisonment as an analogy to "being grounded".... only proves my point that your analogies are not only misleading but bad the fact that I changed wrongful incarceration to false imprisonment shows that there are 'legal' terms to describe actions that can be described in non legal terms as well except MsHarmony...for the fact that both "wrongful incarceration" and "false imprisonment" are both "legal terms" ...and neither should be used as an analogy with "being grounded" the analogy is clear let me repeat for the (4th?) Time false imprisonment -The illegal confinement of one individual against his or her will by another individual in such a manner as to violate the confined individual's right to be free from restraint of movement False imprisonment often involves the use of physical force, but such force is not required. The threat of force or arrest, or a belief on the part of the person being restrained that force will be used, is sufficient. The restraint can also be imposed by physical barriers or through unreasonable duress imposed on the person being restrained. grounding - Typically, a young person who is grounded is forbidden from leaving home or his/her room to go anywhere other than to attend required activities such as meals, school, church, work, music practice, etc. forbidden from LEAVING TO GO confinement, as to violate right to be 'free' analogy pretty clear .....the main difference is LEGAL AUTHORITY TO DO SO it can't be "false imprisonment" if they live there

funches Joined Sat 12/01/07 Posts: 12948	Sat 07/21/12 02:03 PM
'light' bruise is just vague enough that they could have been there from any number of causes besides a CHOKING<, which would probably cause more than 'light' bruising.... right...how many times have you looked in the mirror and notice light bruises around your neck without first being choked men of the cloth 'hurt' children, but I see no evidence this child was 'hurt' jeez...what you want them to do...show a nude picture of her ...that shoe Creflo beat her with might have travel places no man has gone before well, I have seen light bruises after I scratched myself, after I used a curling iron, after having my daughter knick me with her fingernail,,,,nothing conclusive with a 'choking' which usually leaves more than light bruising scratches, fingernail knicks and being branded by a curling iron do not leave light bruises aound the neck

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Sat 07/21/12 02:06 PM
To prevail under a false imprisonment claim, a plaintiff must prove: (1) willful detention; (2) without consent; and (3) without authority of law.(Restatement of the Law, Second, Torts) wrongful incarceration above should be changed to read 'false imprisonment' which does not require there to be 'bars' MsHarmony...the fact that you had to change wrongful incarceration to false imprisonment as an analogy to "being grounded".... only proves my point that your analogies are not only misleading but bad the fact that I changed wrongful incarceration to false imprisonment shows that there are 'legal' terms to describe actions that can be described in non legal terms as well except MsHarmony...for the fact that both "wrongful incarceration" and "false imprisonment" are both "legal terms" ...and neither should be used as an analogy with "being grounded" the analogy is clear let me repeat for the (4th?) Time false imprisonment -The illegal confinement of one individual against his or her will by another individual in such a manner as to violate the confined individual's right to be free from restraint of movement False imprisonment often involves the use of physical force, but such force is not required. The threat of force or arrest, or a belief on the part of the person being restrained that force will be used, is sufficient. The restraint can also be imposed by physical barriers or through unreasonable duress imposed on the person being restrained. grounding - Typically, a young person who is grounded is forbidden from leaving home or his/her room to go anywhere other than to attend required activities such as meals, school, church, work, music practice, etc. forbidden from LEAVING TO GO confinement, as to violate right to be 'free' analogy pretty clear .....the main difference is LEGAL AUTHORITY TO DO SO it can't be "false imprisonment" if they live there I saw that distinction nowhere in the law,,,but you can petition to amend it ....

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Sat 07/21/12 02:07 PM
in other words, the law gives PARENTS AUTHORITY over their children that it doesnt give CITIZENS over other ADULT CITIZENS,, reasonable,by nature of responsibility towards/for their children that doesnt exist for other ADULT CITIZENS so MsHarmony...if it was lawful to beat other adults...then you would? no, as I am not legally responsible for 'other adults' and their consequences are already their own,,,

funches Joined Sat 12/01/07 Posts: 12948	Sat 07/21/12 02:10 PM
To prevail under a false imprisonment claim, a plaintiff must prove: (1) willful detention; (2) without consent; and (3) without authority of law.(Restatement of the Law, Second, Torts) wrongful incarceration above should be changed to read 'false imprisonment' which does not require there to be 'bars' MsHarmony...the fact that you had to change wrongful incarceration to false imprisonment as an analogy to "being grounded".... only proves my point that your analogies are not only misleading but bad the fact that I changed wrongful incarceration to false imprisonment shows that there are 'legal' terms to describe actions that can be described in non legal terms as well except MsHarmony...for the fact that both "wrongful incarceration" and "false imprisonment" are both "legal terms" ...and neither should be used as an analogy with "being grounded" the analogy is clear let me repeat for the (4th?) Time false imprisonment -The illegal confinement of one individual against his or her will by another individual in such a manner as to violate the confined individual's right to be free from restraint of movement False imprisonment often involves the use of physical force, but such force is not required. The threat of force or arrest, or a belief on the part of the person being restrained that force will be used, is sufficient. The restraint can also be imposed by physical barriers or through unreasonable duress imposed on the person being restrained. grounding - Typically, a young person who is grounded is forbidden from leaving home or his/her room to go anywhere other than to attend required activities such as meals, school, church, work, music practice, etc. forbidden from LEAVING TO GO confinement, as to violate right to be 'free' analogy pretty clear .....the main difference is LEGAL AUTHORITY TO DO SO it can't be "false imprisonment" if they live there I saw that distinction nowhere in the law,,,but you can petition to amend it .... now you're getting the terms mixed up...you can not falsely imprison someone in the dwelling in which they reside....but you can unlawfully restrain them

funches Joined Sat 12/01/07 Posts: 12948	Sat 07/21/12 02:12 PM
in other words, the law gives PARENTS AUTHORITY over their children that it doesnt give CITIZENS over other ADULT CITIZENS,, reasonable,by nature of responsibility towards/for their children that doesnt exist for other ADULT CITIZENS so MsHarmony...if it was lawful to beat other adults...then you would? no, as I am not legally responsible for 'other adults' and their consequences are already their own,,, no..I asked if it was lawful to beat other adults without their consent...would you give them a beatdown...of course present company excluded

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Sat 07/21/12 02:16 PM
To prevail under a false imprisonment claim, a plaintiff must prove: (1) willful detention; (2) without consent; and (3) without authority of law.(Restatement of the Law, Second, Torts) wrongful incarceration above should be changed to read 'false imprisonment' which does not require there to be 'bars' MsHarmony...the fact that you had to change wrongful incarceration to false imprisonment as an analogy to "being grounded".... only proves my point that your analogies are not only misleading but bad the fact that I changed wrongful incarceration to false imprisonment shows that there are 'legal' terms to describe actions that can be described in non legal terms as well except MsHarmony...for the fact that both "wrongful incarceration" and "false imprisonment" are both "legal terms" ...and neither should be used as an analogy with "being grounded" the analogy is clear let me repeat for the (4th?) Time false imprisonment -The illegal confinement of one individual against his or her will by another individual in such a manner as to violate the confined individual's right to be free from restraint of movement False imprisonment often involves the use of physical force, but such force is not required. The threat of force or arrest, or a belief on the part of the person being restrained that force will be used, is sufficient. The restraint can also be imposed by physical barriers or through unreasonable duress imposed on the person being restrained. grounding - Typically, a young person who is grounded is forbidden from leaving home or his/her room to go anywhere other than to attend required activities such as meals, school, church, work, music practice, etc. forbidden from LEAVING TO GO confinement, as to violate right to be 'free' analogy pretty clear .....the main difference is LEGAL AUTHORITY TO DO SO it can't be "false imprisonment" if they live there I saw that distinction nowhere in the law,,,but you can petition to amend it .... now you're getting the terms mixed up...you can not falsely imprison someone in the dwelling in which they reside....but you can unlawfully restrain them are you sure lets review The illegal confinement of one individual against his or her will by another individual in such a manner as to violate the confined individual's right to be free from restraint of movement. To recover damages for false imprisonment, an individual must be confined to a substantial degree, with her or his freedom of movement totally restrained I see no distinction about WHERE the confinement must be,, as long as the individual is no longer free from 'restraint of movement' so, if you go to vegas and marry, and next week threaten your wife with harm if she leaves the house you both live in you can STILL Be charged with false imprisonment,,,

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Sat 07/21/12 02:16 PM
in other words, the law gives PARENTS AUTHORITY over their children that it doesnt give CITIZENS over other ADULT CITIZENS,, reasonable,by nature of responsibility towards/for their children that doesnt exist for other ADULT CITIZENS so MsHarmony...if it was lawful to beat other adults...then you would? no, as I am not legally responsible for 'other adults' and their consequences are already their own,,, no..I asked if it was lawful to beat other adults without their consent...would you give them a beatdown...of course present company excluded and I answered no, as you did not also state that I would be legally responsible for the consequences of that adults actions,,,

funches Joined Sat 12/01/07 Posts: 12948	Sat 07/21/12 02:32 PM
are you sure lets review The illegal confinement of one individual against his or her will by another individual in such a manner as to violate the confined individual's right to be free from restraint of movement. To recover damages for false imprisonment, an individual must be confined to a substantial degree, with her or his freedom of movement totally restrained I see no distinction about WHERE the confinement must be,, as long as the individual is no longer free from 'restraint of movement' so, if you go to vegas and marry, and next week threaten your wife with harm if she leaves the house you both live in you can STILL Be charged with false imprisonment,,, you can be charge with false imprisonment but no jury would convict you under the false imprisonment statue the prosecutor would also be cited for incompetence for not charging you with unlawful restraint thus enabling "double jeopardy" to apply, and you would go free never having to worry about another trial pertaining to that case which is why the correct term would be "Unlawful Restraint"

funches Joined Sat 12/01/07 Posts: 12948	Sat 07/21/12 02:36 PM
in other words, the law gives PARENTS AUTHORITY over their children that it doesnt give CITIZENS over other ADULT CITIZENS,, reasonable,by nature of responsibility towards/for their children that doesnt exist for other ADULT CITIZENS so MsHarmony...if it was lawful to beat other adults...then you would? no, as I am not legally responsible for 'other adults' and their consequences are already their own,,, no..I asked if it was lawful to beat other adults without their consent...would you give them a beatdown...of course present company excluded and I answered no, as you did not also state that I would be legally responsible for the consequences of that adults actions,,, you've already admited that you may be legally responsible financially for a spouse so what if your spouse refused to do the right thing and didn't stop running up your credit cards....would you give him a beatdown to teach him the perferred way things should be done

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Sun 07/22/12 01:07 AM Edited by msharmony on Sun 07/22/12 01:08 AM
in other words, the law gives PARENTS AUTHORITY over their children that it doesnt give CITIZENS over other ADULT CITIZENS,, reasonable,by nature of responsibility towards/for their children that doesnt exist for other ADULT CITIZENS so MsHarmony...if it was lawful to beat other adults...then you would? no, as I am not legally responsible for 'other adults' and their consequences are already their own,,, no..I asked if it was lawful to beat other adults without their consent...would you give them a beatdown...of course present company excluded and I answered no, as you did not also state that I would be legally responsible for the consequences of that adults actions,,, you've already admited that you may be legally responsible financially for a spouse so what if your spouse refused to do the right thing and didn't stop running up your credit cards....would you give him a beatdown to teach him the perferred way things should be done no, by the time people marry, they are no longer CHILDREN, and there are other means of getting them to understand the severity and even being MARRIED , I hold no authority legally over another adult,,, simply CANCELLING The credit cards would be sufficient in that case

funches Joined Sat 12/01/07 Posts: 12948	Sun 07/22/12 07:18 AM Edited by funches on Sun 07/22/12 07:37 AM
no, by the time people marry, they are no longer CHILDREN, and there are other means of getting them to understand the severity can't an emancipated child get married... also are you trying to argue that once people get married they no longer act like children or can no longer understand the severity that pain can bring.... also if there are other means of getting them to understand the severity besides resorting to pain...then why can't that same philosophy be applied to children and even being MARRIED , I hold no authority legally over another adult,,, I can imagine you making that same argument to a Doctor if your spouse needed life saving surgery .... sorry Doc...but you have to call his parents or the Mayor simply CANCELLING The credit cards would be sufficient in that case and since your spouse have access to all of your information what if he opened up another line of credit in your name......would you then give him a "spanking" with a non-lethal object I just want to display how you are willing to do a legal tap dance and come up with all sort of ways not to give your spouse a spanking for bad behavior because as you found out you do hold some legal responsiblity for them ... but amazingly refuse to do the same when it comes to spanking your child ...