Man arrested in slashing of Obama campaigner

(08-28) 21:51 PDT San Francisco --

A man was arrested Thursday after he verbally abused and then allegedly slashed the face of a Barack Obama campaigner in downtown San Francisco, police said.
More Bay Area News

The 6 p.m. attack on the unidentified 35-year-old male campaign activist occurred as he was working at Fifth and Market streets, police said. The campaigner had a permit, and officers nearby witnessed what happened next.

According to police, the unidentified suspect approached and began to shout slurs and insults at the campaigner, who listened, thanked the man for his views and asked him to leave.

The angry man complied, but quickly returned and pulled out a knife and slashed the victim in the face. The two officers who witnessed the attack responded, one arresting the suspect and the other driving the victim to the hospital. He suffered non-life-threatening injuries, police said.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/29/BAJO12KNGU.DTL&feed=rss.bayarea

...and only intervened after the assailant carved him up a bit? Guess they must be McCain supporters.

And the verbal abuser initially walked away. So what were the cops supposed to do?

Physical abuse is called "battery." That's why the law makes the distinction between the two. Go up and start swearing at a cop and you'll quickly learn all about the crime of assault.

it's assault?

...may reasonably create the apprehension in the mind of the victim that harm is intended. Calling someone an idiot is not, therefore, assault. Screaming obscenities in someone's face, however, is usually considered to be so, particularly if couple with an aggressive posture.

thanked him, and the guy walked away. Doesn't sound to me he felt threatened with physical harm in that moment. Since the technology is not yet available, the cops couldn't arrest the guy for a "thought crime". 1984 is what we're trying to avoid, or at least I thought it was. Thanks.
quickesst

...behavior doesn't feel threatened? Presumably not, because that is an utterly insupportable assertion. The reason the victim in this case behaved so calmly is probably because he felt extremely threatened and simply didn't want to escalate a dangerous situation.

And the "1984" "Thought Crime" trope really doesn't hold water in this case. You don't have to be The Amazing Kreskin to believe some slavering maniac screaming abuse at you doesn't want you to be his BFF, and may in fact mean you harm.

Anyway, there are plenty of "thought crimes" on the statute books. The whole area of "intent" is pretty firmly established in the case law. If the police see you walking down the street, carrying a gun, stocking mask, and big bag with "swag" written on it, you'd better be able to prove you're going to a costume party or you're very likely to be charged with a crime beginning with "Intention to...". If that's a "thought crime," well, so be it, but I don't think it's really what Orwell was talking about.

you weren't even there to understand the whole situation. To suggest the cops wanted the victim to get hurt because of his allegiance, that's pretty low. At least the cops drove him to the hospital.

That alone is dereliction of duty.

As for the "you weren't there" argument, come on. By that reasoning nobody has any right to have an opinion about anything that doesn't happen right under their noses. The article seemed pretty clear that the cops watched an assault and only intervened when it became battery. That's why "assault" and "battery" are two separate crimes: by nipping the assault in the bud, you can stop the battery from occurring.

Every cop that witnesses an argument should intervene and if they don't intervene that means they are McCain supporters.

...when a Democrat assaults a Republican, in which case they're Obama supporters. :evilgrin:

Seriously, though, there is a difference between an "argument" and an assault. The crime of assault requires that either physical harm is intended or that the victim can be reasonably apprehensive that physical harm is intended. So, while merely disagreeing strongly and loudly is not assault, screaming obscenities and behaving aggressively usually is. That's why, if you shout and swear at a cop, you're likely to be arrested for "assaulting an officer." The cops have a very low threshold of "apprehension" when the aggression is directed at them.

Did the crime of assault get repealed since I last checked?

And what proof do you have that the cops 'stood by and did nothing while he was slashed'. Maybe they just weren't able to prevent it in time. You're using really tortured logic to blame the cops here.