Media Izzy Releases Statement on Public Altercation

[Koro_11]

Bitch move.

That guy was a nobody and Izzy could have just ignored him. One grown man pressing charges against another because "he said some shit" is lame.

 

[Captain Tenneal]

Israel showing good control here, it's good to see that he didn't give in.

He may have a case, if he can prove the guy set it up intentionally idk. Do we have any legal sherbros here? @Law Talkin’ Guy ?

 

[KBE6EKCTAH_CCP]

Huh?
I was just laughing at the multiple use of cunt sir lol.

Understood sir. NGL i love that word.

 

[StonedLemur]

Understood sir. NGL i love that word.

Its a good word for sure.

 

[Cartiac]

Israel showing good control here, it's good to see that he didn't give in.

He may have a case, if he can prove the guy set it up intentionally idk. Do we have any legal sherbros here? @Law Talkin’ Guy ?

I don't know about New Zealand but based on US definitions and the provided statement, I would assume Izzy would be pursuing assault charges, but based on the video I've seen and Izzy's profession that is an extremely major stretch. I think it would be pretty hard to convince anyone that Izzy actually felt a serious threat of bodily harm from that guy.

 

[Stagliano]

Izzy is a snitch.

Colby is not.

Not sure if you're trolling or not.

 

[CasualBot]

Sad rationalization from jizzy though.

Thin jizzy lying about the altercation is weak.

That said,

the rando dude is a goof for stepping to thin jizzy.

Goofy all around.

 

[Spath]

Do you think he cried as he typed up that ”statement”?

 

[dipstickjimmy]

I agree with you, but pressing charges for what? Thats my point, nothing happened from either side.

You didn't see the whole thing if you just watched the video from inside the car that drove off. The story I read was that the guy was a passenger in a car driving by and started yelling racial abuse at Izzy and challenging him to a fight. Izzy ignored and the guy parked and did more and then got out and got in Izzy's face flexing and challenging him to a fight.

You can't just scream and threaten people and try to intimidate them and then feel like you didn't do anything. The shit Colby did with Werdum and others is a perfect example: Colby wants to be protected by the laws of a civilized society but disregards the "Unwritten Rules" of a civilized society.

I get that in the USA there is a huge leaning towards "Don't Tread On Me" and I can do whatever I want but people should not have to tolerate and endure unlimited abuse.

NZ has laws based on the British system which is a little more sensible.
From the Crown Prosecution Service website

Verbal abuse and harassment in public​

This summary does not cover every eventuality but intends to outline some of the possible criminal offences that may be committed. It should not be treated as legal advice and is not meant to be an exhaustive account of this area of law.
The police are responsible for investigating an allegation that a crime has been committed. Following investigation, the decision whether to charge a person with a criminal offence lies either with the police or the CPS.
Where a series of existing offences – including harassment and public order offences – are committed, and such an offence was motivated by hostility to race or religion, or was accompanied by hostility to race or religion proximate to the commission of the offence, a separate racially or religiously aggravated offence is committed attracting a greater penalty. For further details, see the CPS-published guidance on this website. For those offences not covered but where hostility or hostile motivation towards race or religion is present, or hostility or hostile motivation towards disability, sexual orientation or transgender is present, this must be treated as an aggravating factor at sentence and stated as such in open court.
It should be borne in mind that any non-physical offence - such as those outlined below - that can be committed in person on the street can also be committed online.

Public order offences​

1. These offences contrary to the Public Order Act 1986 relate to threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or display of visible representations, which:

• Are likely to cause fear of, or to provoke, immediate violence: section 4;
• Intentionally cause harassment, alarm or distress: section 4A; or
• Are likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress (threatening or abusive words or behaviour only): section 5.

2. It is a defence to section 4A and section 5 for the accused to demonstrate that their conduct was reasonable, which must be interpreted in accordance with the freedom of expression and other freedoms. If these freedoms are engaged, a justification for interference (by prosecution) with them must be convincingly established. A prosecution may only proceed if necessary and proportionate.

 

[Barteh]

What the fuck is he gonna sue that idiot for? For saying some mean words?

Yeah, he's a cunt but you can't just sue somebody for being a cunt.

 

[KBE6EKCTAH_CCP]

You didn't see the whole thing if you just watched the video from inside the car that drove off. The story I read was that the guy was a passenger in a car driving by and started yelling racial abuse at Izzy and challenging him to a fight. Izzy ignored and the guy parked and did more and then got out and got in Izzy's face flexing and challenging him to a fight.

You can't just scream and threaten people and try to intimidate them and then feel like you didn't do anything. The shit Colby did with Werdum and others is a perfect example: Colby wants to be protected by the laws of a civilized society but disregards the "Unwritten Rules" of a civilized society.

I get that in the USA there is a huge leaning towards "Don't Tread On Me" and I can do whatever I want but people should not have to tolerate and endure unlimited abuse.

NZ has laws based on the British system which is a little more sensible.
From the Crown Prosecution Service website

Verbal abuse and harassment in public​

This summary does not cover every eventuality but intends to outline some of the possible criminal offences that may be committed. It should not be treated as legal advice and is not meant to be an exhaustive account of this area of law.
The police are responsible for investigating an allegation that a crime has been committed. Following investigation, the decision whether to charge a person with a criminal offence lies either with the police or the CPS.
Where a series of existing offences – including harassment and public order offences – are committed, and such an offence was motivated by hostility to race or religion, or was accompanied by hostility to race or religion proximate to the commission of the offence, a separate racially or religiously aggravated offence is committed attracting a greater penalty. For further details, see the CPS-published guidance on this website. For those offences not covered but where hostility or hostile motivation towards race or religion is present, or hostility or hostile motivation towards disability, sexual orientation or transgender is present, this must be treated as an aggravating factor at sentence and stated as such in open court.
It should be borne in mind that any non-physical offence - such as those outlined below - that can be committed in person on the street can also be committed online.

Public order offences​

1. These offences contrary to the Public Order Act 1986 relate to threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or display of visible representations, which:

• Are likely to cause fear of, or to provoke, immediate violence: section 4;
• Intentionally cause harassment, alarm or distress: section 4A; or
• Are likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress (threatening or abusive words or behaviour only): section 5.

2. It is a defence to section 4A and section 5 for the accused to demonstrate that their conduct was reasonable, which must be interpreted in accordance with the freedom of expression and other freedoms. If these freedoms are engaged, a justification for interference (by prosecution) with them must be convincingly established. A prosecution may only proceed if necessary and proportionate.

I wonder what all the karens are saying now that we know that backstory.

Personally i find it fucked that one can harass and threaten someone else with like and that the harassed party cannot sue, while the corollary is that if Isreal hit him he would likely be in shit with the law.

 

[Ares Black]

Not sure if you're trolling or not.

I can't see who you are talking to, which means I have dismissed their opinion as worthless and put them on the Ignore List.

 

[nonoob]

You can't just scream and threaten people and try to intimidate them and then feel like you didn't do anything.

Some places can charge that behavior as an assault and they may also describes those acts as menacing. An assault charge requires No Touching.
Spitting on someone is low AF and IIRC it can be charged as a battery. My guess is Izzy called police in hopes that he wouldn't be charged for that.

 

[Neck&Neck]

If Izzy spat on the guy, then he’s worse than him
Spitting is grounds for getting your teeth knocked out
Enjoy your charges Izzy

If you actually want ppl locked up for saying mean words, you are the Karen
It’s fucked up and scary to me how some ppl actually want that
Enjoy your police state
Legit Harassment, stalking, shit like that I can agree with… but some rando just yelling at you in the street, hell no
I get yelled at by meth head junkies sometimes when I’m out downtown, lol
Until actual violence occurs or multiple acts of harassment…. Fuck off

Also In B4 the WarRoom

 

[Trabaho]

Bitch move.

That guy was a nobody and Izzy could have just ignored him. One grown man pressing charges against another because "he said some shit" is lame.

He challenged him to fight so a threat and inuslted him. Not cool at all.

 

[Dusty Rhodes]

He shouldve handled it Valasquez style baby

 

[Luthien]

So, what is this all about then?
Well, he said something about my car being wack, your honor

 

[Koro_11]

He challenged him to fight so a threat and inuslted him. Not cool at all.

And you know what’s even less cool? Running to the teacher to tell on him.

Izzy is a mental midget he always was.

 

[El Fernas]

You didn't see the whole thing if you just watched the video from inside the car that drove off. The story I read was that the guy was a passenger in a car driving by and started yelling racial abuse at Izzy and challenging him to a fight. Izzy ignored and the guy parked and did more and then got out and got in Izzy's face flexing and challenging him to a fight.

You can't just scream and threaten people and try to intimidate them and then feel like you didn't do anything. The shit Colby did with Werdum and others is a perfect example: Colby wants to be protected by the laws of a civilized society but disregards the "Unwritten Rules" of a civilized society.

I get that in the USA there is a huge leaning towards "Don't Tread On Me" and I can do whatever I want but people should not have to tolerate and endure unlimited abuse.

NZ has laws based on the British system which is a little more sensible.
From the Crown Prosecution Service website

Verbal abuse and harassment in public​

This summary does not cover every eventuality but intends to outline some of the possible criminal offences that may be committed. It should not be treated as legal advice and is not meant to be an exhaustive account of this area of law.
The police are responsible for investigating an allegation that a crime has been committed. Following investigation, the decision whether to charge a person with a criminal offence lies either with the police or the CPS.
Where a series of existing offences – including harassment and public order offences – are committed, and such an offence was motivated by hostility to race or religion, or was accompanied by hostility to race or religion proximate to the commission of the offence, a separate racially or religiously aggravated offence is committed attracting a greater penalty. For further details, see the CPS-published guidance on this website. For those offences not covered but where hostility or hostile motivation towards race or religion is present, or hostility or hostile motivation towards disability, sexual orientation or transgender is present, this must be treated as an aggravating factor at sentence and stated as such in open court.
It should be borne in mind that any non-physical offence - such as those outlined below - that can be committed in person on the street can also be committed online.

Public order offences​

1. These offences contrary to the Public Order Act 1986 relate to threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or display of visible representations, which:

• Are likely to cause fear of, or to provoke, immediate violence: section 4;
• Intentionally cause harassment, alarm or distress: section 4A; or
• Are likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress (threatening or abusive words or behaviour only): section 5.

2. It is a defence to section 4A and section 5 for the accused to demonstrate that their conduct was reasonable, which must be interpreted in accordance with the freedom of expression and other freedoms. If these freedoms are engaged, a justification for interference (by prosecution) with them must be convincingly established. A prosecution may only proceed if necessary and proportionate.

Im not from the USA, here its even worst, to "press charges" you need stuff to actually happen, ie you got beaten up, now, a known professional fighter pressing charges cause someone did nothing more than verbal abuse to him? it would be hard not to laugh to his face, dont get me wrong, if the person doing the verbal abuse is clearly a physical threat if he feels like it then i would understand it, its not the case here.

Here the only way something similar remotely close to this would get traction is if it was Alexa Grasso and some wannabe thug guy harrass her on the street, even if she is capable of defending herself against the average guy she is still a woman and women violence is a thing here, something that law sort of cares about.

Pressing charges for that, its waste of public resources imo.

 

[IIIIIIII]

Punk ass bitch behavior on that guys part, from the video it didn’t look like Izzy was the instigator.

However…
Izzy should have just said nothing online and moved on. There is no explanation needed. This kind of comes off a little whiney and virtue baiting.

it took me a very long time to actually put this in practice because i'd take the bait, but the very best thing anyone can do to both avoid confrontation and avoid trouble, is to ignore and say nothing. so many people don't even care about being right, they just want an argument. they want an excuse to lash out and treat you as a verbal punching bag. if you never start it, nothing will ever take place.