Understood sir. NGL i love that word.Huh?
I was just laughing at the multiple use of cunt sir lol.
Understood sir. NGL i love that word.
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 ?
Izzy is a snitch.
Colby is not.
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.I agree with you, but pressing charges for what? Thats my point, nothing happened from either side.
I wonder what all the karens are saying now that we know that backstory.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:
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.
- 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.
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.Not sure if you're trolling or not.
Some places can charge that behavior as an assault and they may also describes those acts as menacing. An assault charge requires No Touching.You can't just scream and threaten people and try to intimidate them and then feel like you didn't do anything.
He challenged him to fight so a threat and inuslted him. Not cool at all.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.
And you know what’s even less cool? Running to the teacher to tell on him.He challenged him to fight so a threat and inuslted him. Not cool at all.
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.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:
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.
- 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.
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.