Romney the Bully

Hi, Rahvin. Honestly, tacking on "with a deadly weapon" kind of comes off as an attempt at sensationalism. What he did was bad enough already: there's no need to try to make it sound like attempted murder or something.

Hi, Subbie. For sure: it meets the technical, legal definition well enough, and of course any prosecutor should try for the highest charge possible.But, that's not a good strategy in a debate when you know the opposition isn't going to negotiate with you for a lesser charge. "Enhancing the charge," in this case, is only going to polarize the debate more and make the good argument (that Mitt Romney showed poor character in bullying and in not owning up to it) get lost in exaggerations.

Hi, Rahvin. Yes, and I have already conceded that, in a court of law, it would be perfectly appropriate to seek a charge of "assault with a deadly weapon" in this case.But, this isn't a court case: this is an online discussion about Mitt Romney's character and suitability for the Presidency. I do not believe that the technical classification of scissors as a "deadly weapon" makes any difference at all when deciding what this incident means about Romney's character or suitability for the Presidency; and I seriously doubt that you believe that, either.If Romney had left the scissors at home and assaulted the boy with just his fists, then responded to the accusations in the same pathetic manner, you and I would still both regard this as indicative of the same, exact character flaw that we see in him now. The term "deadly weapon" therefore adds nothing but rhetorical value, and, by inference, many readers (myself included) will conclude that the term was being used, not for technical accuracy, but to score rhetorical points.Since I do not like to watch perfectly reasonable arguments about social concerns get lost in exaggerated rhetoric, I thought it would be helpful to plea for some moderation*. *That's moderation, as in "being more moderate"; not moderation, as in "wanting Percy to get you."

Hi, Rahvin. I do not contest your technical usage of "Assault with a Deadly Weapon," and I do not wish to have to repeat this again.The problem I have with your using it in this case is precisely because the charge ignores the perpetrator's intent. As far as the legal charge is concerned, attempting to stab somebody is the same as attempting to cut somebody's hair. Yet, when it comes to discussing somebody's character, the distinction between "intent to stab" and "intent to trim" is rather meaningful: most people will regard "intent to stab" as indicative of a much more serious and disturbing character flaw than "intent to trim."But, since "Assault with a Deadly Weapon" is a loaded phrase, people conflate "intent to trim" with "intent to stab," and bullies become murderers in their minds. This is how the armchair psychiatrists you mentioned end up flinging around words like "sociopath" and "psychopath." The easy remedy is to recognize when it's not necessary to pile on penalty enhancers, and focus specifically on the primary concern, which, in this case, is Romney's homophobia and lack of integrity.Incidentally, I would actually be somewhat more troubled by this incident if Romney had gone after the boy with just his fists, because that would imply "intent to harm," whereas the scissors do not.-----Also, I took the opportunity to read more into assault with deadly weapons, and I found this article, in which an assault ruling in which scissors were classed as a "deadly weapon" was overturned in 2008 by a state court because the deadliness of the scissors was never demonstrated conclusively. So, there is a (non-binding) precedent that scissors are not necessarily a "deadly weapon," even if they're being used to stab someone.----- It is a rare thing indeed for people to think {fill in the blank} is a situation in which finding a Golden Mean is a desirable outcome. I submit that this is the mechanistic explanation for Godwin's Law and your new armchair-psychiatrist law ("Rahvin's Law"?).-----As a matter of political expediency, I find it important to point out that I do not completely agree with Catholic Scientist. There is sufficient reason to believe that Romney's assault on Lauber was related to his homophobia.