Another unhinged Democrat to taxpayer: “Get the f**k out of my office!”
It is arrogance like this that has prompted thousands of taxpayers across the country to take to the streets:
A Chicago taxpayer went to his 22nd Ward alderman, Ricardo Munoz, to protest the Democrat’s support for tax-increment financing. (I reported years ago on how these “public-private partnership” scams siphon off tax dollars to subsidize developers/builders who then reward politicians with big campaign donations.) The constituent wants to present Alderman Munoz with a petition.
Munoz physically shoves the voter and yells: “Get the f**k out of my office!” (Hat tip – Jim Hoft). Move over, Charlie “Mind Your Goddamned Business” Rangel. You’ve got company:
***
Send Ricardo Munoz a teabag!
• Ward Office: 2500 S. St Louis
Chicago, IL 60623
• Ward Phone: 773-762-1771
• E-Mail: rmunoz@cityofchicago.org
(if that doesn’t work, reader Mark says this one is operable…for now: Ward22@cityofchicago.org)
• City Hall Office: 121 N. Lasalle St.
Room 300 Chicago, IL 60602
• City Hall Phone: 312-744-9491
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Ricardo Munoz of Chicago (DEMOCRAT) - Get the f**k out of my office! | Fire Andrea Mitchell!
- Michelle Malkin: Tax cheat Rangel caught on tape: “Why don’t you mind your goddamned business?” | AMERICAS WATCH DOGS
- Servant of the People « Retake Education
- UrbanGrounds » Blog Archive » Charlie Rangel Wants You to “Mind Your Own God-Damned Business”
- The Morning Bites « Bob’s Bites
- Ed Driscoll » Public Servants, Eager To Please
- Stem Cells, Obama, Science, Morality, Taxes, Responsibility « Peace and Freedom Global Future
- GaryMcCollum.com » Charlie Rangel’s New Mantra
- Bloodthirsty Liberal
- Another unhinged Democrat to taxpayer: “Get the f**k out of my office!” | Citizen-Right
- Taxes For You But Me Now “Get the f**k out of my office!” Video « Mcnorman’s Weblog
- Dewey Napoleon - the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing » Want to see how a politican loses his career….
- Dewey Napoleon - the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing » Want to see how a politican loses his career….
- Solomonia
- The Chicago Way « Perfidious Canada
- GOPMOM Note: The oh-so-effin’-classy Charlie Rangel
- Democrat to Citizen: Get the F*** Out of my Office! « Federal Way Conservative
- The New Editor
- The Tea Party is Here: Mr. President - We didn’t ask for socialism! The One Trillion Dollar Takeover of Health Care « Jim Blazsik
- Michelle Malkin » Another unhinged Democrat to taxpayer: “Get the … | Chicagoland Cleaning Service
- southchild » Blog Archive » Democrats Gone Wild!
- AllMilitary.com - Official Military Blog, Military Updates » Blog Archive » The Weekly Claw 3-10-09
- Papa Mike’s Blog » Blog Archive » Another unhinged Democrat to taxpayer: “Get the f**k out of my office!
- Illinois Democrats Enjoy Using the [BLEEPING] Word | The Great Illuminator
- Brutally Honest
- The Colossus of Rhodey
- Rhymes With Right
- The Democrats Just Love the Little Man, Don’t They? : The Sundries Shack
- GaMidnightRider’s Blog | “Get the f**k out of my office!” Another Show of Arrogance by Democrats
- Michelle Malkin » How do you spell wealth redistribution? Tax-increment financing
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Corruption
Pundit & Pundette
» Friday various & sundry
Legal Insurrection
» The "All You Can Eat" Reconciliation BuffetRiehl World View
» Confusion Over Parliamentarian Ruling Shouldn't Matterprotein wisdom
» Finally!NewsBusters.org
» Former NYT Editor Howell Raines Drums Fox News Out of Journalism for Anti-Obama 'Propaganda Campaign'JustOneMinute
» Sure The Health Bill Stinks, But Blame The Republicans
chap, that is what you have left the guy with. Ingore the property destruction, or shoot all witnesses to avoid law suits.
Don’t blame me for your rules.
As Chap the Learned Lawyer knows but is too much a lefto-weasel to admit, assault and battery are both torts and crimes. Crimes impute damages to the offense.
Being put in fear for your life or physical safety is enough to sustain a CRIMINAL assault charge.
(as in a mugger holding an empty pistol next to your head. Wanna say there are no damages in such a case, Chap? Wanna say the vic has to prove them to win a case either in tort or a criminal proceeding?)
I hope the guy files charges AND sues Munoz, who likely would be forced to pay nominal damages in tort, AND take a huge political “hit”—which would be the point—even if he beat a criminal rap.
Because he is a dem and above the law. Why else?
Yeah, Chap: a powerful politician and a citizen have a “silly scuffle”, apparently consisting of the pol committing A & B on the latter.
No abuse of power.
Nothing to see here, move along folks.
Thanks for sharing your Stalinoid views, chap.
How old are these “innocent” children? I see 10 year olds in LA that own guns and would pop a cap in you because of the colors you are wearing. Any many of them are from Mexico. There are plenty of minors around the world who have killed people.
Guns are legal. Land ownership is legal. Protecting ones property is legal. Entering a foreign country without permission is not legal. If my parents bring me along on the bank robbery and the police shoot up the car, the police are not responsible. The parents who brought minors into the situation are. Pretty simple concepts.
Don’t confuse chap with reality.
There is a classic case of IIED, unlike here. So bad example on your part.
And in any case, that comment was originally in response to someone who said he should sue “for a fortune.” At most he gets nominal damages, as you pointed out.
Committing intentional infliction of emotional distress by threatening to shoot someone’s child for trespassing is not legal, just so we are clear.
Cynthia McKinney part deux.
So this is all about someones FEELINGS??? Chap I want 1,000,000 dollars off of you because you hurt my feelings.
Well, IIED is what we were discussing, so yes, sort of. But again, lets see if your feeeeeelings would be hurt if someone pointed a gun at your kid. I suspect they would be, whether you were trespassing at the time or not.
chap: Neither is inflicting emotional distress by illegally entering one’s property with the very real possibility the perp is armed.
Granted, the kids are not the guilty parties, but the rancher wasn’t the one who brought them there in the first place. Further, was it ever established the rancher threatened to shoot any children?
The gun kept the field level (he was outnumbered, just him and his pal Mr. Colt) and he wanted to make certain everyone knew he meant business. It may be that some kids happened to look down the barrel of that gun and they will hopefully recall that should they ever consider taking another stroll across someone else’s proterty univited!
Its pathetic. Suing because your feelings were hurt WHILE you are breaking the law. I guess they were stupid enough to think that everyone would just roll over and take it.
Ans since when did kids STOP carrying arms during the commision of a crime???
Wow. This thread has gone quite a ways off since I last commented.
Regardless of your political persuasion, it seems clear that this alderman acted in an embarrassing manner. There may not be a civil case, but I believe there’s still a simple battery case here. Why didn’t he call the police and let them handle it? At the very least, his PR should suffer a bit. He wouldn’t be the first bully Chicago alderman.
Ilovemycountry has expressed his drivel that this is how Republicans should be treated, but there’s nothing to indicate that this was a Republican. If this man is from Chicago’s 22nd (border at Kedzie and Cermak), that is a very Democratic ward. Odds are he isn’t a Republican.
Still, it would be a shame [sarc] if Ilovemycountry were handled in the same fashion here on this board. It’s clear he has no intention whatsoever of having a conversation and is deliberately trolling.
Chap said
Ah but did he commit it, was it intentional, was it inflicted, how emotional was it, what distress was caused, was a threat made, was the gun loaded for shooting,whose child was it, were they trespassing? I wouldn’t make those broad assumptions. Those things may need to be litigated and proven behond a reasonable doubt before we crucify the innocent rancher. Not so fast Sherlock. I want to see the whole video….
On March 9th, 2009 at 4:54 pm, chapoutier said:
I remember in Louisiana Yoshihiro Hattori, a Japanese exchange student, was on his way to a Halloween party and went to the wrong house by accident. The property owner, Rodney Peairs, mortally wounded Hattori with gunfire, thinking he was trespassing with criminal intent. Peairs was acquited of any wrongdoing.
The problem with the way you’re interpreting these laws, Chap, is that it puts undue burden upon the property owner to determine if the trespasser is dangerous or not.
By trespassing, the intruder has already broken the law; by refusing to leave, the intruder again breaks the law. Even if the intruder can’t speak english, is drunk, can’t understand what the property owner is saying, or is too young to comprehend anything, the property owner is within his rights to use lethal force. Why?
Because the burden for protecting one’s own life in such cases outweighs any other considerations, period. A homeowner is not a law enforcement officer or an agent of the State. Therefore the homeowner is not bound by the additional burdens that such agents must (absolutely) abide by.
On March 9th, 2009 at 5:44 pm, chapoutier said:
Uhm… someone bothered to write a law specifically outlawing this? Where? Which states? Which statues? Is it a felony or a misdemeanor?
Just because you find something unpleasant, don’t invent laws out of your own butt and call them illegal. Where do you practice law? Boston Legal’s “Crane Pool and Schmidt?”
Funny how reasonable people (ILMC excluded) can disagree about seemingly easy subjects. Can an Adlerman say dirty words in public? Yep. Can he touch me on public property? Probably not. Can I shoot people on my private property? Probably can. I am the master of my domain.
Some things in life are supposed to induce distress.
This is a little off-topic, but elected officials *really* don’t like it when you come to their offices.
During the TARP fight, we got tired of calling and decided to pop into our Rep’s local office.
They really did not like the intrusion. I think the Tea Parties should be held in and/or in front of the offices of the elected officials, because they hate it so much.
I think Democrats really liked it when Code Pink disrupted republican functions. Pelosi didn’t like it so much when they came after her.
Getting back to Chicago…
I’d like to see what happened before the alderman started shoving the guy. I’m not excusing the incident, but I’d like to see the full tape before I make a judgment on what really happened.
Hey Rabbidsquirl – is that off of 161 St in SD?
I just sent an e-mail to this guy:
I have watched your “interaction” (would be called “assault” anywhere else, I believe) with this taxpayer, which can be located at the link I have provided above.
This is disgusting behavior from anyone, much less someone in your position, which I might remind you is that of a public servant elected to represent and serve the public and the taxpayers. The taxpayers do not exist to serve you. Again, since you seem to misunderstand the concept of public service, the taxpayers do not exist to serve you.
Unbelievably arrogant and unacceptable behavior displayed in that video.
Hopefully, your constituents will get some sense and vote you out the next time you’re up for election.
I can even tell you more. You can look up his address on-line. Just go to the name MNUSMCDavid. Can’t miss it.
Ah back to the good old days of the pre-election threads. Where insetad of thread-jacking, you could take a topic and let the buried nugget of whatever hidden intellectual topic there to be exposed much like a rough diamond laying in the turned dirt fields of the Crater of Diamonds State Park.
Hmm…. I thought I had his address right, but “happyscrapper” says it’s in MN.
Hmmm…..
Maybe you have heard of this little thing called “common law”? It happens to be the legal system we have her in the US (inherited from merry old England), and what it means is that there is a whole body of law beyond what is written in those little statute books. And guess what? Every single state’s common law recognizes IIED as a tort. And guess what one of the CLASSIC examples in every jurisdiction (including rough and tumble Texas) of IIED is? Threatening the life of someone’s child.
I know that is information you can’t necessarily pick up from watching Boston Legal, so I don’t hold your ignorance against you.
That is so close its almost scary… but not exact. You can get there by 161st though.
Comparing having a very angry man brandish a loaded weapon at your child to simply “getting your feelings hurt” is simply disingenuous and you know it.
And someones child threatening my life is probably a common law IIED as well. I don’t know if coming across the Southern border would be a tort. Maybe a tort-illa.
If you bring your child to the commission of a crime, you probably inflict some emotional distress on them yourself. Especially if you are caught & confronted by people who have no idea who you are or what state of mind you are in.
Its probably better not to do that. Things may not work out well for you or your child. But if you want to roll the dice, be prepared to accept the consequences.
In the Arizona case, aren’t the illegals doing more than trespassing? What class of crime is illegally entering the US? Is it a misdemeanor, a felony? If it’s a felony, aren’t they then liable for any resulting action? Also, since they are illegal, isn’t the rancher making a citizen’s arrest?
Bottom line, no I would not be happy if someone pointed a weapon at my kids. But at the same time, I don’t want my kids doing anything illegal. If property is posted “No Trespassing”, I don’t want them going after a ball or taking a short cut thru the property. As my wife always tells me “There are nuts out there with guns” (which always inspires me to get mine out for a good cleaning).
You might want to ask your teacher to give you a bit of extra tutoring on reading basics. Or maybe you haven’t gotten up to your grade level in reading skill yet. It was David himself who mentioned Minnesota. But if you had been paying attention in other threads, you would know he’s in Minnesota. It isn’t exactly a secret. How old did you say you are? I’m guessing 16.
what a piece of dung!
Hi Scap!
No, I think your guess is a little high…
I’d say, probably a precocious 13, but with parent “too busy” to pay attention.
That is the sad part of this. These young kids without parental supervision get on a computer and act stupid as a way to get some attention, ANY attention, even negative. You do have to feel compassion for the poor thing. Also pity.
Except Louisiana, who got their system from French common law. This would be why they refused to agree to article 2 of the UCC.
I figure since we’re picking nits over the whole pointing guns at children vs holding a group for the police, I’d nitpick the common law statement.
Of course, though I am not familiar with their policy on Article 2.
You know what? It does not matter what this guys ageda was, why he was there, or what his personal ties are…especially the one that claims he has ties to the Communists in Mexico, which basically once again proves that IHMC is one of the biggest idiots on the Net who constantly demonstrates his/her bigotry and stupidity…unless the guy had physically attacked the Alderman.
The fact is, the Alderman physically attacked this man and it could even be argued that he committed attempted manslaughter by trying to throw him down a flight of stairs.
If this man was threatening the Alderman, as some have brought up, then the Alderman should have called the police. There was also other people in that office besides the Alderman, so the man was already outnumbered.
There is a certain way that a person needs to act when they are an elected official, and screaming at a constituent while physically attacking them and attempting to throw them down a flight of stairs and verbally assaulting them with profanity is NEVER acceptable or excusable.
This “Chicago Way” is not an excuse. It is not a reason. It is nothing other than proof that anyone who participated in this form of governing should be thrown out of office and forbidden to run for any office ever again.
It is time such things are brought out into the open.
And finally, if anyone is living in the fantasy realm where Der Fuhrer is innocent of any and all actions of this nature, if they honestly believe that he is as pure as the driven snow, they are as big of a fool as LGM and IHMC demonstrate themselves to be. MacBeth has done nothing but hide his past since he first came into the political spotlight. You cannot question him, you cannot look into his college credentials, you cannot see his birth certificate, you cannot see any of his writings, you cannot talk to anyone from his past…and you still think he is innocent?
I cannot WAIT until the lid is blown off of him and his cabal. All it will take is just one REAL journalist who cannot be bullied or bought off to expose him for who and what he really is. However, I am honestly losing all faith that such a person even exists anymore.
Ricardo Munoz = Scum. Democrap Scum.
Chap has been setting you all up..
Everyone is someones child! (Its for the children you know.)
SHHHHH!!!!
Don’t let them in on my nefarious plans!
O/T True.
Last weekend I mentioned to a friend of mine that we hadnt talked to another friend in almost a year.
So she texted his last known cell number. In return, she got an ‘F you, leave me alone, Ive already told you, blah blah blah.’
So being very mature adults, we contacted several other friends and all of us blasted this cell number with funny (mostly
) messages.
All of the return messages were the same ‘F you, blah blah blah’. Turns out, he was a 13 yr old kid in NJ. Now hes one of my daughters ‘friends’. He just wanted some attention.
!@#$! I forgot…. just put the money in a brown paper envelope and tape it under the park bench. I’ll make a chalk mark on the lightpole and then flick the lightswitch twice if I see that you were followed.
What if they point a “non-assault” rifle, like a Springfield ‘03, or a nice Mauser? Would that make everyone feel better? I know I would. Those “assault rifles” are crazy-scary, unlike those non-assault rifles…
Rule #1: whenever anyone mentions the term “assault rifle” recognize that you are in the presence of a liberal.
OK, that’s rule #160. Rule #1 is “don’t date a woman who can beat you up,” but I digress…
On March 9th, 2009 at 7:53 pm, chapoutier said:
Uh huh. That’s a patently absurd answer to my point, Mr. Alan Shore
There is no law stating that if you as a parent TRESPASS onto someone’s property WITH a child, that you can “charge” IIED against the PROPERTY OWNER (as opposed to the police charging the PARENT who brought the child into harm’s way with endangerment of a child).
IIED is also a recent phenomenon (1890’s on, and has always been limited except very recently) and it is CIVIL, NOT CRIMINAL. Which means it is only good for TORT CLAIMS.
Therefore stating:
…Is RETARDED. Yes, I said it: LEGALLY RETARDED.
Good god, where did you pass your bar? You must be in the defender’s office.
Hmmm, now that I think about it… was it earlier in this thread where we were discussing ‘assault’ vs ‘battery’.
By “assault” rifle, wouldnt that encapsulate any rifle? So shouldnt the term be battery rifle?
Isn’t Ricardo Munoz’ father Elias Munoz? The latter, an illegal alien, was sentenced to 4 years for Fake ID schemes. There is a couple of YouTube videos on his case.
I never said that this was a claim for IIED, did I? And you know that is not the issue. I said the subsequent THREATENING OF THE CHILD IS IIED.
And IIED is still very very limited. This winner just happened to stumble upon one of the very classic times when it is invoked. People may claim it all the time, but they are almost invariably wrong and lose.
And “illegal” does not just mean criminal. Please find one definition that says as much. It means in contravention of the law. There is common law saying you cannot do this. The rancher was in contravention of that. Hence: illegal.
And fyi I have passed the bar in 3 different states.
Bringing Mexican political practices and attitudes to Chicago from Monterrey.
Assault could be applied to any rifle that won’t keep its muzzle shut in polite company. And why do you think they call it an artillery battery?
(Actually that’s potential battery, when you wheel out the Big Guns and light em up – that’s kinetic battery. But we ammo guys just call it “blowing the ’stupid’ outta someone who desperately needs ventilation”)
On March 9th, 2009 at 10:17 pm, chapoutier said:
I know, and you’re missing the point.
It is not IIED when the CHILD and his PARENT are BOTH breaking the law and, by extension, THREATENING the property owner.
The property owner reacted to the THREAT of their CRIMINAL TRESPASSING with a threat IN KIND.
You don’t have cause for IIED against the victim of your OWN crime (unless you live in France, the U.K., New York, Boston, or Los Angeles).
There is no way in hell in Texas you could bring a claim of IIED against the property owner to a profitable conclusion – not even in Austin. In Louisiana (as in the case of the Japanese student who was killed that I cited in an earlier post) they will probably throw a raw crawfish at you before laughing you out of court.
Here’s another stab at it.
Saying it is illegal is like saying “shooting a person is illegal.” This is a false statement. There are many instances in which shooting a person is illegal, but in others, not (self-defense vs murder, war, etc.).
Threatening a child that has trespassed onto your property, and is threatening your own life, is NOT illegal.
Please. One does not equal the other. The ranch owner approached them. They were not threatening his life in any way, nor did he claim they were. And you should know enough from your watching LA law and whatnot that children are not generally held criminally responsible and certainly are not when they are being led by their freaking parents.
You clearly have no idea what “in kind” means. Criminal trespassing is not in kind with killing, which is what he was threatening to do.
The case you cited in Louisiana is absolutely nothing like the case at hand. Nothing like it.
Objection. Arguing facts not in evidence. There is absolutely no claim by anyone that the children were threatening his life.
His behavior was contemptible and you are a pitiful apologist for threatening to kill innocent children for a, relatively speaking, minor transgression. Pitiful.
And by the way, here is the guy you are defending. This is just one of the suits against him. In 2004 he accosted a family (American by the way, who unfortunately were of Mexican descent) who were hunting and happened to cross his property. This is the time he threatened the children with an AR-15 (sorry. This guy is so psychotic, its hard to keep all the incidents straight). He also refers to humans as “the greatest prey on earth”. This guy is certifiable.
Southern Poverty Law Center…. no bias there……..
Those so-called vigilantes are doing the jobs government won’t…
Oh hey, I have an idea! A way we could stop the majority of these senariors from happening… and save the childrens…
Build the fence already!
The illegals were trespassing… THEY and THEY ALONE put their children in danger. Story over.
Chap, citing southern poverty law center. Your examples are always very curious. The law school you attended must be a breeze. Did you make up case law to cite for your papers? I imagine your law school professors were lazy and don’t check their student’s cites. Or are so ideologically driven they don’t care about pure bias. Or is it that they do care about bias, teach you how to swindle to make a few bucks?
Roll all you want. The lawsuit they talk about is real. The guy is a psycho. He bought the property in 1996, probably looking to pick a fight.
Amen. Some people are aghast that someone, after a decade of damage done to their property, is angry and tired of losing profits resorts to this, they find no excuses for this man, but will make up excuse after excuse for illegals who kill in this country because they do not see any harm in drinking and driving. Or commit crimes because, let’s face it, they have no fear of our justice system. It is sick. Your right, stop them from coming, lessen the problems.
What a lazy, stupid argument. I can assure you that if I simply cried “bias!” instead of actually looking at the arguments, I would have been tossed from law school. Maybe that cuts it in whatever dime-store “school” you got your “education” in, but I assure you any place with actual standards would laugh you out the door.
The cases it discusses are easy enough to confirm. There are many mentions of them all over the internet. The quote about man being the greatest prey was cited from an independent source, a UK newspaper. here is the original article. Of course, you would know all of this already if you had a shred of intellectual honesty.
Whatever happened to the purpose of this thread? Wow, did it ever get off track! And another thread somehow got moved to this one. You guys are out of control! Ha! You need to start over fresh. Have a nice day!
File charges for assault. It is on tape and no doubt an assault on his person with threatened violence. If I did that at my place of business, I would be standing in the unemployment line by the end of the day. I guess this is what passes for “citizen representation” in Chicago?
Chap, I know a lot of posters here play kissy face with you a lot. Not me. I find most attorneys such as yourself opportunistic parasites of society. You are a waste, cheering on worthless litigation among a sea of ideologically driven people. If there was no money in it, people like you won’t touch it. That case was designed to put the Rancher out of business. Organizations that you champion such as Poverty Law Center will keep suing him until he is destitute in order to promote their agenda (off of taxpayer money as well). How about you take up this Rancher’s case against the federal government for not protecting his livlihood like they should be.
Well just color me inimidated. I’d be even more intimidated if you knew what you were talking about. There are plenty of others here who absolutely call me out when they think it appropriate, but who also possess a measure of intelligence.
Awwww…now MY feelings are hurt. Thankfully I have the nice living I make providing a necessary service to people to console me.
Oh this is an awesome argument. Hmmm….seems to be true of most people that take a job. Would you do your job if you didn’t get paid for it? Isn’t that why you think Obama’s big bad tax increase on the rich is so bad? Because people are disincentivized when they don’t get paid for the work they do?
I cited an article of theirs. I didn’t “champion” them. And you seem unable to dispute any of the facts put forth in that article.
What? And take away his pretense for hunting the “greatest prey”?
Chap, keep waving the pom poms and keep citing the drivel. Trust me, I am not out to hurt your feelings, don’t think there are any there to hurt. And you don’t find me intelligent? Boo hoo, I hope I can find a way to make it through my day. I hope you find yourself on the legal recieving end of an organization out to enrich themselves through an agenda opposite of yours. I really hope that happens to you, and most attorneys.
Alas…an opposite agenda is hardly enough. You actually have to do something, like say…threaten the life of a child…to invite such attention. I’ll try to keep my nose clean.