Had to call the cops

[capslock]

...

[Fatheroffour]

A heifer is a young virgin calf.

[miamorefreckles]

A heifer is a young virgin calf.

You learned me something today FoF

[capslock]

,,,

[jerico08]

More likely bitter Nj's themselves seeking any opportunity to smear a good Dad. He was set up big time and if he is not caeeful wll end up getting framed worse if no recorder in hand. I can record right from my smart phone in video and audio and always have it handy.

[Thermite]

Well, if'n ya wanna get all technical, a heifer just means a female that hasn't had a calf of her own yet; not necessarily that she's a "virgin", or small- she could still easily weigh 800 pounds or more. Even while pregnant or shortly after, at least locally, it's still considered fine to call her a "first calf heifer".

[miamorefreckles]

Jerico, that's the worst part, my phone WAS in my hand... just not recording. I thought about it and then thought, nah... it should be fine. Yeah, it wasn't. Not making that mistake again.

And that's the other thing, my phone was in one hand and my orders were in my other hand. Never laid a hand on the woman! From more googling...

The typical defenses to such claims are designed to show either that

the Defendant had nothing to do with the harm, and therefore should not be punished financially, or
that Plaintiff’s actions helped cause the harm, thus requiring the Plaintiff to share in the burden of costs.
The usual routes to prove this are for the defendant to show:

his actions were not intended to cause harm,
that he had the consent of the Plaintiff to do the acts he did, or
that the Plaintiff was partially or fully responsible for the harm done by Defendant.
Proving one of these defenses minimize the fault on Defendant, and thus allows for less of a recovery for Plaintiff, if any at all.

Individuals who want to defend themselves against a battery charge must prove one of the following:

Lack of intent
Self defense
The defense of others
The defense of property

So there was NO intention to touch her, and I was defending my son who she was actively telling to run away from me...

[miamorefreckles]

also this:

Battery is also considered to be a general intent crime. This means that the defendant need not intend any specific type of harm to the defendant. Rather, they must simply demonstrate a general intent to harm or offend the person in order to be found guilty.

[anonymous guest]

I would recommend a good lawyer ASAP to fight the battery charge. Like you said, it will look bad if you are found guilty especially if your ex is making similiar accusations.

[jamessick]

Consider counter suing the DCP. If your story is correct, the contact came as you moved past here, thus she contacted YOUR BACK. No one attacks with their back, therefore it could be argued that SHE ATTACKED YOU! You felt contact on your back and felt the need to protect your son from any further violent actions the DCP woman was planning, thank God she didn't carry out anymore violent attacks against you or your son.

Seriously, if your back touched her, then that's an attack on your person, not the other way around. She moved between you, thus inciting the contact. NBA rules dude, foul's on her.