Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Did Jim Acosta Assault Female Intern?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by American87 View Post
    As you may know, the left has been having a meltdown over Trumps press conference the other day, where he called Jim Acosta of CNN a disgraceful human being, among other things. But this exchange was anticipated by Acosta putting his hands on a female White House intern. It was aggressive, and as far as I know it was unprecedented. Acosta has since been denied access to the White House for this.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ite-House.html
    No.
    How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
    Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

    Comment


    • #62
      I've been hoping they would abolish the entire White House Press Corps, and to replace it with something better.

      What is the propose of an elitist little crew of just under 100 "journalists" camped out in a small corner of an over-crowded building when daily releases can be handled more easily and more efficiently with modern things like Email?
      Can't the very limited space in there be put to better use?

      I propose that the whole operation be moved across the street, maybe to Blair House. Instead of some crew that is looking for status, leave it open to the first 100 reporters that show up in the morning. Call it The People's Information center.
      When they aren't talking to a President or one of his mouthpieces they can gab among themselves or hang around the coffee shop in the basement. Maybe a real bar can be on premises, which would pay for the whole operation.

      Sound like a good plan?
      "Why is the Rum gone?"

      -Captain Jack

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post



        Borderruffian hit the nail on the head.
        Acosta had no right to deny possession of the mic to anyone.
        The intern had the superior right of possession and control of the mic was never given to Acosta on anything other than a temporary basis.
        That period ends when the owner of the mic says it does.
        Actually I would say Acosta has equal rights Because typically mic is passed after a question is answered in which this case it was not

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by BorderRuffian View Post
          Who controls the mic? Acosta or the Whitehouse?
          not the white house
          Or you going to stupidly argue that the guy at the podium gets to do whatever he wants. What would you being saying if Obama was at the podium.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by pamak View Post
            Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

            I certainly have more expertise than you do, but that isn't saying much.

            A "battery" is an unwanted touching. He touched her and it is clear he intended to do so. Whether it was "just to keep the mic" isn't important, but feel free to think it is.
            In order for the battery to be actionable there must be an intent to make contact and that contact be of an insulting or provoking nature.

            The fact that you feel that "accidentally" stepping on a foot is relevant tells me you really don't have any clue of what you are talking about but won't let that stop you. "Hint": inclusion of the word "accidentally" makes the whole point irrelevant.

            It remains "technically" a battery.
            But please educate me some more on things you know nothing about.


            AS usual you do not understand the rebuttal.

            The stepping on someone's foot was a rebuttal to your claim that "A battery is defined as an "unwanted touching" which came without qualifications.
            Obviously, there are unwanted touches which cannot be defined as a battery, thus the example I mentioned of stepping on someone's foot accidentally.


            The second point is that even if the touch was intentional, it is still not a battery.

            Feel free to educate us how one can use the video to legally argue that the touch was of an "insulting or provoking nature" under any reasonable standard. Only hacks can accept such nonsense!


            Technically, it is not a battery.
            Um, I realize you don't understand what you are lecturing about, but you are confusing the general definition a battery (unwanted touching) with the elements for the crime of battery.

            These are 2 different concepts. The concept of "battery" exists outside of the area of criminal law as it often will appear in complaints for medical malpractice. You didn't know any of that, but still want to lecture about the concept.



            If you wish to charge an individual with the crime of battery then there must be intent.
            When you qualified the "touch" as "accidental" then, by your own words, you excluded it from the concept of criminal battery.
            The fact that you felt it was relevant is simply further proof of my point that you don't know what you are talking about.

            But do go on.
            Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

            Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post



              I agree that if it were a male reaching for the mic we would view it differently.

              But it wasn't.
              If he were charged criminally, he could claim self defense, but I doubt it would be useful.
              Self defense requires that he reasonably believe that she was a threat.
              As HPJ noted, he doesn't even look at her. As such, it would be hard to say that his actions were driven by a perceived threat from her.
              he did have a reasonable intital reaction to someone invading his personal space. Btw this more than likely did not even involve him thinking. She initiated contact

              At someone point some one will come up a video where this occurred in some other Admin. But off the top of my head I don't remember a similar reach.

              She should of just stood there with her hand out rather than reaching.

              Imagine if it was a male and a female reporter Gender is irrelevant I told by my conservative friends and hence asking if it was a male reaching instead does make it relevant.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by craven View Post

                Actually I would say Acosta has equal rights Because typically mic is passed after a question is answered in which this case it was not


                His rights are always inferior to the owner of the mic.
                If the owner (here it is Trump or his agent) demands return of the mic, Acosta has no right to refuse.

                He has nothing more than permission to use the mic and that permission is always subject to revocation.
                Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by craven View Post

                  he did have a reasonable intital reaction to someone invading his personal space. Btw this more than likely did not even involve him thinking. She initiated contact

                  At someone point some one will come up a video where this occurred in some other Admin. But off the top of my head I don't remember a similar reach.

                  She should of just stood there with her hand out rather than reaching.

                  Imagine if it was a male and a female reporter Gender is irrelevant I told by my conservative friends and hence asking if it was a male reaching instead does make it relevant.


                  His initial reaction was arguably reasonable, the second reaction was a bit more than that.
                  I don't think that this is a criminal act. Simply that he was wrong in his actions.
                  Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                  Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Herman Hum View Post

                    The simplest thing would have been just to turn OFF the power to the microphone or cut the feed from it.

                    Or, better yet, turn up the gain from the microphone so high that the interference screech it caused would have deafened everyone in the room (and instantly made him the most disliked person in it.)
                    I like that idea better.
                    And it would have been funnier.
                    Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                    Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post



                      His rights are always inferior to the owner of the mic.
                      If the owner (here it is Trump or his agent) demands return of the mic, Acosta has no right to refuse.

                      He has nothing more than permission to use the mic and that permission is always subject to revocation.


                      Permission is not granted by the WH in these situations. Typically it granted by the Press core.

                      Just like how seating is done.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post



                        His initial reaction was arguably reasonable, the second reaction was a bit more than that.
                        I don't think that this is a criminal act. Simply that he was wrong in his actions.
                        I did not disagree with you but the woman reaching for the Mic was also wrong. btw I really want the off camera video. Does she not look for direction at one point.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Paddybhoy View Post

                          Can you not look at the raw footage to form your own opinion?

                          Clearly not.
                          It is called simple assault, and yes he did.
                          My worst jump story:
                          My 13th jump was on the 13th day of the month, aircraft number 013.
                          As recorded on my DA Form 1307 Individual Jump Log.
                          No lie.

                          ~
                          "Everything looks all right. Have a good jump, eh."
                          -2 Commando Jumpmaster

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by johns624 View Post
                            That's an assault?
                            Watch the video.
                            My worst jump story:
                            My 13th jump was on the 13th day of the month, aircraft number 013.
                            As recorded on my DA Form 1307 Individual Jump Log.
                            No lie.

                            ~
                            "Everything looks all right. Have a good jump, eh."
                            -2 Commando Jumpmaster

                            Comment


                            • #74

                              Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
                              Um, I realize you don't understand what you are lecturing about, but you are confusing the general definition a battery (unwanted touching) with the elements for the crime of battery.

                              These are 2 different concepts. The concept of "battery" exists outside of the area of criminal law as it often will appear in complaints for medical malpractice. You didn't know any of that, but still want to lecture about the concept.



                              If you wish to charge an individual with the crime of battery then there must be intent.
                              When you qualified the "touch" as "accidental" then, by your own words, you excluded it from the concept of criminal battery.
                              The fact that you felt it was relevant is simply further proof of my point that you don't know what you are talking about.

                              But do go on.



                              Again, you do not have a clue of how a rebuttal works!
                              It was YOU who mentioned at some point that battery is an "unwanted touch" while you were leaving out the crucial qualification of intent!

                              THis is your whole post which brought my counterexample of stepping on someone's foot


                              Originally posted by Cambronnne
                              Ok, you're funny and I pity your belief that your feelings supersede simple reality.

                              Look at his left hand.
                              The moment there is contact with her arm as she reaches for the mic, it technically becomes a battery.
                              Given that you admit there is contact, it is kind of ridiculous to try and argue there was not a "battery" as I've described.
                              Even a "brushing" is a "battery". A battery is defined as an "unwanted touching"
                              .

                              You can argue that it might not have been of an "insulting or provoking nature", but not that the contact was anything other than a technical battery.
                              But do continue.


                              Did you address the issue of intent in the above post? Nope! You believed that just because the poster you were addressing admitted there was contact, that such admission somehow made it obvious that it was battery and it was even "ridiculous" to deny it! This gave me the opportunity to point to you that based on the faulty reasoning of your post, even an unwanted touch such as stepping on someone's foot is a battery which is obviously ridiculous.

                              And I am still waiting for how can show about the "insulting or provoking nature" of the touch shown in the video. I am not interested in lecturing you about medical malpractice. It is you who seems eager to lecture us about things which have nothing to do with the issue we discuss.How can a contact which is not meant to insult or provoke or harm can lead to charging somebody with the crime of battery? According to what YOU told us about your state's law...

                              Originally posted by Cambronnne
                              A person may be charged with the crime of battery under Illinois law if he or she makes actual physical contact with another individual with the intent to injure, provoke, or insult that person.

                              So, you are contradicting yourself when you tell us that "You can argue that it might not have been of an "insulting or provoking nature", but not that the contact was anything other than a technical battery."
                              If one can argue that the touch was not meant to insult or provoke (and I assume we all agree that the touch in the video was not meant to injure" then he is also arguing that the touch is not battery!
                              Last edited by pamak; 08 Nov 18, 17:00.
                              My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Americans such as the OP whom are good folks should not buy into this lazy trolling attempt by Trumpers to make Acosta look bad. Find something else on Acosta.

                                Acosta could be more polite to Trump but Trumps own language means that no Trump supporter has any ground to call out media personalities for their language. Trump also has sexual assault allegations against him, nothing of the likes compared to this latest allegation against Acosta where we can all see on video that Acosta did nothing wrong at least in a criminal sense perhaps again Acosta could be more polite.

                                American political leaders need to act with dignity, and not a intolerant or anti American attitude. This topic is filled with sarcasm and nonsense toward Acosta because some Trump people are vehemently anti American so they go and resort to attacking Acosta for no good reason.

                                Trump supporters should turn to history. Eisenhower and Willkie type republicans were the best Conservatives in US history...and those type of conservatives must be looked up to today by all Americans.
                                Long live the Lionheart! Please watch this video
                                https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=jRDwlR4zbEM
                                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3DBaY0RsxU
                                Accept the challenges so that you can feel the exhilaration of victory.

                                George S Patton

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X