Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Did Jim Acosta Assault Female Intern?

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

  • #76
    Originally posted by pamak View Post
    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? 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 "ridiculous" to try to argue that there was no battery!

    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 be classified as a battery when YOUR DEFINITION REQUIRES one of such things?

    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.


    A permanent ban is needed here.



    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


    • #77
      Originally posted by pamak View Post
      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? 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 "ridiculous" to try to argue that there was no battery! 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!
      Oh dear god.

      I will say it again.
      a "battery" is an unwanted touching.
      To be charged with the crime of battery is something different.

      2 different concepts. one is specific to criminal law the other is a general definition of the concept.

      You are demanding that I show that the contact was of an insulting or provocative nature when I have never said it was.
      I said those are additional elements of the charge of the crime of battery.

      Rather than waste my time further saying the same things over and over, I am just going to ignore your rants and you can convince yourself that you have run rings around me on a subject you clearly do not grasp.
      Well done.
      Cheers.

      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


      • #78
        Acosta pulled a "Candi Crowley" moment in that press conference. He decided to argue with Trump rather than ask questions and let Trump answer. That's the problem here. Reporters and journalists who want to start an argument because the answer they get isn't the answer they want.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by craven View Post



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

          Just like how seating is done.

          I had assumed that the mic was owned by the WH, not the press corps.
          If it is owned by the press corps, then Trump does not have a superior right to control of the mic unless they gave it to him.

          Acosta wouldn't have superior rights to Trump though.
          In that case their rights are equal.
          And Trump would not have the right to take the mic from Acosta.
          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


          • #80
            Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

            Oh dear god.

            I will say it again.
            a "battery" is an unwanted touching.
            To be charged with the crime of battery is something different.

            2 different concepts. one is specific to criminal law the other is a general definition of the concept.

            You are demanding that I show that the contact was of an insulting or provocative nature when I have never said it was.
            I said those are additional elements of the charge of the crime of battery.

            Rather than waste my time further saying the same things over and over, I am just going to ignore your rants and you can convince yourself that you have run rings around me on a subject you clearly do not grasp.
            Well done.
            Cheers.
            And I am saying that a battery is not JUST an "unwanted touch."
            And until you make an argument about the presence of intent to injure, provoke or insult the intern, you have no case to argue that Acosta "technically" commited the crime of battery!
            Cheers.
            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


            • #81
              Originally posted by craven View Post

              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.
              She might have been wrong in trying to remove the mic. That depends on who really owns it and you have made me aware that the WH might not.

              If the mic is under the control of the WH, Trump has an absolute right to have it removed.
              Removing it from Acosta might not have been the right thing to do, but Acosta has no right to monopolize the mic, but that is more of a protocl question I guess.
              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


              • #82
                Originally posted by 101combatvet View Post

                ...

                Jeez....

                So, what was your first clue, Sherlock?
                "Why is the Rum gone?"

                -Captain Jack

                Comment


                • #83
                  The 'argument' continues along with Sanders publishing a doctored video of the incident:


                  https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...cid=spartandhp
                  We are not now that strength which in old days
                  Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                  Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                  To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    That's old news. The Hill must have been snoozing the past day.
                    This is another example of the Never-Trumpers having a knee-jerk reaction to Trump's comments, then realizing there's more to the story.
                    Maybe posters here were sober about it, but John Legend and other "spokesmen" for the left don't seem to think there's anything wrong with CNN reporters putting their hands on women!
                    "It is a fine fox chase, my boys"

                    "It is well that war is so terrible-we would grow too fond of it"

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Massena View Post
                      The 'argument' continues along with Sanders publishing a doctored video of the incident:


                      https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...cid=spartandhp
                      Doctored? How was it doctored?
                      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


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by American87 View Post
                        That's old news. The Hill must have been snoozing the past day.
                        This is another example of the Never-Trumpers having a knee-jerk reaction to Trump's comments, then realizing there's more to the story.
                        Maybe posters here were sober about it, but John Legend and other "spokesmen" for the left don't seem to think there's anything wrong with CNN reporters putting their hands on women!
                        Watch Alex Jones much? Apparently the doctored video came from him. I watched the news conference live and saw the incident. What you believe just didn't happen. However, you may wallow in ignorance in this matter just as you have with the slavery and the Civil War issue. Are you just afraid to learn?
                        We are not now that strength which in old days
                        Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                        Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                        To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by American87 View Post
                          That's old news. The Hill must have been snoozing the past day.
                          This is another example of the Never-Trumpers having a knee-jerk reaction to Trump's comments, then realizing there's more to the story.
                          Maybe posters here were sober about it, but John Legend and other "spokesmen" for the left don't seem to think there's anything wrong with CNN reporters putting their hands on women!
                          Remember it never happened, doctored.
                          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


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Massena View Post

                            Watch Alex Jones much? Apparently the doctored video came from him. I watched the news conference live and saw the incident. What you believe just didn't happen. However, you may wallow in ignorance in this matter just as you have with the slavery and the Civil War issue. Are you just afraid to learn?
                            So post the original video to prove your point.
                            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


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Massena View Post

                              Watch Alex Jones much? Apparently the doctored video came from him. I watched the news conference live and saw the incident. What you believe just didn't happen. However, you may wallow in ignorance in this matter just as you have with the slavery and the Civil War issue. Are you just afraid to learn?
                              I'm not afraid of being called racist or sexist or any of that leftist stuff. You are, which is why you turned tail and became liberal. You don't even know what you are, you're just scared of being labeled things by the left. Say I support slavery all you want, it's OBVIOUS I don't. And yeah, Jimmy Boy Acosta definitely put his hands on a woman, and you're trying to duck under the left for cover, saying it never happened. I see you.
                              "It is a fine fox chase, my boys"

                              "It is well that war is so terrible-we would grow too fond of it"

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by 101combatvet View Post

                                Remember it never happened, doctored.
                                Democrats don't care about assaulting or raping women. It's only consensual hand movements they're concerned about.
                                "It is a fine fox chase, my boys"

                                "It is well that war is so terrible-we would grow too fond of it"

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X