Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Assault Is Wrong
Greg Gianforte.
The first question you have to wonder about concerning the assault and battery allegedly committed by Montana congressional candidate Greg Gianforte is: How could he possibly have put out a miserable, lying cover story when there were at least four witnesses in the room? The second question is: Do you regret early voting yet?
Here’s the account from Greg Gianforte’s press aide Shane Scanlon:
Tonight, as Greg was giving a separate interview in a private office, The Guardian’s Ben Jacobs entered the office without permission, aggressively shoved a recorder in Greg’s face, and began asking badgering questions. Jacobs was asked to leave. After asking Jacobs to lower the recorder, Jacobs declined. Greg then attempted to grab the phone that was pushed in his face. Jacobs grabbed Greg’s wrist, and spun away from Greg, pushing them both to the ground. It’s unfortunate that this aggressive behavior from a liberal journalist created this scene at our campaign volunteer BBQ.
Whoa. I guess the “liberal journalist” had it coming. Sure enough, there were several Republican provocateurs ready to justify an unprovoked physical attack on a journalist. I’ll come to those, but first, consider that three Fox News journalists and a reporter for BuzzFeed were in the room and saw what happened. Fox’s Alicia Acuna released a statement within hours describing things a bit differently. She and her crew were setting up for a taped interview. Ben Jacobs of the Guardian newspaper entered the room, put a microphone near Gianforte’s face, and asked questions about the CBO report on the Republican health care plan. (Who knew that those were fighting words?) Acuna continued:
Gianforte told him to talk to his press guy, Shane Scanlon. At that point, Gianforte grabbed Jacobs by the neck with both hands and slammed him into the ground behind him. Faith, Keith and I watched in disbelief as Gianforte then began punching the reporter. As Gianforte moved on top of Jacobs, he began yelling something to the effect of, ‘I’m sick and tired of this!’ Jacobs scrambled to his knees and said something about his glasses being broken. He asked Faith, Keith and myself for our names. In shock, we did not answer. Jacobs then said he wanted the police called and went to leave. Gianforte looked at the three of us and repeatedly apologized. At that point, I told him and Scanlon, who was now present, that we needed a moment. The men then left.
Jacobs’s cell phone recorded all of it. Alexis Levinson of BuzzFeed was apparently in the room as well. She tweeted “Ben walked into a room where a local tv crew was set up for an interview with Gianforte. All of a sudden I heard a giant crash and saw Ben’s feet fly in the air as he hit the floor.” Greg Gianforte appears to be guilty not just of the attack, but of attempting to smear his victim. Note that he apologized to the people he had not wronged, but not to the one he had.
In the ordinary course of politics, some overheated or criminal supporter of this or that candidate will do something felonious or (more often) tasteless and it falls to the candidate to condemn it and mouth platitudes about respect for civility, your right to say it, and the rule of law. For the candidate himself to be the (alleged) criminal is a little out of the ordinary.
But the age of Trump has corrupted a great many people and shattered norms. Those whose moral compass has long since been stashed in the bottom drawer defending the indefensible piled on to applaud Gianforte’s thuggishness. The Media Research Center’s Brent Bozell tweeted “Jacobs is an obnoxious, dishonest, first class jerk. I’m not surprised he got smacked.” (For the record, I’ve known Bozell for decades and hope this was a momentary lapse of judgment. We’ve all experienced the itchy Twitter finger.)
Laura Ingraham chose to impugn Jacobs’ manhood: “Politicians always need to keep their cool. But what would most Montana men do if ‘body slammed’ for no reason by another man?” She followed up with “Did anyone get his lunch money stolen today and then run to tell the recess monitor?”
Dinesh D’Souza struck the same tone, calling Jacobs a “crybaby,” and also implying that the story was a “scam” perpetrated by Jacobs to swing the election to the Democrat.
None of this is a gray area. You either uphold certain basic standards of decency or you don’t. Some who call themselves conservatives have shown that they are nothing of the kind. To be conservative is to be honorable. These are contemptible, partisan hacks. Let’s close with another Ingraham tweet whose cynicism passeth all understanding: “Loyalty…courage…valor…honor…truth…at risk of becoming lost virtues in Washington, DC.”
Published in General
Yes, I think many of us are in the mind of “sending more canes.”
Rhetorical question. You missed the point.
I find this an incomplete hypothetical. Much depends on the exact context, how threatening the person is, how trapped I feel. There are questions of timing, and tone, and body language, which are very hard to evaluate even with video (which we don’t appear to have in this case).
In general, I think that we’ve become too feminized as a society, and it leaves the jerks in control. I like the idea of some push-back, without being able to conclude whether it was an overreaction in this particular case.
The more I think about it, the more I think that I would be fully justified in violently taking down a guy who walked into my office, blocked me in, and wouldn’t leave when asked politely. I’m sitting at my desk right now, thinking about it. This sort of conduct deserves a trip to the hospital. Why should I let such a jerk run me out of my office? Or make me run to a security guard or police officer, if one could even be found?
My general impression is that the world was a more polite place when jerks couldn’t expect to get away with it.
As Justice Scalia once said, I seem to be getting older and crankier.
I just have to say, whatever the morals, body slamming the guy got him out of the office real quick didn’t it. So, if the goal is to get trespassers out, sounds like a good body slam is practical if not always moral.
People here know, I’m no Trump apologist, but this is completely unnecessary. Donald Trump has nothing to do with this.
He can pick up some road side trash in a reflective vest on his way to congress.
More Americans whose First Amendment rights were taken away:
Mona, are only overpaid journalists worthy of First Amendment rights?
This thread is so tribal it’s downright bizarre.
What is unasked here is whether or not the First Amendment is a free pass for being a lower body edifice for the expulsion of bodily waste. The answer is no.
The truth here is this. We’ve been suppressing all forms of physical retribution for years. Nearly two generations of Americans now believe that any and all aggressive physical response to obnoxious behavior is assault. They are incapable of providing their own self defense and they believe that nothing short of a sucker punch on their part could justify a physical response.
Here’s the real truth. If you get in someone’s face, to purposefully make them uncomfortable and persist even though it is obviously unwanted, then expect rebuke. If you get really obnoxious, expect a physical response.
The assault, by the way, is on you. The response was justified.
No, they aren’t measurably different. Did he grab him by the neck, or did he grab him by the lapels? It’s hard saying, but taken as a whole, the difference is immaterial. If she first said “He grabbed him by the neck, threw him down, then started punching him”, but then later said “Well, he shoved him, and he fell down”, then you’d have a point.
As I said in my own post this morning, I’m not sure what the correct course of action is in this situation. The candidate was in the process of giving an interview to Fox News (fellow members of the press). When this aggressive journalist hijacked the interview and wouldn’t leave, he was in effect infringing on the First Amendment rights of Fox News, who had the common decency to call ahead and set up an appointment. When the founders guaranteed freedom of the press in the Bill of Rights, I don’t think they had this particular situation in mind. There is a limit to exercise of this right. I think we have found that limit.
I just imagine it like this. If the same thing were done to a president, would the secret service take action? If yes, then it might be justified for a citizen to take action.
Disclaimer: I haven’t seen the video so I have no idea at this time.
If that response is to grab a guy by the neck or the lapels, throw him down, and start punching him, then expect to be arrested and charged with assault.
That’s because you don’t understand the tribal nature of human beings.
You mention “age of Trump,” expect the usual reaction from all tribes.
I never miss anything, owing to my superior intellect and observational skills.
It’s just your point is nonsense.
Yeah Politicians did stupid things before Trump and they will do stupid things after Trump. This story is about an election in Montana, Trumps name did not ever need to be mentioned.
I think this event is more partisan (defending a Republican) than about Trump or defending Trump.
This is all nice and good, except that one of the witnesses has walked back on her story.
http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/bombshell-montana-assault-witness-changes-story-admits-no-neck-grab/
And yes, it is nice that Mona thinks assault is wrong. It would be nice if she would bother to have informed us of this after any one of the numerous well-known instances of leftist mobs assaulting people over the last year. Somehow those escaped her attention or something.
Let he (or she) without sin cast the first stone. Where have I heard that before? And why did it pop into my head after reading this? Makes ya wonder.
It might be better for polite discussion if you did not call every comment you disagree with “nonsense”
Moderator Note:
Video deleted for profanities.Assult is Wrong (part 2)
Hmm, somewhere along the line it seems I’ve lost the ability to create posts.
If so, I would have posted about the arrest of Eric Clanton, the college instructor who struck 3 people with a bicycle lock at the Free Speech demonstration in Berkeley.
https://www.berkeleyside.com/2017/05/24/berkeley-police-arrest-eric-clanton-bike-lock-assaults/
Props to the denizens of /pol for putting weaponized autism to such excellent work!
I’m confused as to your point here. Are you saying that the actions of Eric Clanton somehow justify those outlined in the OP?
lol, you’re easily confused! No.
And then a stone falls out of the sky, knocking the woman to the ground.
An exasperated Jesus looks to the sky and sighs, “Dad. I was trying to make a point.”
:)
I agree with this. We should all speak with one voice.
I’ve been thinking about this further. The rules may be different under the criminal law, and will vary from state to state. Here are the common law rules applicable to the torts of trespass and battery. “Battery” is the tort term for a harmful physical contact, such as punching someone in the nose. It is commonly called “assault” in the criminal law, while tort law uses the term “assault” to mean the threat of harmful physical contact.
Restatement (Second) of Torts, Sec. 77:
In ordinary language, this means that you can use reasonable physical force against a trespasser who refuses a request to leave.
The amount of force must be “reasonable” and must be “not intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily harm.” “Serious bodily harm” is defined in comment b Restatement (Second) of Torts Sec. 63:
In essence, this means that a protracted, crippling injury is “serious bodily harm.” Being thrown to the ground and punched a couple of times, probably not.
[Continued]
I think what’s bothering me much more than the candidate’s and Jacobs’s actions are the Fox reporter’s actions. Her actions are damnable no matter which way it turns out events unfolded. If the candidate really was strangling the reporter and throwing him to the ground, she was wrong to not do anything. If she exaggerated when she first told the story, she was wrong to try to hurt the candidate by falsifying her first report.
I find the Fox reporter’s actions more appalling than anyone else’s here.
[Continued]
Comment j of Sec. 63 addresses reasonableness:
Notice the warning against using hindsight to judge the reasonableness of actions taken in defense. It is the aggressor — here, the trespasser — who has placed another in an emergency situation requiring a rapid decision. We should give the benefit of the doubt in such cases to the defender, not the initial aggressor.
Note also that comment j further defines “serious bodily harm,” stating that even “a blow which is likely to cause some fairly substantial injury” does not justify a response intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily harm.
As suggested by my earlier comments, you need to consider all of the facts and circumstances in evaluating a situation. Spin asked me if I would grab a trespasser in my office, throw him down, and start punching him. I called it an incomplete hypothetical, and here is why.
I’m a pretty big guy (6 feet, 265 pounds). If the intruder is little 95-pound fellow, I don’t need to throw him down and punch him. I just need to take him by the shoulders and shove him back out of my office — and probably right out of the building. On the other hand, if the intruder is formidable, I need to be worried about his retaliation, so it could be reasonable for me to take him down hard, and deliver blows until he yields.
[Continued]
[Continued]
Arizona criminal law is similar. ARS Sec. 13-407(A) provides:
Thus, in defense against criminal trespass, Arizona allows a person to threaten to use deadly physical force, and to actually use physical force, under a reasonableness standard.
That’s nice but you’ll always be an ultracrepidarian to me.