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
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 146 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Vice-Potentate Inactive
    Vice-Potentate
    @VicePotentate

    1) This is not a symptom of the supposed “age of Trump”

    2) Go back and look at the reactions when Dick Cheney dropped an f-bomb on Senator Leahy. It shows a similar bifurcation.

    3) We can call what happened what it is, misdemeanor assault, without hyperbole. It seems similar to a bar fight to me and my guess is if you think it’s ok to sock someone in the mouth for having it open when it should be closed at the bar you have the same reaction to Gianforte’s actions.

    4) Listen to the audio – Two things are true. The Guardian reporter is annoying in a paparazzi sort of way and, concurrently, you can’t be a politician if you let that kind of thing cause you to lose your temper.

    • #61
  2. Spin Inactive
    Spin
    @Spin

    Jager (View Comment):

    Spin (View Comment):

    B. Hugh Mann (View Comment):

    Spin (View Comment):

    B. Hugh Mann (View Comment):
    But the age of Trump has corrupted a great many people and shattered norms.

    What on earth is this? Where were you during the Obama administration? Moral compass!? Oh my word. I have read your columns for years but I’m done.

    If you read her column for years, you know where she was during the Obama administration.

    Rhetorical question. You missed the point.

    I never miss anything, owing to my superior intellect and observational skills.

    It’s just your point is nonsense.

    It might be better for polite discussion if you did not call every comment you disagree with “nonsense”

    Only the points that I disagree with that are nonsense are called nonsense.  Like your comment here is nonsense, because I clearly do not call every comment I disagree with nonsense.

    • #62
  3. Spin Inactive
    Spin
    @Spin

    B. Hugh Mann (View Comment):

    Spin (View Comment):

    B. Hugh Mann (View Comment):

    Spin (View Comment):

    B. Hugh Mann (View Comment):
    But the age of Trump has corrupted a great many people and shattered norms.

    What on earth is this? Where were you during the Obama administration? Moral compass!? Oh my word. I have read your columns for years but I’m done.

    If you read her column for years, you know where she was during the Obama administration.

    Rhetorical question. You missed the point.

    I never miss anything, owing to my superior intellect and observational skills.

    It’s just your point is nonsense.

    That’s nice but you’ll always be an ultracrepidarian to me.

    Gesundheit!

    • #63
  4. Arizona Patriot Member
    Arizona Patriot
    @ArizonaPatriot

    I have another point.  I think that Mona’s reaction, and that of many others, is the result of the insidious Left-wing devaluation of property rights over the past century or so.

    The right of property is essential to liberty, self-reliance, and personal safety and security.  If you are in your house, or apartment, or office, the essence of what makes if yours is the right to exclude others.  Storming in to private property, and refusing to leave when instructed, is a very wrongful act and a breach of the peace.

    For some reason, the Left — and even conservative friends like Mona — seem to think that people are supposed to patiently suffer such wrongful aggression, and await police intervention.  I say hogwash.

    The common law judges of jolly ol’ England, and of most American states, got this right.  We have a right to use force against intruders, and to say otherwise is to side with the wrongdoers.

    I think that many people have been influenced by the “non-violent” actions of protests with which we generally approved, such as those of Gandhi or Dr. King.  But the marches and rallies during the Civil Rights Movement were one thing, and the sit-ins were another.  The sit-ins were organized trespass, which is wrong.

    Thus, while I agree with Mona that “Assault is Wrong,” I do not agree that any assault occurred here.  As I discussed above, the use of force in defense against  a trespasser is generally not assault, and therefore not wrong.

    To be perfectly clear, I am reserving judgment on whether Mr. Gianforte used reasonable force in the circumstances.  I do not rule out the possibility, just because he threw the intruder to the ground a delivered a couple of punches.

    • #64
  5. Spin Inactive
    Spin
    @Spin

    Vice-Potentate (View Comment):
    1) This is not a symptom of the supposed “age of Trump”

    I didn’t agree with Mona’s characterizing it that way.  But, the response to Mona is clearly a symptom of the tribalism we ought to rise above.  Me good, them bad, where club?

    • #65
  6. Spin Inactive
    Spin
    @Spin

    Arizona Patriot (View Comment):
    Thus, while I agree with Mona that “Assault is Wrong,” I do not agree that any assault occurred here.

    I fully appreciate your well reasoned approach and thoughtful rational for your opinion.  I disagree a bit, but it is not nonsense.

    I wish I wasn’t such a dihufinator or whatever that other guy called me, then I’d understand better.  ;-)

    • #66
  7. Arizona Patriot Member
    Arizona Patriot
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Here are the Montana statutes that seem to be applicable:

    45-3-103. Use of force in defense of occupied structure. (1) A person is justified in the use of force or threat to use force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the use of force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person’s unlawful entry into or attack upon an occupied structure.
    (2) A person justified in the use of force pursuant to subsection (1) is justified in the use of force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm only if:
    (a) the entry is made or attempted and the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent an assault upon the person or another then in the occupied structure; or
    (b) the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony in the occupied structure.

    45-3-104. Use of force in defense of other property. A person is justified in the use of force or threat to use force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person’s trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with either real property, other than an occupied structure, or personal property lawfully in the person’s possession or in the possession of another who is a member of the person’s immediate family or household or of a person whose property the person has a legal duty to protect. However, the person is justified in the use of force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm only if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

    45-3-110. No duty to summon help or flee. Except as provided in 45-3-105, a person who is lawfully in a place or location and who is threatened with bodily injury or loss of life has no duty to retreat from a threat or summon law enforcement assistance prior to using force. The provisions of this section apply to a person offering evidence of justifiable use of force under 45-3-102, 45-3-103, or 45-3-104.

    • #67
  8. Umbra Fractus Inactive
    Umbra Fractus
    @UmbraFractus

    Ekosj (View Comment):
    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.

    I can’t speak for Mona, but I assure you, I’ve never chokeslammed a journalist.

    • #68
  9. Arizona Patriot Member
    Arizona Patriot
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Spin (View Comment):

    Arizona Patriot (View Comment):
    Thus, while I agree with Mona that “Assault is Wrong,” I do not agree that any assault occurred here.

    I fully appreciate your well reasoned approach and thoughtful rational for your opinion. I disagree a bit, but it is not nonsense.

    I wish I wasn’t such a dihufinator or whatever that other guy called me, then I’d understand better. ?

    I suspect that we disagree about application of principles in the particular circumstances described in the Montana incident, and perhaps not even there.  I just don’t yet know enough to draw a conclusion, and am very inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the person defending himself or his property.  I mean, if Mr. Gianforte made like the Bear Jew and took a baseball bat to the guy, I’d agree that it was excessive force.

    • #69
  10. Spin Inactive
    Spin
    @Spin

    EJHill (View Comment):

    Spin: Again, to categorize a clarification between “hands around the neck” and “hands near the neck” is no retraction, no changing of the story, no backpedaling. It’s a clarification.

    You change your story then you’re retracting. A retraction is a clarification. You’re parsing it in a very lawyerly way. Depends what the meaning of “is” is.

    Hogwash.

    • #70
  11. Damocles Inactive
    Damocles
    @Damocles

    Spin (View Comment):

    Vice-Potentate (View Comment):
    1) This is not a symptom of the supposed “age of Trump”

    I didn’t agree with Mona’s characterizing it that way. But, the response to Mona is clearly a symptom of the tribalism we ought to rise above. Me good, them bad, where club?

    You’re being blinded by your own tribalism, or else you would have said that Mona’s comment is clearly a symptom of the tribalism we ought to rise above.

    • #71
  12. Spin Inactive
    Spin
    @Spin

    Arizona Patriot (View Comment):

    Spin (View Comment):

    Arizona Patriot (View Comment):
    Thus, while I agree with Mona that “Assault is Wrong,” I do not agree that any assault occurred here.

    I fully appreciate your well reasoned approach and thoughtful rational for your opinion. I disagree a bit, but it is not nonsense.

    I wish I wasn’t such a dihufinator or whatever that other guy called me, then I’d understand better. ?

    I suspect that we disagree about application of principles in the particular circumstances described in the Montana incident, and perhaps not even there. I just don’t yet know enough to draw a conclusion, and am very inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the person defending himself or his property. I mean, if Mr. Gianforte made like the Bear Jew and took a baseball bat to the guy, I’d agree that it was excessive force.

    I agree that we do not know the full extent of what happened and should be willing to assess what we know, then reassess when new information comes out.

    For my part, I doubt much that I’d body slam someone then start punching them because they got in my face.  I spent a goodly number of years studying karate, and one consistent message was “When presented with a physical challenge, your first and best option is to walk away.”  I did once go after a guy with the heavy end of a pool cue for not giving me back something I loaned him.  I was maybe 20, and I’m dang lucky my room mate tackled me.  It was one of the few times in my life I’ve literally seen red, and thinking back on it, once I was calmed down, I was more than a little frightened at how angry I became, and what I might have done.

    • #72
  13. Spin Inactive
    Spin
    @Spin

    Damocles (View Comment):

    Spin (View Comment):

    Vice-Potentate (View Comment):
    1) This is not a symptom of the supposed “age of Trump”

    I didn’t agree with Mona’s characterizing it that way. But, the response to Mona is clearly a symptom of the tribalism we ought to rise above. Me good, them bad, where club?

    You’re being blinded by your own tribalism, or else you would have said that Mona’s comment is clearly a symptom of the tribalism we ought to rise above.

    You are being blinded by the blindness with which you have been blinded, causing a blindingly obvious blindness that causes one to trip and fall!

    Serious response:  I didn’t make the point because someone already did.  And then I agreed with it.  I’ll try to get on that quicker next time, just for you.

    • #73
  14. Vice-Potentate Inactive
    Vice-Potentate
    @VicePotentate

    Spin (View Comment):

    Vice-Potentate (View Comment):
    1) This is not a symptom of the supposed “age of Trump”

    I didn’t agree with Mona’s characterizing it that way. But, the response to Mona is clearly a symptom of the tribalism we ought to rise above. Me good, them bad, where club?

    She shouldn’t have mentioned it at all. It has no bearing on her argument. It was bound to stir up a response that disregards the merits of her argument. I would call it a rhetorical gaffe.

    • #74
  15. Spin Inactive
    Spin
    @Spin

    Umbra Fractus (View Comment):

    Ekosj (View Comment):
    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.

    I can’t speak for Mona, but I assure you, I’ve never chokeslammed a journalist.

    Owing to your girlish nature.  Real men chokeslam dudes what get in their faces!  Wait…are you a man or a woman.  I feel like I should have asked that question ahead of time.

    • #75
  16. Spin Inactive
    Spin
    @Spin

    Vice-Potentate (View Comment):

    Spin (View Comment):

    Vice-Potentate (View Comment):
    1) This is not a symptom of the supposed “age of Trump”

    I didn’t agree with Mona’s characterizing it that way. But, the response to Mona is clearly a symptom of the tribalism we ought to rise above. Me good, them bad, where club?

    She shouldn’t have mentioned it at all. It has no bearing on her argument. It was bound to stir up a response that disregards the merits of her argument. I would call it a rhetorical gaffe.

    Ok, but we are grownups.  Well, you guys are, Jamie and I aren’t.  But still, we can read a piece, agree with some points, disagree with others, and not say “What, that one thing!  Everything else is wrong I say!”  right?

    • #76
  17. Kate Braestrup Member
    Kate Braestrup
    @GrannyDude

    Arizona Patriot (View Comment):
    But the marches and rallies during the Civil Rights Movement were one thing, and the sit-ins were another. The sit-ins were organized trespass, which is wrong.

    Small point: they were consciously allowing people to react to their trespass because the objection to their presence (e.g. “they’re black”) was wrong. They were also willing to pay the price. Totally different thing; I agree that there are people who don’t quite grasp that if you behave aggressively (coming into and remaining within a space that belongs to someone else) it is quite likely that you will be met with aggression. Probably not a choke-and-body-slam, but something you won’t like.

    Press coverage of Trump supporter’s (over-) reaction to the provocation of provocateurs showing up at Trump rallies underlines the idea that no one is justified in using force against you no matter what. Not so.

    Though I tend to agree that the candidate, in this case, would have done better to just signal (“Call 5-oh”) and stall until the po-po gets there. Because he’s a candidate. 

    • #77
  18. Damocles Inactive
    Damocles
    @Damocles

    Vice-Potentate (View Comment):

    Spin (View Comment):

    Vice-Potentate (View Comment):
    1) This is not a symptom of the supposed “age of Trump”

    I didn’t agree with Mona’s characterizing it that way. But, the response to Mona is clearly a symptom of the tribalism we ought to rise above. Me good, them bad, where club?

    She shouldn’t have mentioned it at all. It has no bearing on her argument. It was bound to stir up a response that disregards the merits of her argument. I would call it a rhetorical gaffe.

    Sadly the article would have only received three comments if it hadn’t had that.

    Plus it gives all sides more discussion points for discussing the NeverTrumpers’ NeverTrumperism!

    • #78
  19. Larry Koler Inactive
    Larry Koler
    @LarryKoler

    I just hope he garners more votes because of this reaction. People from Montana: please stand with the man.

    • #79
  20. Damocles Inactive
    Damocles
    @Damocles

    Spin (View Comment):

    Damocles (View Comment):

    Spin (View Comment):

    Vice-Potentate (View Comment):
    1) This is not a symptom of the supposed “age of Trump”

    I didn’t agree with Mona’s characterizing it that way. But, the response to Mona is clearly a symptom of the tribalism we ought to rise above. Me good, them bad, where club?

    You’re being blinded by your own tribalism, or else you would have said that Mona’s comment is clearly a symptom of the tribalism we ought to rise above.

    You are being blinded by the blindness with which you have been blinded, causing a blindingly obvious blindness that causes one to trip and fall!

    Serious response: I didn’t make the point because someone already did. And then I agreed with it. I’ll try to get on that quicker next time, just for you.

    Only if you promise to type it R-E-A-L S-L-O-W so I can keep up!

    • #80
  21. ModEcon Inactive
    ModEcon
    @ModEcon

    Arizona Patriot (View Comment):
    Here are the Montana statutes that seem to be applicable:

    45-3-103. Use of force in defense of occupied structure. (1) A person is justified in the use of force or threat to use force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the use of force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person’s unlawful entry into or attack upon an occupied structure.
    (2) A person justified in the use of force pursuant to subsection (1) is justified in the use of force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm only if:
    (a) the entry is made or attempted and the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent an assault upon the person or another then in the occupied structure; or
    (b) the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony in the occupied structure.

    45-3-104. Use of force in defense of other property. A person is justified in the use of force or threat to use force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person’s trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with either real property, other than an occupied structure, or personal property lawfully in the person’s possession or in the possession of another who is a member of the person’s immediate family or household or of a person whose property the person has a legal duty to protect. However, the person is justified in the use of force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm only if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

    Thanks to @arizonapatriot for going to the law.

    It is interesting to see some of the sections I bolded in this last part. Well, I don’t think a jury would be on the candidates side, but it is close to being able to be interpreted that the candidate was using “necessary force to terminate the trespass” of the journalist. The problem is that the candidate didn’t specifically ask the reporter to leave in an uncertain way, instead only asked that they speak to “Shane” instead. So, the candidate didn’t actually ask the reporter to leave before using force, and the reporter was not threatening harm to the candidate, so the candidate is violating the law in this case as far as I can tell. Also, it is unclear to me whether the reporter was actually trespassing. He wasn’t invited to the interview, but he may have been invited into the building and that makes it even difficult to prove that the reporter was not supposed to be in that same room.

    • #81
  22. Dorrk Inactive
    Dorrk
    @Dorrk

    If there were “at least 4” witnesses and we have only two accounts that are different and possibly untrustworthy, then I will reserve judgement until the other witnesses come forward to support and existing account or provide their own. No point staking out territory in a debate without a better idea of what actually happened.

    • #82
  23. The Cloaked Gaijin Member
    The Cloaked Gaijin
    @TheCloakedGaijin

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    (What now!?)

    (Beware the software developer who can throw a punch?)

    Something happened very fast between second number 4 and second number 5 on that recording.  I don’t know what set him off.  I bet Jacobs stuck a recording device or microphone about one inch from Gianforte’s face in an effort to get this sort of reaction, if possible.

    If so, would sticking something in someone’s face like that be considered assault also?  It seems like it might come rather close to that?

    It’s like the Michelle Fields and Corey Lewandowski incident.  I could see both sides of that story.  Here’s the wikipedia quote from that incident: “Prosecutors determined that ‘there was probable cause to make an arrest’ and ‘the facts support the allegation that Mr. Lewandowski did grab Ms. Fields’ arm against her will’ but that ‘the evidence cannot prove all legally required elements of the crime alleged and is insufficient to support a criminal prosecution.'”

    drlorentz (View Comment):

    Mona Charen: Assault Is Wrong

    …You’ll earn the approbation of the amen corner in the leftist media…

    Were there millions of Democrats, if not just one, who refused to support Hillary Clinton for president due to her husband’s (alleged) assaults against Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, and whoever else?

    I think I would look to see if this was one isolated incident or if the Republican candidate has done many upsetting things in the past.

    One also has to compare the Republican candidate to the Democrat candidate.  Would someone feel differently if it was a Senate race where the parties are almost equally divided and the term is for 6 years?  I remember how I felt in 2012 about the idea of having Claire McCaskill serve another 6 years after she somehow sneaked into office during a 2006 wave election.

    The Media Research Center’s Brent Bozell tweeted “Jacobs is an obnoxious, dishonest, first class jerk. I’m not surprised he got smacked.”

    Bozell doesn’t defend anyone.  He just gives his opinion of the reporter.  Some reporters seem to use “obnoxious(ness), dishonest(y), …jerk(ness)” as battle tactics to shape stories the way they want.

    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.

    D’Souza went to jail for his First Amendment rights, although I suppose the Left would consider his actions money laundering or something and would fear Justice Thomas’s idea about protecting the anonymity of contributors to organizations exercising free speech.  Maybe D’Souza should not have called him a “crybaby,” but doesn’t this sort of thing happen frequently especially during special elections when all the country’s political reporters have nothing better to do?

    The news media seems to run the Democrat Party these days and not the other way around.

    • #83
  24. Arizona Patriot Member
    Arizona Patriot
    @ArizonaPatriot

    ModEcon (View Comment):

    Well, I don’t think a jury would be on the candidates side, but it is close to being able to be interpreted that the candidate was using “necessary force to terminate the trespass” of the journalist. The problem is that the candidate didn’t specifically ask the reporter to leave in an uncertain way, instead only asked that they speak to “Shane” instead. So, the candidate didn’t actually ask the reporter to leave before using force, and the reporter was not threatening harm to the candidate, so the candidate is violating the law in this case as far as I can tell. Also, it is unclear to me whether the reporter was actually trespassing. He wasn’t invited to the interview, but he may have been invited into the building and that makes it even difficult to prove that the reporter was not supposed to be in that same room.

    I don’t think that we know whether the Guardian reporter was asked to leave.  According to the OP, Mr. Gianforte’s press aide (Shane Scanlan) said that he was asked to leave.  This detail is not mentioned by the Fox reporter (Alicia Acuna), but is not denied, either.  I see no reason to rush to judgment about this incident.

    • #84
  25. Umbra Fractus Inactive
    Umbra Fractus
    @UmbraFractus

    EJHill (View Comment):
    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.

    Actually, the answer is yes. That’s kind of the whole point. Just replace [redacted] with bigot and you have the rationale for speech codes.


    Most of the defenses of Gianforte seem to hinge around the idea that Jacobs getting in his face constituted assault, which means reasonable force may be justified. Also, from listening to the audio, Jacobs doesn’t sound all that hurt; his tone suggests more, “I can’t believe you did that,” rather than, “Oh, G-d, the pain!”

    • #85
  26. The Cloaked Gaijin Member
    The Cloaked Gaijin
    @TheCloakedGaijin

    ModEcon (View Comment):

    > The problem is that the candidate didn’t specifically ask the reporter to leave in an uncertain way, instead only asked that they speak to “Shane” instead. So, the candidate didn’t actually ask the reporter to leave before using force…

    This sounds like a child arguing with an adult.

    “…later…”

    It was his campaign event right?

    (“I’m not touching you.  I’m not touching you.”)

    I think some Big Sky Country people might require more additional personal space than your typical urban reporter…

     

     

     

    • #86
  27. Doug Kimball Thatcher
    Doug Kimball
    @DougKimball

    Spin (View Comment):

    Doug Kimball (View Comment):
    If you get really obnoxious, expect a physical response.

    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.

    Not this guy.  I would simply put him to sleep.  Even at 62, I think I could do it easily.

    • #87
  28. Doug Kimball Thatcher
    Doug Kimball
    @DougKimball

    Spin (View Comment):

    Doug Kimball (View Comment):
    If you get really obnoxious, expect a physical response.

    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.

    Fair point, charged,  but not necessarily found at fault.

    • #88
  29. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    EJHill (View Comment):
    However, Acuna retracted a major point of her “eyewitness” account in an interview with Laura Ingraham on her radio show:

    Ingraham: “One of you guys said last night that he put his hands around his neck. Which, as somebody who’s done a lot of taekwondo and self-defense, to me that seemed, that might not be exactly right.”

    Acuna: “You know, and I’m the one who said that. I saw both his hands go up, not around his neck in a strangling type of way, but more just on each side of his neck, just grabbed him and I guess it could’ve been on his clothes, I don’t know.”

    Ingraham asked Acuna if that meant she was changing her story.

    Ingraham: “Again, just to clarify, he didn’t grab him by the neck with both hands in the way that was initially described, that’s not quite accurate.”

    Acura: “​No, so it wasn’t like he grabbed him around the neck, he had one hand on each side of his neck.”

    In other words, you’re highlighting a description of an event that is no longer considered the truth. And that’s wrong, too.

    But he still bodyslammed and punched the guy right? So it’s still assault and battery.

    Not good. But at least he’s not Jeb Bush.

    • #89
  30. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Arizona Patriot (View Comment):
    I don’t think that we know whether the Guardian reporter was asked to leave. According to the OP, Mr. Gianforte’s press aide (Shane Scanlan) said that he was asked to leave. This detail is not mentioned by the Fox reporter (Alicia Acuna), but is not denied, either. I see no reason to rush to judgment about this incident.

    President Obama is the one who decides whether or not we should rush to judgment.

    • #90
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.