- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: CNN And Jim Acosta File Lawsuit Against Trump Administration
Posted on 11/12/18 at 10:00 am to AggieHank86
Posted on 11/12/18 at 10:00 am to AggieHank86
quote:
mic, contrary to what some have suggested, isn't an extension of his body.
quote:
Pragmatically, no. But in most jurisdictions it is treated that way for tort purposes.
Cite one case where a State or Federal court has ruled that an object a person is holding in their hand is an extension of that person's body.
1
Posted on 11/12/18 at 10:37 am to Cajunese
quote:
CNN and Jimmy got the red arse
They've had it for 2 years
Posted on 11/12/18 at 10:47 am to DawgfaninCa
quote:Fisher v Carrousel Motor Hotel, Inc., 424 S.W.2d 627 (1967).
Cite one case where a State or Federal court has ruled that an object a person is holding in their hand is an extension of that person's body.
Look, I understand that you do not like it. I even admit that it is silly in some cases. But it is the law. As in 1st semester Torts level of basic.
I hope you enjoyed your popcorn.
This post was edited on 11/12/18 at 10:48 am
Posted on 11/12/18 at 10:48 am to AggieHank86
Who owns the mic used as extension in this case?
Posted on 11/12/18 at 10:52 am to WoWyHi
quote:
Sorry, but no. A mic, contrary to what some have suggested, isn't an extension of his body. She grabbed the mic, he pushed her arm down, committing simple battery in most states
So if I snatch your hat off your head or a sign out or your hands... ?
Posted on 11/12/18 at 10:53 am to Jbird
quote:That is of no legal relevance. In Fisher, the plate belonged to the cafeteria. The relevant factor is the identity of the person holding it.
Who owns the mic used as extension in this case?
AGAIN, Acosta was being an arse. He should have surrendered the mic. That is a completely different issue from all the sky-screaming about assault and battery.
Posted on 11/12/18 at 10:53 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Fisher v Carrousel Motor Hotel, Inc., 424 S.W.2d 627 (1967).
Look, I understand that you do not like it. I even admit that it is silly in some cases. But it is the law. As in 1st semester Torts level of basic.
I hope you enjoyed your popcorn.
One thing I have learned over the years that I have been a student of the Law is to read the cited case and determine for myself the actual relevancy to the present incident being discussed.
Posted on 11/12/18 at 10:54 am to AggieHank86
quote:Almost as idiotic as his lawsuit.
AGAIN, Acosta was being an arse. He should have surrendered the mic. That is a completely different issue from all the sky-screaming about assault and battery.
Posted on 11/12/18 at 10:54 am to bmy
quote:
if I snatch your hat off your head
You get your arse beat.
Posted on 11/12/18 at 10:57 am to Jbird
quote:Not sure of your point. He is not suing for assault or battery, as I understand it. I think the suit is about revocation of his credentials.quote:Almost as idiotic as his lawsuit.
AGAIN, Acosta was being an arse. He should have surrendered the mic. That is a completely different issue from all the sky-screaming about assault and battery.
That suit may well lack merit.
Posted on 11/12/18 at 11:01 am to AggieHank86
quote:Correct.
I think the suit is about revocation of his credentials.
Posted on 11/12/18 at 11:16 am to AggieHank86
Majority
Greenhill (Author)
Holding that battery could extend beyond physical harm, Greenhill stated that it could consist of an offense to personal dignity. This could occur when another person touches something held in the hands without consent, and the plate was sufficiently identifiable with Fisher's body to find that non-permissive contact with it could have been offensive. The award of damages thus should have been sustained, since the jury reasonably could have found in Fisher's favor and was not prevented from doing so as a matter of law.
now i'm a truck driver not a lawyer but if I'm reading the majority opinion correctly for the extension of the battery to include touching of an object, there must be a finding that it was an offense to ones personal dignity when contacting the object. Would it not then apply that when the intern grabbed the microphone and Acosta yanked it back while pushing her arm away he would be the one in jeopardy in this instance?
Greenhill (Author)
Holding that battery could extend beyond physical harm, Greenhill stated that it could consist of an offense to personal dignity. This could occur when another person touches something held in the hands without consent, and the plate was sufficiently identifiable with Fisher's body to find that non-permissive contact with it could have been offensive. The award of damages thus should have been sustained, since the jury reasonably could have found in Fisher's favor and was not prevented from doing so as a matter of law.
now i'm a truck driver not a lawyer but if I'm reading the majority opinion correctly for the extension of the battery to include touching of an object, there must be a finding that it was an offense to ones personal dignity when contacting the object. Would it not then apply that when the intern grabbed the microphone and Acosta yanked it back while pushing her arm away he would be the one in jeopardy in this instance?
Posted on 11/12/18 at 11:35 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Pragmatically, no. But in most jurisdictions it is treated that way for tort purposes.
Downvote away, but it is textbook, black-letter law.
AGAIN, he was being an arse and should have surrendered the mic.
And again, by the letter of the law, that mic belonged to the White House Press Office, and as an employee the young woman was trying to keep Acosta from stealing it.
If you want to go down that dumb route.
Or you can use common sense and say "no one broke the damn law, but that a-hole is an a-hole for not giving up the mic when asked to by the god damned President of the US.
Posted on 11/12/18 at 11:50 am to Jjdoc
On what ground? 
Posted on 11/12/18 at 11:56 am to Jbird
quote:
quote:
I think the suit is about revocation of his credentials.
Correct.
*sigh*
The White House doesn't have ANYTHING to do with press credentials, they don't give them, so they can't revoke them.
What they rescinded was Accosta's "hard pass" All this is is his permanent pass to get into the White House as conveniently as possible. Hell technically they haven't even barred him from entering the White House, he'd just have to apply for a day pass each day he wanted to get in.
This is simply the liberal media trying to make this into a more major deal than it is. JA was not banned from reporting, he didn't lose any credentials..
Posted on 11/12/18 at 12:13 pm to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
Posted on 11/12/18 at 12:33 pm to Rogers Hog
I linked the first case from the search. I am not going to argue the merits of this case or any of the many, many other cases on point. It is simple, textbook, black-letter law.
Believe that or do not. Nothing I can say or do will convince someone who does not want to accept reality.
Believe that or do not. Nothing I can say or do will convince someone who does not want to accept reality.
Posted on 11/12/18 at 12:39 pm to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:HHH, sometimes you seem bright, and sometimes you get a hold onto a wrong idea and hang onto it like a rat terrier with a chicken bone.
And again, by the letter of the law, that mic belonged to the White House Press Office, and as an employee the young woman was trying to keep Acosta from stealing it.
Yes, the WH owned the mic. Yes, they were entitled to possession of it, if they wanted it. But under the law of almost EVERY jurisdiction, they are NOT entitled to exercise self-help (assault) to get it back.
Ownership of the mic is an issue COMPLETELY distinct from the question of whether attempting to snatch it from someone else's grasp constitutes an "assault" or a battery.
A less than perfect analogy. I have stolen YOUR car (ownership), and you see me three days later sitting in a parking lot. You are NOT legally entitled to shoot me thru the window (assault) to regain possession.
quote:entirely correct, as I have said approximately two dozen times.
Or you can ... say "no one broke the damn law, but that a-hole is an a-hole for not giving up the mic when asked to by the god damned President of the US.
Posted on 11/12/18 at 12:41 pm to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:Fair enough. It is a shorthand term that everyone is using. Like most shorthand terms, it is somewhat simplified.
The White House doesn't have ANYTHING to do with press credentials, they don't give them, so they can't revoke them.
What they rescinded was Accosta's "hard pass" All this is is his permanent pass to get into the White House as conveniently as possible. Hell technically they haven't even barred him from entering the White House, he'd just have to apply for a day pass each day he wanted to get in.
This is simply the liberal media trying to make this into a more major deal than it is. JA was not banned from reporting, he didn't lose any credentials.
Posted on 11/12/18 at 1:14 pm to AggieHank86
Trump should let ole Jim back in and then never ever call on him for a question, ever. Just make him sit there day after day in his own little prison. We can even keep a running tally for "days since Jim got a question"....
Page 7 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News