- 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 4:55 pm to Rogers Hog
Posted on 11/12/18 at 4:55 pm to Rogers Hog
Of course. And he knows that. Additionally, there was no mens rea on her part to commit a battery. She was reaching for a microphone that she was the custodian of. Any reasonable person would have done the same. She could not have known that Acosta would react violently. She committed no criminal act, nor did she even commit a tortuous battery. Acosta, however, committed a criminal battery when he struck the young woman’s arm.
2
Posted on 11/12/18 at 5:24 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Andrea Mitchell, I believe. But a great "gotcha" dismissal.
Thanks for straighting me out. I recall Sam telling the story or maybe I read about it in Sam's book and thought it was his exchange.
quote:
The difference between Donaldson and Acosta, is Donaldson knew his role. He knew his place. Donaldson talks now with respect and deference to Reagan. Acosta is trailer trash with a microphone.
I agree. Today's press is just pathetic. From the time Trump announced he was running, they have been in gotcha mode. Many times the questions they asked are asked to make a point not find out information. That actually plays into Trump's hand.
Posted on 11/12/18 at 5:43 pm to Jjdoc
Kellyanne Conway will have the exact definition and make it all clear to why it happened.
Posted on 11/12/18 at 5:53 pm to BBONDS25
quote:I have no idea what you mean, because several different scenarios have been discussed.
Your analysis regarding the legality of reaching for the microphone was not very accurate.
In each case, I have mostly been looking at it from the tort perspective.
If you are talking about the contact between her and his left arm while she was reaching across his body for the mic in his right hand, any reasonable person will acknowledge that the contact was unintended by either of them and totally incidental. This is why I have argued against all the hysterical arguments that he shoved her, hit her with a karate chop and such utter nonsense.
THAT is how I got involved in this ridiculous discussion.
To the extent that there was ANY tort, it was committed by her, because she was affirmatively reaching for him, while he probably did not even see her there. Mens rea.
(Yes, I understand that some insist that he initiated contact with her instead. I respectfully disagree.)
If we are talking about her grabbing the mic in his hand, that is an entirely different analysis, as you know. From a tort perspective, she would have initiated THAT contact, and it would be a tort on her part, as has been discussed in depth. Again, this is 1st-semester analysis, and the lawyer on The View was correct.
Criminal law varies much more from state to state, as you know.
Posted on 11/12/18 at 5:56 pm to BBONDS25
quote:More hysterical nonsense. Neither of them had any mens rea at all. It was totally incidental contact.
Of course. And he knows that. Additionally, there was no mens rea on her part to commit a battery. She was reaching for a microphone that she was the custodian of. Any reasonable person would have done the same. She could not have known that Acosta would react violently. She committed no criminal act, nor did she even commit a tortuous battery. Acosta, however, committed a criminal battery when he struck the young woman’s arm.
To the extent that there existed ANY mens rea, she clearly had the intent to reach for him, and he likely had no knowledge that she was even there until they touched one another.
He certainly did not intentionally strike her arm.
Posted on 11/12/18 at 5:57 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
It was totally incidental contact
Holy shite
Posted on 11/12/18 at 5:58 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
More hysterical nonsense. Neither of them had any mens rea at all. It was totally incidental contact.
She had no intent to touch him. She was reaching for the microphone as would anyone in her position. He intentionally hit her arm to stop her from taking the microphone. Neither will be prosecuted. So it’s all academic. However, strict interpretation of the law...he committed a battery.
Posted on 11/12/18 at 6:02 pm to Dale51
quote:
With the microphone?? Yes...that's her job. The Accoster initiated contact with her flesh. Is there a bruise?..no, but it was enough contact to cause her to cave in her elbow.
He assaulted her. I saw it!
#hertoo
Posted on 11/12/18 at 6:04 pm to BBONDS25
quote:You think he intentionally hit her. I think that only a blind partisan would see the matter that way.
He intentionally hit her arm to stop her from taking the microphone.
To me it looks like he was gesturing toward the podium and their arms made incidental contact as she reached across his body. Hence, no mens rea on either side. But Trumpettes cannot accept this analysis. Anyone who challenges their GEOTUS must be totally at fault in each and every way. Totally predictable.
I agree that she did not intend to touch his left arm, but she DID intent to to make contact with the mic in his right arm. To the extent that any mens rea exists (which I doubt), this is where it is found.
Was there pragmatic fault here? Sure. Acosta was being an arse and should have surrendered the mic.
That is a long, long way from Acosta committing either a tort or a criminal assault.
This post was edited on 11/12/18 at 6:21 pm
Posted on 11/12/18 at 6:06 pm to Vacherie Saint
The dude was invited into another man's home, who doesn't even like him personally, to have a conversation with him then proceeded to treat the fricking president of the United States like a hostile witness.
Then, to make matters worse, he was asked to cooperate and refused. He's lucky he didnt get arrested for trespassing. Now he has the gall to sue?!
Then, to make matters worse, he was asked to cooperate and refused. He's lucky he didnt get arrested for trespassing. Now he has the gall to sue?!
Posted on 11/12/18 at 6:07 pm to Turbeauxdog
quote:This confirms my point. Acosta is a Trump opponent. No one argues this. Because of this, a totally incidental touching of two arms simply CANNOT be perceived as incidental. Any Trump opponent simply MUST be demonized in every way.quote:Holy shite
It was totally incidental contact
It is not enough to say that he was an arse and should have surrendered the mic. He MUST also be wild-eyed physical assailant.
It is laughable.
Posted on 11/12/18 at 6:08 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
She could not have known that Acosta would react violently.
Violently?
LOL.
That's slander.
Posted on 11/12/18 at 6:13 pm to Rex
quote:
That's slander.
Truth is the ultimate defense.
Posted on 11/12/18 at 6:19 pm to bmy
quote:
She was clearly the aggressive one
Up voted for humor
Posted on 11/12/18 at 7:08 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
There is no right to press access in any private location.
This completely depends on which left wing, lunatic judge is hearing the case.
Posted on 11/12/18 at 7:11 pm to Rex
How many dogs have you molested since you've been gone? Be honest.
Posted on 11/13/18 at 8:13 am to AggieHank86
quote:
HHH, you may well be a certified super-genius with in IQ in the 4th SD, but I guarantee that you are not an attorney.
You do not want to learn. Enjoy your ignorance.
You're right I'm not an attorney I'm a retired criminal investigator. That doesn't have anything to do with the fact that you are entirely wrong when you claim that a person does not have the right to use force to prevent the theft of their property, you absolutely DO have the right to use force to protect your property in most jurisdictions, including Washington DC.
Posted on 11/13/18 at 9:23 am to AggieHank86
quote:
If you are talking about the contact between her and his left arm while she was reaching across his body for the mic in his right hand, any reasonable person will acknowledge that the contact was unintended by either of them and totally incidental.
The female intern did not commit battery against Acosta because any contact she made (if any) with Acosta was accidental in the course of her doing her job to grab the mic.
To claim she committed battery is be like claiming someone who taps you on the shoulder to ask you a question is guilty of battery which the courts have ruled it is not.
quote:
To the extent that there was ANY tort, it was committed by her, because she was affirmatively reaching for him, while he probably did not even see her there. Mens rea.
Acosta saw her there and deliberately kept the mic away from her reach when he saw her reach for it.
Then Acosta deliberately blocked her hand from getting the mic by physically touching her arm with his left arm.
quote:
If we are talking about her grabbing the mic in his hand, that is an entirely different analysis, as you know. From a tort perspective, she would have initiated THAT contact, and it would be a tort on her part, as has been discussed in depth. Again, this is 1st-semester analysis, and the lawyer on The View was correct.
Meh, it's her job to grab the mic from reporters and give it to the next reporter so for you to claim she committed battery is absurd.
According to your legal logic, if she tapped him on the shoulder to ask him to give her the mic then she would be committing battery and that is an absurd interpretation of the law.
This post was edited on 11/13/18 at 9:27 am
Page 9 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News