> So if someone reaches for your fork at lunch today and then accuses you of assault, that might be OK technically too?
Lets be clear with this analogy that the fork isn't mine but in fact the person taking it back in this situation. It was provided to me to use. It was the white house's mic given to him to ask his questions. If its their property can't they take it back when they so chose?
The reason I say it might be technically is because some define assault as unwanted contact or battery (https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/assault-and-ba...). Like I said I don't really want to go down that rabbit hole of an argument. If it is or isn't doesn't matter to me I just don't think it was appropriate.
2. The White House lied, accused him of assault, and used doctored evidence to prove that.
I think #1 is probably true but don't care. I think #2 is a disaster for the free press and civil society, and so would you if this was anything but politics. You can't accuse people of serious crimes without evidence. And the fact that you won't even nod to this in the slightest tells me you aren't being serious here. You seem genuinely fine with lying people if you think they're assholes.
I think we can agree on 1 and I think we agree two wrongs don't make a right.
But 2 is more so nuance and takes a little unpacking. From the article: "There's no evidence that the video was deliberately sped up — but the change in format, from a high-quality video to a low-quality GIF, turns the question of whether it was "doctored" into a semantic debate."
I agree with that statement and like I said this conversation is a distraction from the event that took place and if we think this is acceptable behavior.
My response to your response was "It isn't ok to fabricate evidence." Again I don't think this was fabricated in that it never happened. If we change the term to "doctored" if it is or isn't doesn't change to that event didn't happen. It would be foolish to intentionally create a doctored video given the amount of coverage this got, the amount of scrutiny around it, and it didn't look good in the first place.
>The White House lied, accused him of assault
This is the part that I don't think I agree with you or at least I'm not sure what you mean. I haven't seen trump or the sanders come out and call this assault. Please correct me if I'm wrong on that. Now absolutely some in the media and trump supporters have called it that or used that wording and I don't agree. Trump even talked to the press today about this and said 'he was not nice to that young women. I don't hold him for that since it wasn't overly horrible'[1] and also called him unprofessional. I'm not sure what you mean by lied unless you're referring that to the video.
>You can't accuse people of serious crimes without evidence. And the fact that you won't even nod to this in the slightest tells me you aren't being serious here.
I've never said he committed a crime and said I'm not in the camp to call this assault. Some absolutely have and I don't agree with that. There is evidence though the he touched her without consent so again that's an argument of if it is or isn't assault and I wouldn't call it that. Its not as if we'll see charges pressed and if we did that would be ridiculous.
> You can't accuse people of serious crimes without evidence
I agreed that isn't right. Again there is a video showing there was contact so there is evidence something happened. I say again I don't think what he did was acceptable behavior and never accused him of a serious crime.
>You seem genuinely fine with lying people if you think they're assholes.
I'm ok with liers so long as I think they're aholes? I'm being civil here and enjoying the discussion. Please don't say I'm ok with this.
I'm sorry, but you're simply being disingenous here. If you saw this very same video about a non-political, plausibly right leaning guy whose arm got bumped by some woman trying to take away what was in his hand, you would freak the fuck out about the outrageous injustice of punishing him because he had "laid his hand on her".
This is conservative anti-SJW fetish material right here. But because the victim was a supporter of your favorite politician...
The thing is I wouldn't. There is nothing to freak out over this as I said I don't find the behavior acceptable and unprofessional. That is it. I'm not up in arms or that he should be fired or anything.
>But because the victim was a supporter of your favorite politician...
That's also the thing. He's not nor are any of them. We also don't know that the victim in this was a trump supporter. She works at the white house running the mic during the briefing. Her political affiliation doesn't matter either way. This is what strikes me as odd that to say how someone acted towards the president and staff requires there to be a political leaning to decide if it was ok or not. Not in my book, I didn't like it under previous administrations (joe wilson yelling 'you lie' during one of obama's address as an example) nor do I like it now.
I love that you keep calling people out on hyperbolic language yet insist on calling this woman, who initiated the physical contact and got her arm bumped, a "victim".
Lets be clear with this analogy that the fork isn't mine but in fact the person taking it back in this situation. It was provided to me to use. It was the white house's mic given to him to ask his questions. If its their property can't they take it back when they so chose?
The reason I say it might be technically is because some define assault as unwanted contact or battery (https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/assault-and-ba...). Like I said I don't really want to go down that rabbit hole of an argument. If it is or isn't doesn't matter to me I just don't think it was appropriate.