monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

I doubt it will be found to be legal either.

I don't (doubt it, that is).

If I'm sitting in my living room, look up and see some intruder standing over me, I don't have to "ask" him to leave. He has no right to be there in the first place, and we both know that. So does "the law." I don't need him to "consent" to leave.

But if I do ask, and he won't leave, that makes it even worse for him. I don't have to "call the police" while he stands there (although I can). I have the right to defend my property and my privacy from trespassers, within reason.

I have the right grab the guy by his shirt, his hair, or whatever and forcibly eject his sorry ass from my property. His getting "roughed up" is his fault, not mine.

You may have personally done things differently, and that may well have been "best." But such preferences are not "the law."

1 Reply

@layman,

Well we'll see since he was charged with assault.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

body slamming him and punching him (as two FOX reporters who witnessed the incident claim) is not an appropriate response to someone not heeding a demand to leave one's office...

I don't know what happened, exactly, but one of those same FOX reporters originally said Gianforte grabbed the guy by the neck. When questioned in more detail, she completely changed her story.

There are no striking sounds on the audio tape that I can hear--no audible evidence of anyone being "hit." Eyewitnesses often get mistaken impressions, especially with events that are over within a second or two, so who knows? Let the guy have his trial. I'm sure he will raise the trespassing issue in his defense. The only question might be whether the force used was "excessive," but that's a hard case to prove.

1 Reply

@snood,

Trump's gracelessness on this recent trip was embarrassing. I wasn't expecting him to be elegant, but I thought he would attempt to behave as if he represented the United States. Dignity went out the window when he shoved the Prime Minister out of his way, without so much as a glance in the man's direction.

The decision to call for a moment of silence in honor of the victims in Manchester should have been a solemn act, but it seemed presumptuous coming from Trump. But maybe the Queen asked him to officiate on behalf of the UK, unlikely, but we live in an uncertain world. I winced a little, when Trump complained that other nations were not carrying their weight regarding NATO.....but it was because Trump doesn't pay his personal bills unless he gets sued and isn't the slightest bit interested in paying taxes to help fund the United States of America.

Trump is that guy at a party who tells off colour jokes to your mother, or belches in your boss's face while shaking his/her hand. He just doesn't respect boundaries, neither personal or national. It's embarrassing.

2 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

I don't know what happened, exactly, but one of those same FOX reporters originally said Gianforte grabbed the guy by the neck. When questioned in more detail, she completely changed her story.

Hey, she's from Fox. That's the same as saying a conservative completely changed her/his story. You guys do it all the time. Even Dem-Cons do.

0 Replies

@glitterbag,

Quote:

I thought he would attempt to behave as if he represented the United States.

The really sad thing is - he probably thinks he did. Bigly.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Right. One thing I dislike about this whole affair is the conclusive condemnation based only on unproven allegations. The guy is a "thug," the cheese-eaters claim:

Quote:

In a late-night editorial, the Missoulian wrote:

“The Republican candidate for Congress not only lost the endorsement of this newspaper Wednesday night when, according to witnesses, he put his hands around the throat of a reporter asking him about his health care stance, threw him to the ground and punched him — he should lose the confidence of all Montanans.”

So, this newspaper urges all voters to abandon Gianforte based ONLY ON allegations which that witness later admitted were wrong (that he "put his hands around the throat of a reporter").

To my knowledge, Jacobs himself has never claimed that Gianforte "hit" him, either. He just says he was "body-slammed" and claimed that's what broke his glasses. He said he was "pretty sure" that Gianforte was "on top of him, but only for a second," but made he no suggestion whatsoever that he had been "punched." But now, of course, the "truth" is that he was grabbed by the neck and punched.

It's the same with Trump--the mere allegation "proves" guilt, if you ask a cheese-eater.

1 Reply

Understandably you focus on domestic affairs - while we here in Europe are quite a bit shaken by Trump's Europe tour.

The Belgian media reported that while eating "a lot" of "the best" chocolates, Trump revealed to prime minister Charles Michel that his frequent criticisms of the EU were due largely to his personal experiences trying to set up businesses there (In Scotland and Ireland, roubly with pub licences ).
He was still and repeatedly suggesting that the USA has different trade deals e.g. with Germany and Belgium.
He had publicly described the extreme right Marine Le Pen as "the strongest" candidate in France’s presidential election - now he told president Maron "you were my guy".

Actually nothing surprising and worth to mention ...

0 Replies

@layman,

One gets the impression there's a lot of people who don't know this: In this country, one is not permitted to testify in court about what an alleged eyewitness told him. That's called "hearsay" and is generally inadmissible as evidence.

The alleged "eyewitness" himself must make the allegation, under oath, in open court, and be fully subject to cross-examination.

Claiming to "know something" because someone told it to you is an obvious mistake. When someone (like a cheese-eater here) pretends he "knows" something because he was told, by a guy who was told (a reporter), by a guy who claims to know is what would be called "double hearsay," which is doubly dubious.

2 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

One gets the impression there's a lot of people who don't know this: In this country, one is not permitted to testify in court about what an alleged eyewitness told him. That's called "hearsay" and is generally inadmissible as evidence.

Federal Rules of Evidence, Article VIII. Hearsay Rule 801. (There are twenty-four exceptions in the federal rules)
But who was testifying in what court you are now referring at?

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Quote:

But who was testifying in what court you are now referring at?

I wasn't talking about any particular "who," Walt, or any particular "court." I was simply making an observation about the unreliability of hearsay and, implicitly, about the general tendency of cheese-eaters to "convict" on the basis of what would be inadmissible hearsay--prohibited in every court in America.

Read the post (about Gianforte) that I was "supplementing" if you really care to understand the topic I was addressing, eh?

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

The alleged "eyewitness" himself must make the allegation, under oath, in open court, and be fully subject to cross-examination.

Try sueing a pharmaceutical corp, because their vaccine injured your child's health.

You can't cite precedence, and you can't use peer-reviewed science to back your claim.

1 Reply

@Builder,

Builder wrote:

You can't cite precedence, and you can't use peer-reviewed science to back your claim.

Where did you hear that, Builda? From what I understand, you can have "expert witnesses" testify in court, but, yeah, you can't just introduce a paper (if that's what you mean by "peer-reviewed science"), which aint subject to cross-examination, as "evidence."

But you can always cite LEGAL precedents to the court. But that's not "evidence" of facts. It's just used to bolster arguments about "the law," not the facts.

0 Replies

Quote:

Donald Trump's son-in-law attempted to set up secret communications with Moscow a month after Mr Trump's election, US media say.

Jared Kushner wanted to use Russian facilities to avoid US interception of discussions with Moscow, the Washington Post and New York Times said.

Mr Kushener, a senior White House aide, has not commented.

He is said to be under scrutiny by the FBI as part of its inquiry into Russian interference favouring Mr Trump's win.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40068137

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

The arrogant press often seems to think that they can violate YOUR rights at will, with impunity and with immunity from consequence.

Here's another thing that I feel like elaborating upon.

Only a cheese-eater would say, for example, that if a guy is trying to physically attack you, you would be guilty of "assault" if you hit him. Like, if he had you on the ground, pounding your face, your only recourse would be to hope he eventually stops, then "call the police."

There is a universally acknowledged (if you exclude cheese-eaters) right of self-defense. You are NOT committing a crime by defending your self.

You also have the right to defend and protect your property, your privacy, etc. if someone illicitly tries to interfere with your rights in that regard.

Some limey thinks he can bust into a private office, without asking for, or receiving, permission to enter, stick a microphone is some guy face, refuse to desist and leave, when told, and then whine that he has been "assaulted" if his illegal intrusions are resisted. I don't think so. Homey don't play dat.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

There is a universally acknowledged (if you exclude cheese-eaters) right of self-defense. You are NOT committing a crime by defending your self.

There really is a universal right of self-defense?
Oh, I get it: only in those countries where no cheese-eaters live and which aren't governed by the universal US-law.

2 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

layman wrote:
There is a universally acknowledged (if you exclude cheese-eaters) right of self-defense. You are NOT committing a crime by defending your self.

There really is a universal right of self-defense?
Oh, I get it: only in those countries where no cheese-eaters live and which aren't governed by the universal US-law.

Say what, Walt? Your questions seldom seem to make much sense. YES, there is a "universal" right to defend yourself. However, this indisputable right is not always acknowledged by cheese-eating pansies who want to think they can piss all over you and that you have no right to try to stop them.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Say what, Walt? Your questions seldom seem to make much sense.

I'm not as qualified in law and history (and politics) as you are - as we say here: there are no stupid questions but stupid responses.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

layman wrote:
Say what, Walt? Your questions seldom seem to make much sense.
I'm not as qualified in law and history (and politics) as you are - as we say here: there are no stupid questions but stupid responses.

Well, Walt, neither knowledge of law, nor of history, nor of politics is required in order to read. I think you must have simply misread my post.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

There really is a universal right of self-defense?

Yes. It is lawful (and desirable) for other nations to wage war and destroy any government that does not respect this universal right.

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Oh, I get it: only in those countries where no cheese-eaters live and which aren't governed by the universal US-law.

The right applies everywhere. What is this universal US-law that you speak of?

1 Reply

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know