User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/31/2016 12:45:46 PM EST
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Neither of you would make it because when the question "do you support Trump to be the Repubilcan nominee," you'd be excused. Try again. I currently have no plan on voting for anyone for President in November. I may change my view later but at this time, I will not cast a vote for any Republican at any level. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2016 12:45:59 PM EST
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not sure I'd go that far but I have no interest in trusting my fate to the system, lol I suspect it also matters where you are, I'm sure LA or Harlem is different than Green Acres, NY We probably agree much more than we disagree. Yup, the place where this occurred......the jurisdictions (PD's and the SO) are told to "pick your best" cases because they (the SAO) doesn't have time to prosecute them all. Hell, they don't even have time to plea deal them all. Thousands, tens of thousands actually, get Nolle Pros all the time. I've had felonies, on video...with confessions, that got tossed. Simply because they "didn't have the man power" to deal with it. That was a hard pill 20 years ago. Now? meh. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2016 12:47:18 PM EST
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think it really comes down to consent. A reporter in that environment knows that she may get jostled or grabbed in a crowd like that when she accosts a candidate trying to get out of the building. Further, as Judge Napalitano pointed out, you can't enforce the statute literally because it would be absurd. You cannot let someone decide after the fact that a form of touching was offensive. Either the touching must is some sense be objectively offensive or there must be some indication that the touching is not wanted. Otherwise you could arrest every child who played duck, duck, goose. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
CONSENT AND MUTUAL COMBAT In all Florida prosecutions, it is a required element of battery that the touching at issue occur without the consent of the alleged victim, or "against the person’s will.” This issue frequently arises in cases where two people engage in a fight, or "mutual combat.” In Florida, ‘mutual combat’ is a recognized battery defense predicated upon both parties assenting to a physical altercation and therefore consenting to be touched as an understood consequence of that altercation. Both parties must be at fault, and the defendant must not be the primary aggressor or initiate the fight. Eiland v. State, 112 So.2d 415 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959); A.L. v. State, 790 So.2d 1149 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). The issue of consent is a jury question, and is examined in light of the surrounding circumstances. Testimony from the alleged victim that he or she did not consent is not required, so long as the state’s evidence can support a jury inference of a non-consensual touching. State v. Clyatt, 976 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 5th Dist. 2008). In some cases, where proper procedures are followed, evidence of a defendant’s prior violent behaviors toward the victim is relevant to prove his or her intent to commit the crime of battery or the alleged victim’s lack of consent. This is known as "Williams Rule” evidence. I agree. Implied consent is probably the best trial defense here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2016 12:48:04 PM EST
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Try again. I currently have no plan on voting for anyone for President in November. I may change my view later but at this time, I will not cast a vote for any Republican at any level. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Neither of you would make it because when the question "do you support Trump to be the Repubilcan nominee," you'd be excused. Try again. I currently have no plan on voting for anyone for President in November. I may change my view later but at this time, I will not cast a vote for any Republican at any level. agreed pretty much may sit this out |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2016 1:19:26 PM EST
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's going to leave a mark! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Yes. d3s/dt3 She was jerked backwards and downwards. When riding a motorcycle, what degree of lateral displacement is needed for the perception of loss of control? It's very small, inch[es]. The human body is very good at detecting accelerations, it's integral to all of our body mechanics. She's not claiming TBI from the accelerations and rate of accelerations. She stated that she was jerked backwards - which is substantiated in both videos. She stated that she nearly lost her balance - which is substantiated by the overhead video showing where her feet are placed. She stated that she was pulled downwards - which is substantiated by the second, ground level video - as well as by the general kinematics of grabbing someone's forearm where she was grabbed. She stated that she received bruises on her forearm - and there are photos of the bruising. The overhead video shows Lewandowski grabbing that forearm. Fields had no access to any of the video surveillance prior to making her police report. Her statements noted in the police report are not inconsistent with anything in the video[s]. That's going to leave a mark! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2016 1:27:56 PM EST
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We probably agree much more than we disagree. Yup, the place where this occurred......the jurisdictions (PD's and the SO) are told to "pick your best" cases because they (the SAO) doesn't have time to prosecute them all. Hell, they don't even have time to plea deal them all. Thousands, tens of thousands actually, get Nolle Pros all the time. I've had felonies, on video...with confessions, that got tossed. Simply because they "didn't have the man power" to deal with it. That was a hard pill 20 years ago. Now? meh. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Not sure I'd go that far but I have no interest in trusting my fate to the system, lol I suspect it also matters where you are, I'm sure LA or Harlem is different than Green Acres, NY We probably agree much more than we disagree. Yup, the place where this occurred......the jurisdictions (PD's and the SO) are told to "pick your best" cases because they (the SAO) doesn't have time to prosecute them all. Hell, they don't even have time to plea deal them all. Thousands, tens of thousands actually, get Nolle Pros all the time. I've had felonies, on video...with confessions, that got tossed. Simply because they "didn't have the man power" to deal with it. That was a hard pill 20 years ago. Now? meh. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2016 1:34:39 PM EST
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Taxes are probably lower than NY where we have plenty of prosecutors willing to chase around marginal cases Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not sure I'd go that far but I have no interest in trusting my fate to the system, lol I suspect it also matters where you are, I'm sure LA or Harlem is different than Green Acres, NY We probably agree much more than we disagree. Yup, the place where this occurred......the jurisdictions (PD's and the SO) are told to "pick your best" cases because they (the SAO) doesn't have time to prosecute them all. Hell, they don't even have time to plea deal them all. Thousands, tens of thousands actually, get Nolle Pros all the time. I've had felonies, on video...with confessions, that got tossed. Simply because they "didn't have the man power" to deal with it. That was a hard pill 20 years ago. Now? meh. I was a prosecutor in a state where they had "people's court" where anyone could take out a misdemeanor criminal charge against anyone else. Then at the court date, some lucky assistant DA got assigned to prosecute all the cases, regardless of whether he/she wanted to. That was fun. I had some ridiculous cases in my time in people's court. I recall one for "assault" taken out by this huge giant of a man construction worker, against this tiny little building inspector guy. Big guy testified he feared for his personal safety because the little guy was talking shit to him. The judge came back not guilty, which was the usual outcome in people's court. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2016 1:34:53 PM EST
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I agree. Implied consent is probably the best trial defense here. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
CONSENT AND MUTUAL COMBAT In all Florida prosecutions, it is a required element of battery that the touching at issue occur without the consent of the alleged victim, or "against the person’s will.” This issue frequently arises in cases where two people engage in a fight, or "mutual combat.” In Florida, ‘mutual combat’ is a recognized battery defense predicated upon both parties assenting to a physical altercation and therefore consenting to be touched as an understood consequence of that altercation. Both parties must be at fault, and the defendant must not be the primary aggressor or initiate the fight. Eiland v. State, 112 So.2d 415 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959); A.L. v. State, 790 So.2d 1149 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). The issue of consent is a jury question, and is examined in light of the surrounding circumstances. Testimony from the alleged victim that he or she did not consent is not required, so long as the state’s evidence can support a jury inference of a non-consensual touching. State v. Clyatt, 976 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 5th Dist. 2008). In some cases, where proper procedures are followed, evidence of a defendant’s prior violent behaviors toward the victim is relevant to prove his or her intent to commit the crime of battery or the alleged victim’s lack of consent. This is known as "Williams Rule” evidence. I agree. Implied consent is probably the best trial defense here. Which is an affirmative defense, so we're right back at the "I never touched her, but if I did..." |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2016 1:36:39 PM EST
[#9]
I haven't prosecuted someone since 2001, but maybe we can set this up so I could be the prosecutor, Aimless could defend, and we can have a jury selected from...well, the tech forums.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2016 1:55:30 PM EST
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I haven't prosecuted someone since 2001, but maybe we can set this up so I could be the prosecutor, Aimless could defend, and we can have a jury selected from...well, the tech forums. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2016 2:02:42 PM EST
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I only fight for money Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I haven't prosecuted someone since 2001, but maybe we can set this up so I could be the prosecutor, Aimless could defend, and we can have a jury selected from...well, the tech forums. Orange Jesus would tighten you up. You'll love it, it'll be yuuuuuge. He's got people setting it up, the best people. You'll love them. Great people. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2016 2:30:12 PM EST
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And law school ain't the real world. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
LOL. Ok, officer. LOL, ok, counselor. And law school ain't the real world. And a court room ain't the real word. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2016 2:32:11 PM EST
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You may not realize this, but the vast majority of those USSS agents on details are local office guys who normally chase fake $100 bills or other such nonsense and don't normally do 'dig details'....in fact, most of the ones I've talked to/worked with despise "dignitary season". They are not the Super-SWAT-Ninja agents you may think they are. They don't receive "extensive" training for 'dig work'. Most have never "live fired" a dignitary scenario on a range. Most of what "everyone knows" about how LE work, to include local, state, and fed is what Hollywood teaches them. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If she was a threat, which of course she was not, they would have stopped her. She was no threat and did nothing to justify some random guy attacking her. How do you recognize a threat? The men who killed in Brussels were not seen to be a threat until they started killing. Oh, please. Are you saying that the Secret Service detail was incompetent at threat analysis? You may not realize this, but the vast majority of those USSS agents on details are local office guys who normally chase fake $100 bills or other such nonsense and don't normally do 'dig details'....in fact, most of the ones I've talked to/worked with despise "dignitary season". They are not the Super-SWAT-Ninja agents you may think they are. They don't receive "extensive" training for 'dig work'. Most have never "live fired" a dignitary scenario on a range. Most of what "everyone knows" about how LE work, to include local, state, and fed is what Hollywood teaches them. My understanding and experience, having been inside quite a few bubbles as a staffer is the experienced agents are on the principle and the less experienced guys are handling perimeter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2016 2:48:38 PM EST
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:My understanding and experience, having been inside quite a few bubbles as a staffer is the experienced agents are on the principle and the less experienced guys are handling perimeter. Generally true for an "elected dig". When "the season" rolls around and there is half a dozen candidates on either side of the race they get agents from where ever they can find them. However, that said...having trained and worked with them myself and others on my squad were severely underwhelmed by their abilities. I guess that was because at one time I too bought into the 'Hollywood' portrayal of these guys as Super-Uber Tactical Ninjas who could stop an assassination attempt merely through the use of cool sunglasses and hair gel. I don't want to besmirch their professionalism....because they definitely exuded that. However, the truth is, most don't have the same training and really don't go "hands on" to get the experience that one needs to be an excellent dig officer. the best ones are usually former local cops with lots of hands on experience. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2016 3:02:26 PM EST
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Mutual Combat? Trump's War on WomenTM just got ratcheted up a notch. I'm not a lawyer, nor a political strategist, but this just seems like an il-advised defense. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
CONSENT AND MUTUAL COMBAT In all Florida prosecutions, it is a required element of battery that the touching at issue occur without the consent of the alleged victim, or "against the person’s will.” This issue frequently arises in cases where two people engage in a fight, or "mutual combat.” In Florida, ‘mutual combat’ is a recognized battery defense predicated upon both parties assenting to a physical altercation and therefore consenting to be touched as an understood consequence of that altercation. Both parties must be at fault, and the defendant must not be the primary aggressor or initiate the fight. Eiland v. State, 112 So.2d 415 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959); A.L. v. State, 790 So.2d 1149 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). The issue of consent is a jury question, and is examined in light of the surrounding circumstances. Testimony from the alleged victim that he or she did not consent is not required, so long as the state’s evidence can support a jury inference of a non-consensual touching. State v. Clyatt, 976 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 5th Dist. 2008). In some cases, where proper procedures are followed, evidence of a defendant’s prior violent behaviors toward the victim is relevant to prove his or her intent to commit the crime of battery or the alleged victim’s lack of consent. This is known as "Williams Rule” evidence. Mutual Combat? Trump's War on WomenTM just got ratcheted up a notch. I'm not a lawyer, nor a political strategist, but this just seems like an il-advised defense. Certainly you must understand that if you are in the presence of a person that has a US Secret Service detail protecting him, there are conduct codes that you must adhere to. Michelle Fields knows full well this is a fact. If a person begins to break those conduct codes, it will warrant a security response. That security response will be proportional to the level of threat - up to lethal force. Trump was on his way out of the building, and for whatever reason, Corey didn't want Michelle Fields following Trump, so Corey took the appropriate measure to maintain security. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2016 3:08:30 PM EST
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Try again. I currently have no plan on voting for anyone for President in November. I may change my view later but at this time, I will not cast a vote for any Republican at any level. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Neither of you would make it because when the question "do you support Trump to be the Repubilcan nominee," you'd be excused. Try again. I currently have no plan on voting for anyone for President in November. I may change my view later but at this time, I will not cast a vote for any Republican at any level. Your posting history indicates otherwise....Point is still the same, a few questions and you'd be excused as you're biased. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2016 3:10:27 PM EST
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Certainly you must understand that if you are in the presence of a person that has a US Secret Service detail protecting him, there are conduct codes that you must adhere to. Michelle Fields knows full well this is a fact. If a person begins to break those conduct codes, it will warrant a security response. That security response will be proportional to the level of threat - up to lethal force. Trump was on his way out of the building, and for whatever reason, Corey didn't want Michelle Fields following Trump, so Corey took the appropriate measure to maintain security. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
CONSENT AND MUTUAL COMBAT In all Florida prosecutions, it is a required element of battery that the touching at issue occur without the consent of the alleged victim, or "against the person’s will.” This issue frequently arises in cases where two people engage in a fight, or "mutual combat.” In Florida, ‘mutual combat’ is a recognized battery defense predicated upon both parties assenting to a physical altercation and therefore consenting to be touched as an understood consequence of that altercation. Both parties must be at fault, and the defendant must not be the primary aggressor or initiate the fight. Eiland v. State, 112 So.2d 415 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959); A.L. v. State, 790 So.2d 1149 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). The issue of consent is a jury question, and is examined in light of the surrounding circumstances. Testimony from the alleged victim that he or she did not consent is not required, so long as the state’s evidence can support a jury inference of a non-consensual touching. State v. Clyatt, 976 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 5th Dist. 2008). In some cases, where proper procedures are followed, evidence of a defendant’s prior violent behaviors toward the victim is relevant to prove his or her intent to commit the crime of battery or the alleged victim’s lack of consent. This is known as "Williams Rule” evidence. Mutual Combat? Trump's War on WomenTM just got ratcheted up a notch. I'm not a lawyer, nor a political strategist, but this just seems like an il-advised defense. Certainly you must understand that if you are in the presence of a person that has a US Secret Service detail protecting him, there are conduct codes that you must adhere to. Michelle Fields knows full well this is a fact. If a person begins to break those conduct codes, it will warrant a security response. That security response will be proportional to the level of threat - up to lethal force. Trump was on his way out of the building, and for whatever reason, Corey didn't want Michelle Fields following Trump, so Corey took the appropriate measure to maintain security. Proportional to the level of the threat? The agent right there didn't take any action to respond to a physical threat. Lewandowski saw her asking questions, and yanked her backwards. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2016 3:25:10 PM EST
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Certainly you must understand that if you are in the presence of a person that has a US Secret Service detail protecting him, there are conduct codes that you must adhere to. Michelle Fields knows full well this is a fact. If a person begins to break those conduct codes, it will warrant a security response. That security response will be proportional to the level of threat - up to lethal force. Trump was on his way out of the building, and for whatever reason, Corey didn't want Michelle Fields following Trump, so Corey took the appropriate measure to maintain security. You guys REALLY need to let this desperate "security" thing go. Corey was not rushing to the aid of a damselDonald in distress. It's ridiculous to keep pushing a narrative that's not only at odds with the video evidence but also with the statements made by the campaign in the immediate aftermath. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2016 4:13:14 PM EST
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You guys REALLY need to let this desperate "security" thing go. Corey was not rushing to the aid of a damselDonald in distress. It's ridiculous to keep pushing a narrative that's not only at odds with the video evidence but also with the statements made by the campaign in the immediate aftermath. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Certainly you must understand that if you are in the presence of a person that has a US Secret Service detail protecting him, there are conduct codes that you must adhere to. Michelle Fields knows full well this is a fact. If a person begins to break those conduct codes, it will warrant a security response. That security response will be proportional to the level of threat - up to lethal force. Trump was on his way out of the building, and for whatever reason, Corey didn't want Michelle Fields following Trump, so Corey took the appropriate measure to maintain security. You guys REALLY need to let this desperate "security" thing go. Corey was not rushing to the aid of a damselDonald in distress. It's ridiculous to keep pushing a narrative that's not only at odds with the video evidence but also with the statements made by the campaign in the immediate aftermath. I never said "desperate security" issue. You're trying to create a false premise to build your argument. As you well know a security response can be anywhere between extremely mild and up to lethal force. This was a minor security issue and the appropriate measures were taken to stop it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2016 4:18:26 PM EST
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I never said "desperate security" issue. You're trying to create a false premise to build your argument. As you well know a security response can be anywhere between extremely mild and up to lethal force. This was a minor security issue and the appropriate measures were taken to stop it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Certainly you must understand that if you are in the presence of a person that has a US Secret Service detail protecting him, there are conduct codes that you must adhere to. Michelle Fields knows full well this is a fact. If a person begins to break those conduct codes, it will warrant a security response. That security response will be proportional to the level of threat - up to lethal force. Trump was on his way out of the building, and for whatever reason, Corey didn't want Michelle Fields following Trump, so Corey took the appropriate measure to maintain security. You guys REALLY need to let this desperate "security" thing go. Corey was not rushing to the aid of a damselDonald in distress. It's ridiculous to keep pushing a narrative that's not only at odds with the video evidence but also with the statements made by the campaign in the immediate aftermath. I never said "desperate security" issue. You're trying to create a false premise to build your argument. As you well know a security response can be anywhere between extremely mild and up to lethal force. This was a minor security issue and the appropriate measures were taken to stop it. No it wasn't a security issue at all or the Secret Service would have dealt with it. See all of those agents around Trump? None deemed it a threat, only Corey did. Coupled with the fact she was asking questions, the only REAL threat was Trump saying something stupid AGAIN! |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2016 4:20:01 PM EST
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I never said "desperate security" issue. You're trying to create a false premise to build your argument. As you well know a security response can be anywhere between extremely mild and up to lethal force. This was a minor security issue and the appropriate measures were taken to stop it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Certainly you must understand that if you are in the presence of a person that has a US Secret Service detail protecting him, there are conduct codes that you must adhere to. Michelle Fields knows full well this is a fact. If a person begins to break those conduct codes, it will warrant a security response. That security response will be proportional to the level of threat - up to lethal force. Trump was on his way out of the building, and for whatever reason, Corey didn't want Michelle Fields following Trump, so Corey took the appropriate measure to maintain security. You guys REALLY need to let this desperate "security" thing go. Corey was not rushing to the aid of a damselDonald in distress. It's ridiculous to keep pushing a narrative that's not only at odds with the video evidence but also with the statements made by the campaign in the immediate aftermath. I never said "desperate security" issue. You're trying to create a false premise to build your argument. As you well know a security response can be anywhere between extremely mild and up to lethal force. This was a minor security issue and the appropriate measures were taken to stop it. are you confusing the words "desperate" and "grave?" |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2016 4:22:05 PM EST
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Certainly you must understand that if you are in the presence of a person that has a US Secret Service detail protecting him, there are conduct codes that you must adhere to. Michelle Fields knows full well this is a fact. If a person begins to break those conduct codes, it will warrant a security response. That security response will be proportional to the level of threat - up to lethal force. Trump was on his way out of the building, and for whatever reason, Corey didn't want Michelle Fields following Trump, so Corey took the appropriate measure to maintain security. And yet, the SS detail that you mention took no action. Admit it, him grabbing her had NOTHING to do with security. It's such a bullshit claim. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2016 4:23:29 PM EST
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No it wasn't a security issue at all or the Secret Service would have dealt with it. See all of those agents around Trump? None deemed it a threat, only Corey did. Coupled with the fact she was asking questions, the only REAL threat was Trump saying something stupid AGAIN! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Certainly you must understand that if you are in the presence of a person that has a US Secret Service detail protecting him, there are conduct codes that you must adhere to. Michelle Fields knows full well this is a fact. If a person begins to break those conduct codes, it will warrant a security response. That security response will be proportional to the level of threat - up to lethal force. Trump was on his way out of the building, and for whatever reason, Corey didn't want Michelle Fields following Trump, so Corey took the appropriate measure to maintain security. You guys REALLY need to let this desperate "security" thing go. Corey was not rushing to the aid of a damselDonald in distress. It's ridiculous to keep pushing a narrative that's not only at odds with the video evidence but also with the statements made by the campaign in the immediate aftermath. I never said "desperate security" issue. You're trying to create a false premise to build your argument. As you well know a security response can be anywhere between extremely mild and up to lethal force. This was a minor security issue and the appropriate measures were taken to stop it. No it wasn't a security issue at all or the Secret Service would have dealt with it. See all of those agents around Trump? None deemed it a threat, only Corey did. Coupled with the fact she was asking questions, the only REAL threat was Trump saying something stupid AGAIN! If it wasn't a security issue, what was it? Why did Corey stop Fields? Because he hates women? Maybe he forgot his rubber squeeze ball and needed to release some stress on Miss Fields arm?? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2016 4:23:55 PM EST
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I never said "desperate security" issue. You're trying to create a false premise to build your argument. As you well know a security response can be anywhere between extremely mild and up to lethal force. This was a minor security issue and the appropriate measures were taken to stop it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Certainly you must understand that if you are in the presence of a person that has a US Secret Service detail protecting him, there are conduct codes that you must adhere to. Michelle Fields knows full well this is a fact. If a person begins to break those conduct codes, it will warrant a security response. That security response will be proportional to the level of threat - up to lethal force. Trump was on his way out of the building, and for whatever reason, Corey didn't want Michelle Fields following Trump, so Corey took the appropriate measure to maintain security. You guys REALLY need to let this desperate "security" thing go. Corey was not rushing to the aid of a damselDonald in distress. It's ridiculous to keep pushing a narrative that's not only at odds with the video evidence but also with the statements made by the campaign in the immediate aftermath. I never said "desperate security" issue. You're trying to create a false premise to build your argument. As you well know a security response can be anywhere between extremely mild and up to lethal force. This was a minor security issue and the appropriate measures were taken to stop it. I said desperate, and I'm referring to the fact that you guys are trying to spin this into a security issue when it's not and never has been. That's what smacks of desperation. Looking for any ridiculous scenario you can come up with to possibly justify Lewandowski going hands-on with a reporter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2016 4:24:54 PM EST
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If it wasn't a security issue, what was it? Why did Corey stop Fields? Because he hates women? Maybe he forgot his rubber squeeze ball and needed to release some stress on Miss Fields arm?? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Certainly you must understand that if you are in the presence of a person that has a US Secret Service detail protecting him, there are conduct codes that you must adhere to. Michelle Fields knows full well this is a fact. If a person begins to break those conduct codes, it will warrant a security response. That security response will be proportional to the level of threat - up to lethal force. Trump was on his way out of the building, and for whatever reason, Corey didn't want Michelle Fields following Trump, so Corey took the appropriate measure to maintain security. You guys REALLY need to let this desperate "security" thing go. Corey was not rushing to the aid of a damselDonald in distress. It's ridiculous to keep pushing a narrative that's not only at odds with the video evidence but also with the statements made by the campaign in the immediate aftermath. I never said "desperate security" issue. You're trying to create a false premise to build your argument. As you well know a security response can be anywhere between extremely mild and up to lethal force. This was a minor security issue and the appropriate measures were taken to stop it. No it wasn't a security issue at all or the Secret Service would have dealt with it. See all of those agents around Trump? None deemed it a threat, only Corey did. Coupled with the fact she was asking questions, the only REAL threat was Trump saying something stupid AGAIN! If it wasn't a security issue, what was it? Why did Corey stop Fields? Because he hates women? Maybe he forgot his rubber squeeze ball and needed to release some stress on Miss Fields arm?? Because she was asking Trump a question about affirmative action and he didn't want her doing that. Period. If it was a security issue, why did he deny ever touching her? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2016 4:25:09 PM EST
[#26]
Also 57strat, don't you think if Corey had felt the need to go hands on due to a security threat he would have remember that? Here is a guy who isn't a trained protection asset, and he has to dive in and save the Donald where the Secret Service fell short, and yet he didn't remember it? He denied he ever touched her or met her. I know if I thought I just saved the future leader of the free world, I'd probably remember it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2016 4:25:48 PM EST
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If it wasn't a security issue, what was it? Why did Corey stop Fields? Because he hates women? Maybe he forgot his rubber squeeze ball and needed to release some stress on Miss Fields arm?? Because he didn't want the Donald answering questions. That's obvious. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2016 4:34:18 PM EST
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because she was asking Trump a question about affirmative action and he didn't want her doing that. Period. If it was a security issue, why did he deny ever touching her? Trump was leaving the building and apparently Corey didn't think she should be following him. Corey already stated he didn't recognize her, so apparently if you're not on the list of approved reporters you don't get to follow Trump and ask questions as he leaves the building. I have no idea what the details are of their protocols for reporter engagement and neither do you. regarding the "not touching" claim. I covered it already in a past post. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2016 4:36:00 PM EST
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Trump was leaving the building and apparently Corey didn't think she should be following him. Corey already stated he didn't recognize her, so apparently if you're not on the list of approved reporters you don't get to follow Trump and ask questions as he leaves the building. I have no idea what the details are of their protocols for reporter engagement and neither do you. regarding the "not touching" claim. I covered it already in a past post. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Because she was asking Trump a question about affirmative action and he didn't want her doing that. Period. If it was a security issue, why did he deny ever touching her? Trump was leaving the building and apparently Corey didn't think she should be following him. Corey already stated he didn't recognize her, so apparently if you're not on the list of approved reporters you don't get to follow Trump and ask questions as he leaves the building. I have no idea what the details are of their protocols for reporter engagement and neither do you. regarding the "not touching" claim. I covered it already in a past post. You know who I bet knows exactly what the protocols are? The Secret Service. You know, the guys who are in charge of security. And who didn't grab Fields. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2016 4:48:08 PM EST
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You know who I bet knows exactly what the protocols are? The Secret Service. You know, the guys who are in charge of security. And who didn't grab Fields. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Because she was asking Trump a question about affirmative action and he didn't want her doing that. Period. If it was a security issue, why did he deny ever touching her? Trump was leaving the building and apparently Corey didn't think she should be following him. Corey already stated he didn't recognize her, so apparently if you're not on the list of approved reporters you don't get to follow Trump and ask questions as he leaves the building. I have no idea what the details are of their protocols for reporter engagement and neither do you. regarding the "not touching" claim. I covered it already in a past post. You know who I bet knows exactly what the protocols are? The Secret Service. You know, the guys who are in charge of security. And who didn't grab Fields. Trump has backed Corey's actions 100% and I haven't read any Secret Service statement that Corey violated security procedures. Make sure and post a link when that hits the news. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2016 5:42:09 PM EST
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Mutual Combat? Trump's War on WomenTM just got ratcheted up a notch. I'm not a lawyer, nor a political strategist, but this just seems like an il-advised defense. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2016 5:44:15 PM EST
[#32]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2016 5:47:20 PM EST
[#33]
Quote HistoryWell, if she gets actually assaulted at least she will know the difference next time.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2016 5:50:24 PM EST
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And yet, the SS detail that you mention took no action. Admit it, him grabbing her had NOTHING to do with security. It's such a bullshit claim. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Certainly you must understand that if you are in the presence of a person that has a US Secret Service detail protecting him, there are conduct codes that you must adhere to. Michelle Fields knows full well this is a fact. If a person begins to break those conduct codes, it will warrant a security response. That security response will be proportional to the level of threat - up to lethal force. Trump was on his way out of the building, and for whatever reason, Corey didn't want Michelle Fields following Trump, so Corey took the appropriate measure to maintain security. And yet, the SS detail that you mention took no action. Admit it, him grabbing her had NOTHING to do with security. It's such a bullshit claim. "He never touched her" = Trump fans took it and ran with it Now it is "He touched her because the pen could have been a bomb" = Trump fans took it and ran with it lol If he tells people she could have had a samurai sword people would start repeating that too |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2016 5:52:50 PM EST
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because he didn't want the Donald answering questions. That's obvious. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If it wasn't a security issue, what was it? Why did Corey stop Fields? Because he hates women? Maybe he forgot his rubber squeeze ball and needed to release some stress on Miss Fields arm?? Because he didn't want the Donald answering questions. That's obvious. Hell, the Orange Julius Caesar *said* as much yesterday |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2016 5:53:01 PM EST
[#36]
preemptive edited to add: Seeing the floor level video does make it clear that it was not the SS agents; I just wanted to explain with a still image my earlier comment.
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There were secret service agents around trump, they did not go near the reporter. If she was a threat, which of course she was not, they would have stopped her. She was no threat and did nothing to justify some random guy attacking her. He wasn't stopping her from throwing her pen Bomb at trump, he didn't like something she said so he yanked her aside, then lied about it, claiming he never touched her or knew her. He's not a security guard, there were security experts there. He's just a punk who got caught roughing up a girl and he and trump got caught lying about it. I disagree; there is one frame showing two SS agents (presumably) flanking the reporter, both reaching their hands out to grab her arms around the exact time the campaign manager appears to be passing through. https://i.imgur.com/jqMg63ql.png Not quite, but ok. I was thinking of this one: 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2016 5:53:34 PM EST
[#37]
Not guilty
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2016 6:03:48 PM EST
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There were secret service agents around trump, they did not go near the reporter. If she was a threat, which of course she was not, they would have stopped her. She was no threat and did nothing to justify some random guy attacking her. He wasn't stopping her from throwing her pen Bomb at trump, he didn't like something she said so he yanked her aside, then lied about it, claiming he never touched her or knew her. He's not a security guard, there were security experts there. He's just a punk who got caught roughing up a girl and he and trump got caught lying about it. I disagree; there is one frame showing two SS agents (presumably) flanking the reporter, both reaching their hands out to grab her arms around the exact time the campaign manager appears to be passing through. https://i.imgur.com/jqMg63ql.png Not quite, but ok. I was thinking of this one: http://i.imgur.com/vwhwBM3.jpg Clearly Jupiter PD should file for an arrest warrant on both those USSS agents This falls in the Ask,Tell, Make category She looks to have disobeyed a lawful request by the SS detail as well as DT's men to step back. LIke it or not, what that guy did does not amount to battery. SOrry, it simply doesn't |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2016 6:08:12 PM EST
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Clearly Jupiter PD should file for an arrest warrant on both those USSS agents This falls in the Ask,Tell, Make category She looks to have disobeyed a lawful request by the SS detail as well as DT's men to step back. LIke it or not, what that guy did does not amount to battery. SOrry, it simply doesn't If those agents had actually wanted her to move, they would have used hands on hips, not her arms. Can't remember where I heard that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2016 7:53:26 PM EST
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If those agents had actually wanted her to move, they would have used hands on hips, not her arms. Can't remember where I heard that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Clearly Jupiter PD should file for an arrest warrant on both those USSS agents This falls in the Ask,Tell, Make category She looks to have disobeyed a lawful request by the SS detail as well as DT's men to step back. LIke it or not, what that guy did does not amount to battery. SOrry, it simply doesn't If those agents had actually wanted her to move, they would have used hands on hips, not her arms. Can't remember where I heard that. 
Fair enough. Well played. I'll say this though, I don't envy what the current crop has to do. I did the vast majority of all mine before smart phones and cameras at every corner. I don't doubt so many of them are afraid of being caught being "too rough" on video. The "furgason effect" is being seen at all levels of LE |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2016 7:54:25 PM EST
[#41]
Do you guys think Buttercup will ever be the same after this horrendous violent incident?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2016 8:13:10 PM EST
[#42]
All she did was ask a question.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2016 8:23:33 PM EST
[#43]
She probably needs full life disability benefits for PTSD. [;D
Quote HistoryQuoted:
All she did was ask a question. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2016 8:25:00 PM EST
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
All she did was ask a question. That's it? Oh, ok. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2016 8:42:45 PM EST
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If those agents had actually wanted her to move, they would have used hands on hips, not her arms. Can't remember where I heard that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Clearly Jupiter PD should file for an arrest warrant on both those USSS agents This falls in the Ask,Tell, Make category She looks to have disobeyed a lawful request by the SS detail as well as DT's men to step back. LIke it or not, what that guy did does not amount to battery. SOrry, it simply doesn't If those agents had actually wanted her to move, they would have used hands on hips, not her arms. Can't remember where I heard that. You can pretty clearly see her getting pulled back at 0:05. She obviously did that herself though. Disobeying lawful requests or something. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2016 8:55:19 PM EST
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
preemptive edited to add: Seeing the floor level video does make it clear that it was not the SS agents; I just wanted to explain with a still image my earlier comment. I was thinking of this one: http://i.imgur.com/vwhwBM3.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted:
preemptive edited to add: Seeing the floor level video does make it clear that it was not the SS agents; I just wanted to explain with a still image my earlier comment. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There were secret service agents around trump, they did not go near the reporter. If she was a threat, which of course she was not, they would have stopped her. She was no threat and did nothing to justify some random guy attacking her. He wasn't stopping her from throwing her pen Bomb at trump, he didn't like something she said so he yanked her aside, then lied about it, claiming he never touched her or knew her. He's not a security guard, there were security experts there. He's just a punk who got caught roughing up a girl and he and trump got caught lying about it. I disagree; there is one frame showing two SS agents (presumably) flanking the reporter, both reaching their hands out to grab her arms around the exact time the campaign manager appears to be passing through. https://i.imgur.com/jqMg63ql.png Not quite, but ok. I was thinking of this one: http://i.imgur.com/vwhwBM3.jpg A flaw in your analysis, no doubt as a result of looking at one frame out of context: Neither SS agent ever grabbed her arms. In the very next frame, the agent on the left has pulled his hand back. In the frame after that, the agent on the right has not only pulled his hand back, he has also turned away from the reporter. Two frames after that, the campaign manager grabs the reporter. In the next two frames, he yanks her back toward him. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2016 8:58:47 PM EST
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You can pretty clearly see her getting pulled back at 0:05. She obviously did that herself though. Disobeying lawful requests or something.
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGz5DPqU-p0Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Clearly Jupiter PD should file for an arrest warrant on both those USSS agents This falls in the Ask,Tell, Make category She looks to have disobeyed a lawful request by the SS detail as well as DT's men to step back. LIke it or not, what that guy did does not amount to battery. SOrry, it simply doesn't If those agents had actually wanted her to move, they would have used hands on hips, not her arms. Can't remember where I heard that. You can pretty clearly see her getting pulled back at 0:05. She obviously did that herself though. Disobeying lawful requests or something.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGz5DPqU-p0Look,how all the people responded to that violent battery. The gasps, the outrage, the total indifference. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2016 9:06:46 PM EST
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You can pretty clearly see her getting pulled back at 0:05. She obviously did that herself though. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Clearly Jupiter PD should file for an arrest warrant on both those USSS agents This falls in the Ask,Tell, Make category She looks to have disobeyed a lawful request by the SS detail as well as DT's men to step back. LIke it or not, what that guy did does not amount to battery. SOrry, it simply doesn't If those agents had actually wanted her to move, they would have used hands on hips, not her arms. Can't remember where I heard that. You can pretty clearly see her getting pulled back at 0:05. She obviously did that herself though. She yanked herself back???
Disobeying lawful requests or something. There's no audio on the video. How do you know there were any "lawful requests" made? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2016 9:08:04 PM EST
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Trump has backed Corey's actions 100% and I haven't read any Secret Service statement that Corey violated security procedures. Make sure and post a link when that hits the news. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Because she was asking Trump a question about affirmative action and he didn't want her doing that. Period. If it was a security issue, why did he deny ever touching her? Trump was leaving the building and apparently Corey didn't think she should be following him. Corey already stated he didn't recognize her, so apparently if you're not on the list of approved reporters you don't get to follow Trump and ask questions as he leaves the building. I have no idea what the details are of their protocols for reporter engagement and neither do you. regarding the "not touching" claim. I covered it already in a past post. You know who I bet knows exactly what the protocols are? The Secret Service. You know, the guys who are in charge of security. And who didn't grab Fields. Trump has backed Corey's actions 100% and I haven't read any Secret Service statement that Corey violated security procedures. Make sure and post a link when that hits the news. LOL, you're the one talking about protocols and trying to make this a security issue. I never said he violated any procedures (just, apparently, Florida law). How about you post a link when the Secret Service issues the results of the investigation that must surely result from their having dropped the ball so badly at letting that "security threat" get so close to "the principle". I mean, when they screw up so badly that a campaign manager has to save the day there must be some kind of inquiry. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2016 9:12:38 PM EST
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Look,how all the people responded to that violent battery. The gasps, the outrage, the total indifference. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Clearly Jupiter PD should file for an arrest warrant on both those USSS agents This falls in the Ask,Tell, Make category She looks to have disobeyed a lawful request by the SS detail as well as DT's men to step back. LIke it or not, what that guy did does not amount to battery. SOrry, it simply doesn't If those agents had actually wanted her to move, they would have used hands on hips, not her arms. Can't remember where I heard that. You can pretty clearly see her getting pulled back at 0:05. She obviously did that herself though. Disobeying lawful requests or something. Look,how all the people responded to that violent battery. The gasps, the outrage, the total indifference. Nobody ever said it was violent. But it clearly is battery. Apparently you just can't handle the truth. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
