• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fox News contributor punched in face at pro-union protests in Michigan [W:867]

You used the term "legal ruling." There was no legal ruling. It is the opinion of the DA that, in light of their investigation, the guy acted in self-defense, thus no charges will be filed. That's not a legal ruling. That's the result of an investigation.

OK, that's the result of the state police investigation and this is the most authoritative conclusion to this case there will be, correct?
 
OK, that's the result of the state police investigation and this is the most authoritative conclusion to this case there will be, correct?

Yes, unless new evidence is discovered and the case is re-opened.
 
The State Police did an investigation after Crowder pressed charges, submitted them to the prosecuting attorney, and his decision was that it was self defense and did not move the case to court.

What was illegal about the finding?
:doh

Ah hello?
There was no "legal ruling". Those get made and issued by a court, not a prosecutor and not the Police.
 
Yes, unless new evidence is discovered and the case is re-opened.
Or if a higher authority decides the video doesn't show what they say it did and demands they take another look at it.
 
So your argument is that Union people that were intent on destroying private property were in the right to assault someone when Crowder and his news crew tried to protect said property?

So why werent they then charged with destruction of private property? Because there is no question of that. Note: Crowder has not been charged either, indicating he committed no assault either.

Truth is the officials involved know what side their bread is buttered on and probably dont want to risk union backlash into their careers. Prosecution of this was political as much as factual, imo.

What I said was quite different than that. I said that a media person was there to provoke the protestors, and when a few of them became very upset, it got physical, and when you're getting physical with somebody, there is a possibility that they are going to get physical with you. Just because somebody gets a taste of their own medicine doesn't mean I am endorsing the medicine and signing off on its side-effects. I just think that for anybody who is dismayed by the way the media, on both sides of the spectrum, lies to the American public, when a person is out there actively involved in creating a fake story to further their career and cause, one should not feel the need to jump to their defense.

I really wouldn't want to be siding with either one of the groups involved in this scuffle and it's a popular misconception that to condemn one you have to side with another.
 
Stupid idiot had it coming to him eh? Oh yeah, he was just "asking for it."

Use that same argument for rape, and you'll rightfully be called a misogynist.

WHAT?! In the case of a person being raped, what are they doing wrong? Crowder wasn't innocent. He went in there with an agenda, he tried to get the protestors mad, and he got them mad, got involved with pushing back and forth, and then got punched. And thank you for comparing a single punch - one which didn't cause any noticeable physical harm - and rape, which can ruin a person's life.
 
WHAT?! In the case of a person being raped, what are they doing wrong? Crowder wasn't innocent. He went in there with an agenda, he tried to get the protestors mad, and he got them mad, got involved with pushing back and forth, and then got punched. And thank you for comparing a single punch - one which didn't cause any noticeable physical harm - and rape, which can ruin a person's life.

So the 1st amendment only applies to those persons, causes you support?
 
WHAT?! In the case of a person being raped, what are they doing wrong? Crowder wasn't innocent. He went in there with an agenda, he tried to get the protestors mad, and he got them mad, got involved with pushing back and forth, and then got punched. And thank you for comparing a single punch - one which didn't cause any noticeable physical harm - and rape, which can ruin a person's life.

And a misogynist can make the claim that dressing in skimpy clothing means a girl is just "looking" for sex. He may claim that she was being flirty and clearly "wanted" the sex. He may claim that she clearly "isn't innocent" when she is "dressing like a whore." Clearly she is just "asking for it." Its the same justification you're using to defend the union thug. Rape is still rape, and assualt is still assualt.
 
What I said was quite different than that. I said that a media person was there to provoke the protestors, and when a few of them became very upset, it got physical, and when you're getting physical with somebody, there is a possibility that they are going to get physical with you. Just because somebody gets a taste of their own medicine doesn't mean I am endorsing the medicine and signing off on its side-effects. I just think that for anybody who is dismayed by the way the media, on both sides of the spectrum, lies to the American public, when a person is out there actively involved in creating a fake story to further their career and cause, one should not feel the need to jump to their defense.

I really wouldn't want to be siding with either one of the groups involved in this scuffle and it's a popular misconception that to condemn one you have to side with another.

We still dont know what the whole story is. You are rendering judgement on incomplete info. I am rendering judgement based on what information I DO know. That information is that a number of union members ought to be in jail or fined for several misdemeanors.

But prosecution can and sometimes is a political animal.
 
Back
Top Bottom