• 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!

Breaking: Gateway Pundit Blogger Lucian Wintrich Assaults Woman at UConn Speech

tres borrachos said:
The assertion is he assaulted her. My eyes tell me that assertion is right.
Click to expand...


He grabbed her and stopped her, then the video becomes too choppy to determine what is going on. Again I've seen no information that she was injured. He was charged with breach of peace, not assault.

Grabbing someone for no reason can be legally construed as a assault; in most jurisdictions grabbing a thief to prevent their escape with your property is lawful.



Are you asserting that her alleged theft of his property is irrelevant?
 
Goshin said:
That would have been the smarter move, yes. Still, if she stole his property, in many or most jurisdictions he would have the right to attempt to recover same using reasonable force. I'm not sure about the jurisdiction this occurred in, as I'd have to look up their state laws on the matter.

At this point though I'm not seeing any assertion that he beat her up or injured her, TMK.

Given that security or LE on scene were apparently being very ineffective in controlling the ongoing disruption of his speech, he probably had little faith that they'd act to recover his papers. Not the best choice of action on his part, but not unlawful in most jurisdictions.

Again, caveat: I wasn't there. I don't know this guy and never heard of him before last night. I'm operating on what information is available.
Click to expand...

From the video, it looks like he pushed her back, and then tried to retrieve the papers from her hand. I doubt she was seriously injured, but still, it wasn't the right move. Especially not in that giant mob of people. And the LE did seem to have quite a lot on their hands, having to control both the students inside the room, as well as the ones outside.
 
tres borrachos said:
The assertion is he assaulted her. My eyes tell me that assertion is right.
Click to expand...

Amazing how they are dancing around what happened. This guy is actually an accredited White House correspondant. Yeah, Trump allows a faux journalist from a fake news site that is notorious for pushing false info. Go figure....
 
Mason66 said:
If she stole his property, then he has every right to get it back.

I was taught as a child never to hit girls, but if they hit first, they stopped being a girl as far as I was concerned.

This woman hit first using her male counterpart to distract first.

He did what he had to to get his speech back and I would bet that he will not be charged with anything and she will be.
Click to expand...



I firmly believe a man should never lay ungentle hands on a woman.

However, once the woman commits a crime, such as theft, she is now a criminal and to be dealt with as a criminal; she has given up the normal consideration accorded her gender by breaking the law.

IF she stole his papers as he has alleged...


But I will agree with those saying he would have been smarter to let it go under the circumstances.
 
Goshin said:
He grabbed her and stopped her, then the video becomes too choppy to determine what is going on. Again I've seen no information that she was injured. He was charged with breach of peace, not assault.

Grabbing someone for no reason can be legally construed as a assault; in most jurisdictions grabbing a thief to prevent their escape with your property is lawful.



Are you asserting that her alleged theft of his property is irrelevant?
Click to expand...

I never said she was injured. Why on Earth did you just post that? And i never said theft was irrelevant. Why did you post that too?
 
Mason66 said:
If she stole his property, then he has every right to get it back.

I was taught as a child never to hit girls, but if they hit first, they stopped being a girl as far as I was concerned.

This woman hit first using her male counterpart to distract first.

He did what he had to to get his speech back and I would bet that he will not be charged with anything and she will be.
Click to expand...

Was assaulting a girl for a couple scraps of paper worth it?

Not equal. That is why he got arrested. It was his notes for his silly presentation, I'm sure he had back up, not like there was any value to it.
 
tres borrachos said:
I never said she was injured. Why on Earth did you just post that? And i never said theft was irrelevant. Why did you post that too?
Click to expand...


Because it is relevant.

If she stole something from him, that is relevant. Grabbing someone for no reason is a crime; grabbing a thief to prevent them escaping with your property is not, in most jurisdictions.

Her apparent lack of injury has bearing on whether he used "reasonable force" in attempting to retrieve his stolen property, as he says he was doing.

If it ends up in trial, these will be relevant issues.


To me, it is relevant in judging whether his actions were moral or immoral in general. When I began reading the thread, I was outraged that he had 'assaulted a woman'. Then I read more, and saw there was more to it... he asserts she stole from him, making her a thief if true; she was not injured tmk... grabbing a fleeing thief is morally and legally very different from assaulting a woman without justification.
 
Last edited:
beefheart said:
Was assaulting a girl for a couple scraps of paper worth it?

Not equal. That is why he got arrested. It was his notes for his silly presentation, I'm sure he had back up, not like there was any value to it.
Click to expand...

You don't know, you are guessing.

If the man was there to make a speech and somebody stole that speech, I wouldn't blame him for retrieving that speech any way he had to, or he was there for nothing.

You can't admit the theft should be condemned and not the retrieving of the speech.
 
Goshin said:
Because it is relevant.

If she stole something from him, that is relevant. Grabbing someone for no reason is a crime; grabbing a thief to prevent them escaping with your property is not, in most jurisdictions.

Her apparent lack of injury has bearing on whether he used "reasonable force" in attempting to retrieve his stolen property, as he says he was doing.

If it ends up in trial, these will be relevant issues.


To me, it is relevant in judging whether his actions were moral or immoral in general. When I began reading the thread, I was outraged that he had 'assaulted a woman'. Then I read more, and saw there was more to it... he asserts she stole from him, making her a thief if true; she was not injured tmk... grabbing a fleeing thief is morally and legally very different from assaulting a woman without justification.
Click to expand...

If I picked up someone else's piece of paper, I wouldn't expect someone to assault me. Maybe my parents raised me wrong to not expect to be assaulted when I pick up a piece of paper.
 
tres borrachos said:
If I picked up someone else's piece of paper, I wouldn't expect someone to assault me. Maybe my parents raised me wrong to not expect to be assaulted when I pick up a piece of paper.
Click to expand...


A property deed and an ID are also pieces of paper. If someone stole one from you would you not attempt to recover it?

He is asserting that she stole his copy of his speech... not simply picked up a random piece of paper off the floor. You're far too smart not to know the difference.

And you're far too smart not to recognize the difference between assaulting a woman and grabbing a thief who is escaping with your property.


So what is it that is coloring your perceptions here? Is it that this speaker is abhorrent to you because of his politics, or is it that the alleged thief was a woman?

Whether his action was lawful or unlawful is not dependent on either of these things, and that is the standard I'm using.
 
Goshin said:
A property deed and an ID are also pieces of paper. If someone stole one from you would you not attempt to recover it?

He is asserting that she stole his copy of his speech... not simply picked up a random piece of paper off the floor. You're far too smart not to know the difference.

And you're far too smart not to recognize the difference between assaulting a woman and grabbing a thief who is escaping with your property.


So what is it that is coloring your perceptions here? Is it that this speaker is abhorrent to you because of his politics, or is it that the alleged thief was a woman?

Whether his action was lawful or unlawful is not dependent on either of these things, and that is the standard I'm using.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't assault someone unless my life and safety was threatened.
 
tres borrachos said:
I wouldn't assault someone unless my life and safety was threatened.
Click to expand...



That is your choice. However it is an established fact that in most jurisdictions, apprehending a thief in possession of stolen property using reasonable force is lawful.

IF she stole his speech, then this is highly relevant as to whether his actions may be considered justified or not.

You may find his actions intemperate or unwise, or personally distasteful to you... but this is not really relevant in whether his actions were legally justified.

If she willfully stole something he values from him, then his actions are probably justifiable.
 
Last edited:
Mason66 said:
You don't know, you are guessing.

If the man was there to make a speech and somebody stole that speech, I wouldn't blame him for retrieving that speech any way he had to, or he was there for nothing.

You can't admit the theft should be condemned and not the retrieving of the speech.
Click to expand...

Retrieving <=> to assaulting.

Got it?
 
beefheart said:
Retrieving <=> to assaulting.

Got it?
Click to expand...

You see it however you want to.

If this woman stole your car keys, would you just sit there and do nothing or wold you go after her, grab her arm and demand she return the keys?

Would you let her go steal your car because she is a woman?
 
Mason66 said:
You see it however you want to.

If this woman stole your car keys, would you just sit there and do nothing or wold you go after her, grab her arm and demand she return the keys?

Would you let her go steal your car because she is a woman?
Click to expand...

And the false equivalence begins.

Car keys are not equal to a piece of paper.

You are better than this.
 
beefheart said:
And the false equivalence begins.

Car keys are not equal to a piece of paper.

You are better than this.
Click to expand...

The paper had value to him.

It doesn't matter what the item was, she stole it and he got it back.

Now answer the question please.

Would you let the woman steal your car or would you try to stop her?
 
Why can’t you simply be honest about what happened? Or for that matter what he did? She didn’t ‘pick up a piece of paper’. Oopsie. Gosh...it wuz a assident. I de claih! Wherever are my manners! She stole his speech intentionally...deliberately. And he didn’t assault her. You make yourself look as stupid as the OP when you make such statements. She stole his speech. He tried to get it back. No angels. FFS.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom