Larry Baer

[laughing dog]

He exerted force on this phone. She was wrongly and without permission holding it at the time and didn't let go, so she fell to the ground.

She was sitting in a chair. The chair did not collapse.

As anyone who watched the video with their head not up their ass and their eyes open, she did not fall to ground of her own accord. Mr. Baer's physical actions caused the fall.

 

[untermensche]

He exerted force on this phone. She was wrongly and without permission holding it at the time and didn't let go, so she fell to the ground.

She was sitting in a chair. The chair did not collapse.

As anyone who watched the video with their head not up their ass and their eyes open, she did not fall to ground of her own accord. Mr. Baer's physical actions caused the fall.

You could just as easily say her physical actions caused it.

If she had just handed the phone to him she would not have fallen.

She decided to make it a confrontation not a hand off.

 

[laughing dog]

He exerted force on this phone. She was wrongly and without permission holding it at the time and didn't let go, so she fell to the ground.

She was sitting in a chair. The chair did not collapse.

As anyone who watched the video with their head not up their ass and their eyes open, she did not fall to ground of her own accord. Mr. Baer's physical actions caused the fall.

You could just as easily say her physical actions caused it.

Not rationally.

If she had just handed the phone to him she would not have fallen.

Her failure to hand over the phone did not cause her to fall out of her chair. That required Mr Baer to physically wrest the phone from her.

She decided to make it a confrontation not a hand off.

Which does not justify Mr Baer's actions. Mrs. Baer acted like an ass. Mr Baer acted like a bigger ass.

 

[dismal]

She exerted force normal to the ground, whereas he exerted force parallel to the ground. Because of that pulling and not because of her own force, she ended up on the ground. To pretend that is as inconsequential and non-proximal to the situation as capitalism is disingenuous.

He exerted force on this phone. She was wrongly and without permission holding it at the time and didn't let go, so she fell to the ground.

Then why did he apologize? Oh, wait: he didn't really apologize.

I dont' require my husband's explicit permission to touch his cell phone. Do you require that of your wife?

See, you keep dragging in "ZMOFOG SHES HIS WIFE!@!!!".

The trick here is to see this as if it were two individuals, not invoke and/or rely on your identity biases.

Try to imagine this is two 25 year old men who don't know each other. One takes the other's phone without permission. The one whose phone it is grabs it and takes it back. Because the phone taking person won't let go of the wrongly taken phone, he falls over.

Who is in the wrong?

 

[untermensche]

She decided to make it a confrontation not a hand off.

Which does not justify Mr Baer's actions. Mrs. Baer acted like an ass. Mr Baer acted like a bigger ass.

He acted like somebody who really needed their phone.

In the real world that is a real thing.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Technically he applied force to her without her consent, so it is indeed assault.

She clearly over reacted to make a scene to make the "attack" look more severe than it was. And there is the mitigating factor that she appears to have just stolen his property. Tom's analogy to a purse snatcher applies.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Yep. Whatever you can think of to excuse aggressive, violent behavior of men.

Why rush to gender this? Or would you have a totally different view were the genders reversed in this scene?

 

[dismal]

Technically he applied force to her without her consent, so it is indeed assault.

She clearly over reacted to make a scene to make the "attack" look more severe than it was. And there is the mitigating factor that she appears to have just stolen his property. Tom's analogy to a purse snatcher applies.

He was reclaiming his phone that she took without consent. If someone takes something from you I'm pretty sure the law entitles you to use reasonable force to take it back.

If someone grabs a woman's purse and starts running with it and she grabs the purse causing the purse taker to fall would you say the woman assaulted the thief?

 

[untermensche]

Technically he applied force to her without her consent, so it is indeed assault.

So if I take a woman's purse and she tries to take it back she is assaulting me?

 

[laughing dog]

She decided to make it a confrontation not a hand off.

Which does not justify Mr Baer's actions. Mrs. Baer acted like an ass. Mr Baer acted like a bigger ass.

He acted like somebody who really needed their phone.

In the real world that is a real thing.

In the real world acting like a huge ass is a real thing.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

If that's wrong is the key question that Toni needs to answer. I don't think she will, because of the gender double standard she is pushing and needs to maintain.

But technically, yes, it is assault if she touches the purse snatcher. She just happens to have a rather perfect defence to that.

 

[laughing dog]

She clearly over reacted to make a scene to make the "attack" look more severe than it was.

Please explain how it is so clear that Mrs Baer over-reacted, because if she clearly over-reacted, then Mr. Baer did as well.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

because if she clearly over-reacted, then Mr. Baer did as well.

This is a non-sequitor.

 

[laughing dog]

because if she clearly over-reacted, then Mr. Baer did as well.

This is a non-sequitor.

If the "this" refers to your response, I agree. If "this" refers" to the clipped part of my response, it does look like one when someone omits the first part of the sentence. That omission is consistent with sloppy and shallow thinking or with intellectual dishonesty or with a pathetic attempt to evade explaining how Ms. Baer clearly over-reacted.

 

[Gun Nut]

Fucking testerical piece of shit abuser is what he is. I can't imagine my ex husband or any man I ever dated putting their hands on me like that. They'd be eating their own balls if they had, though. This is not normal. It's not ok. That man has no self control.

Can you reply to this as if it was either two men or two women? Curious about the degree of double standard that exists.
Do women need protection from men, like children need from adults?
OR are women equal to men?

It seems feminists are incapable of making a decision on that... lol, that's ironic... not.

- - - Updated - - -

The only thing that prevents this from being an obvious case of criminal assault is the fact there is a relationship between the two people. If they were strangers to each other, he'd be chased down as any purse snatcher.

You think it is obvious that the woman stole his phone and threatened to send inappropriate texts and then threatened to kill him with the phone.. so he was acting in self-defense? I guess that is just as possible as any other interpretation. <shrug>

- - - Updated - - -

Just saying it was assault doesn't make it so.

They tussled over a phone. He was stronger. He won.

That doesn't make it assault.

If she was stronger she would have won.

good answer

 

[Gun Nut]

Yes, all that context does matter. If it wasn’t his phone which she had taken without his permission then none of responses about how it was an appropriate action against someone who’d taken his phone without his permission would apply. That’s trivially obvious enough that it didn’t need to be explicitly stated.

Whether she had permission to be holding his phone is immaterial.

Would you encourage or applaud your child to literally assault another family member over a pair of borrowed earrings?

borrowed earrings that they refused to give back are called stolen earrings.

 

[Gun Nut]

Suppose I am on a subway and some woman grabs my phone.

And I grab it back with vigor.

Have I assaulted somebody?

someone bold enough to grab your phone on the subway is reasonably bold enough to knock you out... so proactively knocking the shit out of that person is completely justified. Deadly force is not, but sufficient non-lethal force to ensure no further harm could be done by that person at the moment is completely justified... and, in my opinion, encouraged.

 

[TSwizzle]

Technically he applied force to her without her consent, so it is indeed assault.

Not really. He grabbed the phone, she resisted, lost her balance and fell off the chair. If she had either handed the phone back to him when requested or did not struggle to hold on to the phone, things would have been a lot different.

 

[Toni]

Then why did he apologize? Oh, wait: he didn't really apologize.

I dont' require my husband's explicit permission to touch his cell phone. Do you require that of your wife?

See, you keep dragging in "ZMOFOG SHES HIS WIFE!@!!!".

The trick here is to see this as if it were two individuals, not invoke and/or rely on your identity biases.

Try to imagine this is two 25 year old men who don't know each other. One takes the other's phone without permission. The one whose phone it is grabs it and takes it back. Because the phone taking person won't let go of the wrongly taken phone, he falls over.

Who is in the wrong?

Spouses are not strangers. There is certainly legal intimacy and a presumption of physical intimacy beyond a sexual relationship which may or may not (still) exist. Usually and as far as I can tell, in this case, the couple cohabitates and generally shares many if not all expenses, and property. Generally, one spouse is assumed to have the permission to touch the other person’s belongings. I doubt very much that the wife asks permission to touch her husband’s dirty laundry or that he objects to her taking it to the laundry room, washinging it and putting it away. Or taking it to the dry cleaners. Or picking it up after. She might even go through his pockets to ensure that there are no objects which might be ruined or ruin his clothing in the wash. Or flip genders. Even if each is responsible for their own laundry, one would presume that each had permission to go through pockets and desk drawers to locate misplaced keys or phones or eyeglasses, etc. this is not remarkable in any way. In fact, it is assumed. It is unusual and unexpected that one person would react violently if their spouse touched their belongings.

On the other hand, if a stranger were to go through someone’s pockets or laundry without express permission that would be unexpected and possibly criminal. It would not be unexpected to snatch ones belonging from a stranger even with sufficient force to knock them to the ground.

It is not expected or usual that if one spouse knocks the other to the ground that the spouse still standing does not express concern and contrition and offer to help their loved one as needed, profusely apologizing. Even if there had been a heated argument that caused the incident.

The video clearly shows the man’s body making contact with the seated woman. The woman cries out in alarm. The phone is wrestled away from her with such force that she falls from her chair to the ground.

The man clearly treats his wife violently in this instance. The MLB, his employer, seems to agree. The wife, in a pattern typical of many abused women, seems disinclined to press charges and even accepts the blame for her husband’s violence.

 

[dismal]

Then why did he apologize? Oh, wait: he didn't really apologize.

I dont' require my husband's explicit permission to touch his cell phone. Do you require that of your wife?

See, you keep dragging in "ZMOFOG SHES HIS WIFE!@!!!".

The trick here is to see this as if it were two individuals, not invoke and/or rely on your identity biases.

Try to imagine this is two 25 year old men who don't know each other. One takes the other's phone without permission. The one whose phone it is grabs it and takes it back. Because the phone taking person won't let go of the wrongly taken phone, he falls over.

Who is in the wrong?

Spouses are not strangers.

Ok, fine. But as soon as your argument requires this comment you have left a neutral analysis of the acts of two individuals and entered a world colored by your gender and gender role biases.