Discussion in 'Off-topic Zone' started by Hostile, May 29, 2010.
Kudos to the reporter for his restraint. Wow.
I couldn't have shown that much restraint, especially when he got in my face.
I'm not sure which one deserved a broken jaw more.
The reporter is an *******. While he may not like strangers touching him, most people don't like strangers in their face, ignoring their reasoning and demanding answers, while they're trying to get on with something planned. I'm sure had he accepted her answer to talk afterward, there'd have been no problem.
I'm also sure he thinks he's making some profound headway into some kind of story, but really he's just being a rude *******.
There was already a crime committed by the touchy feel man before he even introduces himself. The first time the reporter tells the guy to not touch him and he continues touching him, that's simple battery. Then he commits another one when he touches the camera, after being annoyed. Then he does it again as they're leaving.
If you look at the projection, it's a town hall meeting. Later on, in the audio, you can hear the speaker saying public meeting. That means that's essentially, well, public. And in public, you have no expectation of privacy; it's not illegal to be photographed in public. If you're annoyed by something that's legal in public, you have the freedom to go away. Committing battery is not an acceptable response.
Also, the hospital's response to the video (pdf warning). Only addresses the gift fund: http://www.lagunahonda.org/press/LagunaHondaResponds_Update.pdf
Apparently, the way that reads, it looks like the hospital was taking donation money and the employees were spending it on themselves.
He doesn't like strangers touching him, yet he thinks someone wants strangers interviewing them? What a ******.
battery? thats just ridiculous
Unconsented touching is battery here.
No one really mentioned legality, but the supposition that one expects his rights to be respected while trampling on another's is simply clown shoes.
The reporter is an *******. He knows what she's there for and an interview at that time wasn't appropriate, nor is pursuing her up the aisle, after she explained this to him.
Whether or not the hospital is doing bad things is irrelevant, because some goof with a microphone isn't a person empowered with meting out justice and judgement in such cases. In the end, he's wrong.
He's an arrogant ***.
"Don't touch me....or I'll say don't touch me again."
Easily would have punched him in the face..easily.
I used to work with a guy that would always touch your shoulder when he talked to you, it was very creepy and uncomfortable. When we finally told him to stop he went all quiet and weird and never talked to anyone again, he quit a few months later :laugh1:
The "communications director" in the blue shirt is insane.
The only one who's rights were infringed were the reporters'.
LOL. Exactly. These two look like they deserve each other. Two different types of annoying.
Which rights were they? His right to be somewhere he doesn't belong and badger someone who is accused of something? I think our system of law says otherwise.
A hospital 'town hall' meeting isn't his 'jurisdiction', as far as I can tell; a hospital isn't public property and the employees aren't answerable to him. He was out of bounds and still an *******.
I liked how smart he thought he was.
The hospital employee should have called security. He was harassing that lady.
You're right. It would have been obvious who was the ******* in the situation when he was forced to leave. The weird choice to start patting his shoulder just let the *** act like he was being victimized.
really the press is allowed just about anywhere so he was in bounds where he was, the guy shouldn't have touched him after he was told to stop, the reporter is allowed to asked questions even though the lady said she would talk after, not saying its right but the reporter did nothing wrong legally as far as i can tell but the comm director guy did.
Property rights. The right to decide the what, who, and hows involving your property (your body is your property).
Also, the reporters can be there, since it was a public meeting which is implied consent for everybody to attend. That consent lasts up until the point they are told to leave, which they weren't (like how the reporter informs the touchy feely guy to stop touching him). By giving notice, you make it easier to prove intent in court if they don't comply, gain cause for certain actions like calling the police, etc. And a lack of notice is evidence of continued consent. They were neither told to leave nor that cameras weren't allowed. There's consent in their favor all over that video, and no evidence of trespassing. It'd be like advertising an open house in the newspaper plus your front yard, not stopping people from walking through your open front door, then claiming you can sue those who show up for trespassing. You won't win that. The only way you win that is by asking someone to leave, and if they don't leave, then you got them.
And you're right, those people aren't answerable to them. Which is why they have the right to completely ignore every question he asked and generally act like he doesn't exist. Thing is, they didn't exercise it and chose to answer him. Being an investigative reporter and based on the video, he acts like he knows how to avoid a lawsuit which would have made the above possible for them to achieve (he never intentionally impeded the woman's progress or touched anyone, other than the one time he defended himself, announced consent, kept their 2nd camera on touchy feely guy/reporter for evidence against any claims, etc).