The Most Passive Aggresive Guy Ever

[ZeroClub]

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.

The reporter annoyed me too, for the reasons that you mentioned.

The communications director was no prize either.

I vote "double fail."

 

[CATCH17]

Do not touch me!

 

[vta]

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).

I don't know the particulars of that meeting, but what makes you think it was public? It was taking place in a hospital, most likely for hospital staff. My company has 'town hall meetings' as well, but this doesn't mean it is open for anyone off the street to come in and disrupt.

I'm with Zero: double fail, but the reporter instigated it.

 

[Hostile]

I fail to see what the reporter did wrong. Laguna whatever obviously got caught using gift funds wrongly and did not want to answer questions. He was there to seek answers and they were going to do whatever they could not to do that.

The lady he wanted to question had excuse after excuse as to why she could not answer them. The meeting, then after the meeting she had another meeting, wink wink. Then after the meeting gets canceled and her time is technically free, she announces she has another meeting.

The PR guy is obviously there to cause a disruption in whatever way he can. He is the bulldog who is not going to allow her to answer questions. Like reporters or not, he was there doing a job. Probably an assignment. Had they been left alone he could have done his report that showed he tried to get answers and was rebuffed or Laguna whatever refused to answer.

Instead he gets a guy who clearly wanted to push buttons and be rude. Then that guy has the temerity to announce that the meeting is over because channel 7 is disrupting. How were they disrupting? By being there to do their jobs? Is it not an open "town hall" meeting? Are there not often reporters at these meetings? Is it wrong to try and get an interview?

I just don't see where the news people did anything at all wrong. They may be slimy, but they didn't do anything wrong. IMO.

 

[Faerluna]

I fail to see what the reporter did wrong. Laguna whatever obviously got caught using gift funds wrongly and did not want to answer questions. He was there to seek answers and they were going to do whatever they could not to do that.

The lady he wanted to question had excuse after excuse as to why she could not answer them. The meeting, then after the meeting she had another meeting, wink wink. Then after the meeting gets canceled and her time is technically free, she announces she has another meeting.

The PR guy is obviously there to cause a disruption in whatever way he can. He is the bulldog who is not going to allow her to answer questions. Like reporters or not, he was there doing a job. Probably an assignment. Had they been left alone he could have done his report that showed he tried to get answers and was rebuffed or Laguna whatever refused to answer.

Instead he gets a guy who clearly wanted to push buttons and be rude. Then that guy has the temerity to announce that the meeting is over because channel 7 is disrupting. How were they disrupting? By being there to do their jobs? Is it not an open "town hall" meeting? Are there not often reporters at these meetings? Is it wrong to try and get an interview?

I just don't see where the news people did anything at all wrong. They may be slimy, but they didn't do anything wrong. IMO.

This.

And I hate it when people I don't know touch me when trying to patronize or placate me. I would have a hard time keeping my cool after repeated touching like that.

 

[Jon88]

I think it's ignorant as hell to touch somebody when you're talking to them.

 

[CATCH17]

:mchammer: :mchammer: Cant touch this :mchammer: :mchammer:

 

[vta]

I fail to see what the reporter did wrong. Laguna whatever obviously got caught using gift funds wrongly and did not want to answer questions. He was there to seek answers and they were going to do whatever they could not to do that.

The lady he wanted to question had excuse after excuse as to why she could not answer them. The meeting, then after the meeting she had another meeting, wink wink. Then after the meeting gets canceled and her time is technically free, she announces she has another meeting.

The PR guy is obviously there to cause a disruption in whatever way he can. He is the bulldog who is not going to allow her to answer questions. Like reporters or not, he was there doing a job. Probably an assignment. Had they been left alone he could have done his report that showed he tried to get answers and was rebuffed or Laguna whatever refused to answer.

Instead he gets a guy who clearly wanted to push buttons and be rude. Then that guy has the temerity to announce that the meeting is over because channel 7 is disrupting. How were they disrupting? By being there to do their jobs? Is it not an open "town hall" meeting? Are there not often reporters at these meetings? Is it wrong to try and get an interview?

I just don't see where the news people did anything at all wrong. They may be slimy, but they didn't do anything wrong. IMO.

Is it an 'open town hall' meeting? That seems unclear to me. It doesn't appear to be a town hall in that sense, i.e. civic and/or politic. Only in the sense many companies do this as engendering a sense of community for their employees; not open to everyone.

No one is obligated to answer anything from him, especially when their itinerary is holding a meeting for their little whatever it was - company, colleagues, etc. If that place did something wrong, it's obviously been brought to light and was/is probably being handled in the system of law. The reporter is grandstanding in the aftermath and it's lame, self serving faux piety.

Why des everyone think the moment someone is accused of wrong doing they are simply to be subjected to all kinds of unnecessary scrutiny and badgering as an adjunct to their day in court? Why have we become a society of immature nose-pickers who want to finger point at someone else's transgressions endlessly? The glorification of 'investigative reporters' has certainly emboldened misguided people to acting poorly.

Did the hospital do something wrong? It seems so. Are they obligated to be badgered by someone because he was erroneously given the idea it's his job to do so? Not at all. It's not mine or anybody right to demand anything from them further if they're paying their debt through the legal system.

I'm on the side of the reactionary. You don't like the reaction? Don't force one.

 

[Hostile]

Is it an 'open town hall' meeting? That seems unclear to me. It doesn't appear to be a town hall in that sense, i.e. civic and/or politic. Only in the sense many companies do this as engendering a sense of community for their employees; not open to everyone.

No one is obligated to answer anything from him, especially when their itinerary is holding a meeting for their little whatever it was - company, colleagues, etc. If that place did something wrong, it's obviously been brought to light and was/is probably being handled in the system of law. The reporter is grandstanding in the aftermath and it's lame, self serving faux piety.

Why des everyone think the moment someone is accused of wrong doing they are simply to be subjected to all kinds of unnecessary scrutiny and badgering as an adjunct to their day in court? Why have we become a society of immature nose-pickers who want to finger point at someone else's transgressions endlessly? The glorification of 'investigative reporters' has certainly emboldened misguided people to acting poorly.

Did the hospital do something wrong? It seems so. Are they obligated to be badgered by someone because he was erroneously given the idea it's his job to do so? Not at all. It's not mine or anybody right to demand anything from them further if they're paying their debt through the legal system.

I'm on the side of the reactionary. You don't like the reaction? Don't force one.

If it is not open, have security let them know this, and close the doors and have the meeting. How is that complicated?

The guy has no right to touch the man, especially after he requests that he not do it. It is crystal clear to me that the man's sole purpose was to prevent the news from getting their story any way he could.

I don't blame the reporters.

 

[theogt]

Neither man appears to have done anything for which he would be legally liable.

However, they're both guilty of being self important ****** bags.

 

[Chief]

I fail to see what the reporter did wrong. Laguna whatever obviously got caught using gift funds wrongly and did not want to answer questions. He was there to seek answers and they were going to do whatever they could not to do that.

The lady he wanted to question had excuse after excuse as to why she could not answer them. The meeting, then after the meeting she had another meeting, wink wink. Then after the meeting gets canceled and her time is technically free, she announces she has another meeting.

The PR guy is obviously there to cause a disruption in whatever way he can. He is the bulldog who is not going to allow her to answer questions. Like reporters or not, he was there doing a job. Probably an assignment. Had they been left alone he could have done his report that showed he tried to get answers and was rebuffed or Laguna whatever refused to answer.

Instead he gets a guy who clearly wanted to push buttons and be rude. Then that guy has the temerity to announce that the meeting is over because channel 7 is disrupting. How were they disrupting? By being there to do their jobs? Is it not an open "town hall" meeting? Are there not often reporters at these meetings? Is it wrong to try and get an interview?

I just don't see where the news people did anything at all wrong. They may be slimy, but they didn't do anything wrong. IMO.

 

[vta]

If it is not open, have security let them know this, and close the doors and have the meeting. How is that complicated?

The guy has no right to touch the man, especially after he requests that he not do it. It is crystal clear to me that the man's sole purpose was to prevent the news from getting their story any way he could.

I don't blame the reporters.

Complicated by the misdirection of the reporter, pretending the sole issue is his being touched. Get lost and you'll no longer be touched. It's a pretty common and transparent theme: act in such a way to get a reaction then condemn the reaction.

In the end we don't agree. so I'll just make a face and leave. Happy Memorial day.
:tongue:

 

[Eskimo]

I fail to see what the reporter did wrong. Laguna whatever obviously got caught using gift funds wrongly and did not want to answer questions. He was there to seek answers and they were going to do whatever they could not to do that.

The lady he wanted to question had excuse after excuse as to why she could not answer them. The meeting, then after the meeting she had another meeting, wink wink. Then after the meeting gets canceled and her time is technically free, she announces she has another meeting.

The PR guy is obviously there to cause a disruption in whatever way he can. He is the bulldog who is not going to allow her to answer questions. Like reporters or not, he was there doing a job. Probably an assignment. Had they been left alone he could have done his report that showed he tried to get answers and was rebuffed or Laguna whatever refused to answer.

Instead he gets a guy who clearly wanted to push buttons and be rude. Then that guy has the temerity to announce that the meeting is over because channel 7 is disrupting. How were they disrupting? By being there to do their jobs? Is it not an open "town hall" meeting? Are there not often reporters at these meetings? Is it wrong to try and get an interview?

I just don't see where the news people did anything at all wrong. They may be slimy, but they didn't do anything wrong. IMO.

I agree 100%.

 

[theogt]

What the reporter did wrong is to badger the people knowing good and well he wasn't getting an interview. He was going to push the issue until it reached a hostile confrontation. He had no chance of getting the interview and was there to harass rather than gather information.

 

[gmoney112]

What the reporter did wrong is to badger the people knowing good and well he wasn't getting an interview. He was going to push the issue until it reached a hostile confrontation. He had no chance of getting the interview and was there to harass rather than gather information.

Yep. Should have tossed him out by his coattails. Pretty funny video though.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Yeah, once the reporter doesn't find an opening, it's best to just walk away and try to ambush her outside of the building. By that time she may have cooled down and wont' be in front of a lot of people. So will actually feel the need to at least say something.

 

[Hostile]

Complicated by the misdirection of the reporter, pretending the sole issue is his being touched. Get lost and you'll no longer be touched. It's a pretty common and transparent theme: act in such a way to get a reaction then condemn the reaction.

In the end we don't agree. so I'll just make a face and leave. Happy Memorial day.
:tongue:

I just don't see that. After the "cancellation" he continues trying to get the interview he came there for and they are clearly avoiding him because they don't have their story straight about what they have done with the misappropriated funds.

Like I said, the reporter is slimy, but he has a job to do, tries to be polite and is interrupted repeatedly by passive aggressive guy.

I personally think he handled it fairly well. Many men would have decked the guy and made things worse.

 

[vta]

I just don't see that. After the "cancellation" he continues trying to get the interview he came there for and they are clearly avoiding him because they don't have their story straight about what they have done with the misappropriated funds.

Like I said, the reporter is slimy, but he has a job to do, tries to be polite and is interrupted repeatedly by passive aggressive guy.

I personally think he handled it fairly well. Many men would have decked the guy and made things worse.

Let's take on the passive aggressive aspect of this issue, which the reporter is clearly guilty of before he is interfered with. Cut it down simplistically. You show up unexpected at a function where the principles are not obligated to answer your questions; you ask for an interview; you are denied, you ignore the denial and pursue the woman up to her podium, hover over this woman and make demands of when she can grant you time. This is clearly aggressive pursuit, this is clearly the catalyst for a confrontation.

Earlier, you asked about the complications of a right course of action, how complicated is it to understand you're over stepping your bounds when she said not now? Sit down and wait until after or hang around outside and try again. As Theo has already articulated better than I have, his intent was not to simply gather information but to be confrontational.

No matter how calm his demeanor, it's obvious what he was doing. He was aggressively pursuing someone who clearly did not want to talk to him. The guy who touched him may not have acted in the wisest manner, but his action is clearly a reaction to the reporters unnecessary pursuit of someone not obligated to answer to him at a very inopportune time.

Whatever these people did, they're answerable to the law for it, not him and his misguided notions of thinking their guilt strips them of their basic rights and obligates them to be subjected to random intrusions and chided by someone with a microphone and camera crew. He's a pro and he knew exactly what he was doing.

I guess this video effects different people in different ways, for me the reporter pissed me off more than the people he's harassing for the reasons stated above.

 

[Hostile]

I still don't get it. Maybe I'm too used to seeing reporters try to get interviews to think his method was wrong.

 

[theogt]

I just don't see that. After the "cancellation" he continues trying to get the interview he came there for and they are clearly avoiding him because they don't have their story straight about what they have done with the misappropriated funds.

Like I said, the reporter is slimy, but he has a job to do, tries to be polite and is interrupted repeatedly by passive aggressive guy.

I personally think he handled it fairly well. Many men would have decked the guy and made things worse.

His job isn't to harass people. His job is to gather and report information. He had no hopes of gathering information. He was just there to harass.