August 31, 2011

Honor my personal space bubble!

David Blaska notes a hilarious assertion by Isthmus blogger Emily Mills (who still owes me an apology). Mills, in an effort to spin the Wisconsin Supreme Court "chokehold" incident, says:
Yes, everyone agrees that Bradley was moving toward Prosser.... And if I were moving toward someone, asking them to leave a room, I would also expect them to move. You don't have to be "charging" someone to expect that. It's called a personal space bubble - most people reflexively honor it.
So... when you're standing there in your personal space bubble, and I decide to swiftly relocate my personal space bubble into the place currently occupied by your bubble, you need to move your bubble? I'm picturing something like bocce ball, but more bouncy. There's honor for you!

81 comments:

Chip S. said...

Emily Mills is a bubblehead.

Rick Caird said...

I wonder if that theory would work universally. Would a crowd just part for me, like the red sea, if I wanted to walk through that crowd.

Hmmm, probably not. Emily Mills has a flawed theory.

Kirby Olson said...

Tiny bubbles.

campy said...

Women have a Right to personal space. Men have a Responsibility to provide it.

MadisonMan said...

What Chip S. said. Maybe I shouldn't be so harsh -- she could be a neighbor, but I assume she's an East-sider and therefore not.

Writ Small said...

Dear Lord,

I don't talk to you often, but would it be too much to ask for you to arrange a Bloggingheads episode between Ann Althouse and Emily Mills? Amen.

ndspinelli said...

I'm thinking of the Seinfeld "Bubble Boy" episode. You'll remember the bubble boy was an asshole as is this journalist bubble girl.

But, although I have no agenda, and I actually agree w/ our august and benevolent professor on this issue; I pray to the Good Lord this topic of legal, political, and social significance ends soon. If it doesn't, I'm going to kill a puppy..I mean it..I'll really do it!!!

ark said...

Shouldn't that be "There's glory for you!" ?

chickenlittle said...

campy said...
Women have a Right to personal space. Men have a Responsibility to provide it.

Some might take penumbrage at that remark.

Charlie said...

In basketball it's known as "charging"' and is a foul.

MikeDC said...

I'm just going to walk forward swinging my fists, and if they happen to hit you, it's clearly your fault for not getting out of my way.

That didn't work when I was six, but apparently it'll be ok with Emily Mills if someone wants to use that as an excuse for slugging her.

Chip S. said...

@ndspinelli--When Bradley's bubble bumped into Prosser's bubble, one of them should've at least said "Moops."

Joanna said...

So... it's Prosser's fault for not getting out of the way. I think I've heard this song before. Yawn.
----
"Moops". Hehe.

pbAndjFellowRepublican said...

Ok now there've been enough posts about this Emily character, so I needed to know if she was typical WI, in the physical sense (by physical sense I don't mean in the physically active sense, which seems to be atypical in WI).

Anyways, it turns you she's not supersized! But, she's not home WI grown either. Figures.

But, most importantly she and Meade have a mutual passion:
Mills: I'm also an avid road and mountain biker.

I think we need a Meade-Mill bike battle. Winner gets an especially big and honorable space bubble.

Alex Ignatiev said...

A duty to retreat from an innocent threatened with harm? I would die before I lived in Emily Mills's world. That's of a piece with UN stupid-think, which does not admit that self-defense is a universal human right.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Seven Machos said...

It's obvious that Bradley tried to aggravate Prosser, who she properly believes is a hothead. She believed further than when he touched her, she could claim it was more than what it was.

I do think that, in some way, she was able to believe the charges she made. But that doesn't mean she didn't lie.

She got served, and she should be disbarred for what her fraud and slander.

garage mahal said...

Maybe I shouldn't be so harsh -- she could be a neighbor, but I assume she's an East-sider and therefore not.

Oh my, aren't we special -- but I wonder who puts in more actual hours -- sniveling, overpaid, pampered academics like you, or Emily Mills?

Meade said...

The right to blow my personal space bubble ends where the woman's nose begins to grow, characterizing my bubble to her husband as a "chokehold," and then leaks my chokeheld bubble to Bill Leuders who then really blows it.

Brennan said...

Isn't this a horrible script written for Jake Gylenhaal?

Mr. Forward said...

Your Personal Space Bubble
Popped my Red Heart Balloon

Maguro said...

I don't think wingnuts like Prosser are authorized a Personal space bubble. It's only for the elect, he vanguard of the proletariat.

edutcher said...

If you dishonor Jim Kirk's personal space bubble, you'll get phasered.

This is how the Lefties are losing their authority - making up this PC claptrap they expect everyone else to obey.

And more and more, people are getting fed up.

Carol_Herman said...

Unfortunately, the credenza was in the way.

Prosser probably arrived at the doorway ... from a different position. And, the four justices lined up, together.

Prosser WON. And, he keeps winning on replay.

Meanwhile, I'm going to suppose (since Prosser says it wasn't him), that it was Gabelman who went to the Judiciary Committee !

Over there, they did not pick up this "hot potato" from newsprints.

Emily Mills is an idiot. Too stupid to "reach for the Pulitzer."

They just don't turn out good journalists, anymore than they turn out star attractions for judges. (Judge Judy doesn't count. Because she's on TV. Where the money is.)

Carol_Herman said...

Meade, are you describing snot when you lose control of a sneeze? (That's so embarrassing.)

Meanwhile, nobody seems to have been embarrassed enough by the "chokehold" story to call Bradley a liar to her face.

Her husband, Mark, can't. Because he finds his wife crying for two or three minutes at a time. Before she's rational again.

I pity the poor man.

I think, too, when he's commanded to sleep on the couch ... He says a little prayer of thanks.

Seven Machos said...

You can your space bubbles. And your can pick your nose. But you have to flee when others prick your space bubble.

Seven Machos said...

You can PICK your space bubble!

Dammit.

Carol_Herman said...

"Moops" doesn't have a meaning, as far as I know.

Perhaps, Prosser was supposed to say "Simon Sez." And, then he gets to move forward. But he should have been carrying an armload of paperwork. That would have ended Bradley's flaying ... Especially, if Prosser had included some dollar bills ...

For the future. Load the deck. Maybe, you'll need ten's or twenty's instead of one's.

But definitely don't use EURO's. Or Monopoly Money.

There's lots of things Prosser "could have done" in hindsight.

But the idiot, Bradley ... ??? She's stuck with "choke hold."

And, she's also stuck because "one of the witnesses" went to the Judiciary Committee?

I'm betting it was Gabelman. Because he has his own story to tell about the lunatic, Bradley. (But you've heard it all by now.)

Marty said...

Typical leftwing arrogance!

ndspinelli said...

Will someone please explain the "Moops"[kudos to Chip S] Bubble Boy, Seinfeld to Carol Herman. I am out of patience and unlike some, I'm not an enabler.

Carol_Herman said...

From the details already given, I notice that 3 of David Prosser's colleagues went to his office ... With a suggestion they publish the majority opinion ... Letting the 3 others go hang themselves.

But Prosser said "no." He said that wasn't a good idea. And, they first should go to the Chief, herself. But she wasn't in her office.

Crooks had gone home.

Leaving, really either Bradley's office or the broom closet. (Or the toilet.)

The 4 walking in ... find the Chief. She listens to their argument about publishing "an opinion." At which point David Prosser says he's lost faith in the Chief.

Up pops the lunatic Bradley.

Roggensack will stand in Bradley's way so that David Prosser doesn't get hit. (He can't move backwards, because there's furniture in his way.) Though he does make a quick retreat.

I'm betting Gabelman went to the Judiciary Committee. While Bradley went to the press. Or maybe even Abrahamson did.

The press told a story that has blown up on two women's faces. And, those weren't bubbles!

Bubbles on fun!

You can blow them at babies ... and babies laugh.

This is no laughing matter, now.

More like Holy Shit.

Anne said...

Personal space bubble? This particular Disney movie character comes to mind:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIN-QGBWHAI

Meade said...

pbAndjFellowRepublican said...
"I think we need a Meade-Mill[s] bike battle. Winner gets an especially big and honorable space bubble."

I'm game. We'll call it "12 Hours of Wisconsin Wicked"

Monday, Labor Day, 6:30 AM CDT
Start and Finish at the statue of Hans Christian Heg

chickenlittle said...

Emily Mills-approved Prosser/Bradley communication: link.

Carol_Herman said...

How come the "space" of the Chief's chair isn't filled by the Governor?

It's not even like musical chairs.

Shirley's the chief because she's been seated the longest. So if she drops dead then Crooks is the Chief?

Shouldn't the "chief's" chair be more important than that? Currently it's like a headstone. For the longest survivor.

It's a terrible system that needs to be changed.

And, the "system" of a "seat" lasting longer than six years ... also seems to defy the logic of our Founding Fathers.

Jose_K said...

They were working. The were conferencing and one of those supposed to be part of the reunion must left because another of them wants to?
When and public office became private space?
I guess the only one with the power to compel another to go out is the CJ. And it would be disrespecful to passover her authority.

Kirby Olson said...

Sniper on top of water tower in NYC:

"It's your responsibility to duck!"

traditionalguy said...

Bubbles is a Chimp.

Emily is not evolved to the truth telling skill common to developed humans.

Send her back.

Carol_Herman said...

What's in front of the Judiciary Committee?

The papers are filed with them on a Friday. When this news goes and breaks on a Saturday.

How inappropriate was it to tell Prosser to leave "Bradley's space" ... when the Chief was inside this space. And, an issue before this court was being discussed?

It may be very interesting TO the members of the Judiciary Committee to see the outlines of what would get tossed into the media hopper ... before even Tubbs arrives to hear ONE SIDE OF THE ARGUMENT. (And, he refuses to take notes!)

When did the Chief Justice learn that the Judiciary Committee had a complaint?

David Prosser says he didn't write it. (But he did "lawyer up.") Because he knew from experience that the Chief was INCOMPETENT! And, Bradley had gotten all fired up!

Who is the quiet one? Who filed the complaint? Is all this paperwork secret? Will it remain so, too?

Bless the head of KARMA. It tends to work in reverse of those who try to manipulate things.

Heck, today, you even know who DEEP THROAT turned out to be. Will history, ahead, cast a vote?

Carol_Herman said...

There was a scene in the parking lot.

Yes. Prosser was approached. He seemed to want to say something. Took the mic. And, then treated it like it was a hot potato. And, yes. Then he went to the elevator. Got in. And, somebody outside held the elevator door button open ... So, David Prosser finally just turned around and gave his back to the camera ...

BUT OUT IN THE PARKING LOT ... There was grandma ... briefly interviewed. She looked like a cat that caught a bird in its mouth. And, when she was asked to comment ... she said "this matter was in front of the Judiciary Committee."

Was she trying to take credit for throwing this paperwork over to them? REALLY?

You know, that would be a twist to this story I wouldn't expect!

Ann Althouse said...

"Dear Lord, I don't talk to you often, but would it be too much to ask for you to arrange a Bloggingheads episode between Ann Althouse and Emily Mills? Amen."

This isn't something I would do, because Mills has disrespected me and abused me in a way described in the link in the post. I called her on her behavior and she did not respond in an appropriate way. I would not put in the effort to pretend to have a serious discussion with someone like that.

In any case, she's a local blogger.

Insufficiently Sensitive said...

Emily Mills is employing the same logic used by those aggressive drivers who come from behind, all but climb into your trunk, flash their lights and demand by all possible signals that you yield the lane to them.

That IS the correct etiquette of the community, isn't it?

caplight said...

One of my favorite "arias" from the Mister Rogers Neighborhood show operas was Betty Aberlain singing, "There's Never Any Trouble Here In Bubble Land!"

http://pbskids.org/video/?category=Mister%20Rogers%27%20Neighborhood&pid=gRcbQGEXUKoxTz4vC_bgyTbocZ5q1YDe

Curious George said...

Will someone please explain the "Moops"[kudos to Chip S] Bubble Boy, Seinfeld to Carol Herman. I am out of patience and unlike some, I'm not an enabler.

Sure. Here Carol_Herman

Carol_Herman said...

As the 6 players divided up that day, we know Abrahamson went out to dinner soon after. Bradley sat back down at her desk and composed her "choke hold" drama ...

And, Prosser went back to his office and "lawyered up."

I'd guess Roggensack went no further. Crooks had already gone home.

But the words hanging in the air still had to be what Prosser said, BEFORE Bradley "rose up" ... and "flew into her rage that the Chief was mistreated." Didn't affect Abrhamson's dinner plans though.

But go back to what was hanging in the air.

David Prosser didn't want to publish the majority's opinion ... where Governor Walker discovered the Supreme Court had given a GREEN LIGHT to the way the legislature handled the "Public Meeting" law.

Somebody took the time to register a complaint with the Judiciary Committee. And, this paperwork arrived DATED the day before the story explodes in the media.

PUBLIC MEETING LAW, anyone?

Rules? Anyone?

Sure, Abrahamson was motivated to keep sitting on a Supreme Court result. Even though it was her own dissenting opinion that was "withholding" publication. And, suddenly from out of the wings ... this appears!

Abrahamson, in her dissent, ripped into Prosser's "concurrence," where he put into the record ALL of the things that had happened out in the public's view ... (like "flee-bagging" and everything) ... placing this within the framework of "legal citations."

Which Abrahamson tried to disqualify ... because you can only take text out of legal textbooks. (Dunno if this is true. Or not true.) But it is now all part of the "paperwork."

Including the fact that three justices had wanted David Prosser to go along with the idea of an "early publication" ... even though it wouldn't contain Abrahamson's dissent.

Then the media got a hold of all of this; hoping to delay notification that the UNION POSITION LOST!

Honk. Honk. Sometimes, like it or not, people fall asleep when they're the front car at a red light. And, the light turns green.

Sometimes? The car in front sees a pedestrian still crossing. And, all the honking in the world, doesn't get the front car moving forward. Because there's a very good reason for the delay.

The media could have done a better job, but didn't.

And, from the way this particular subject still brings along interesting responses ... it's very possible that people are expecting (nay, anticipating) an outcome.

I don't think it's David Prosser's outster.

Nor do I know what exists for the Judiciary Committee to investigate.

Nor do I know if Cbolt will be proven right ... and all we will see, ahead, is a "punt."

At the same time I don't think anyone in the media has good enough eyes that they can mount a water tower ... and be handed a sniper's gun. It just ain't in the cards that they'd hit much ... except to put holes in the water tower ...

Ann Althouse said...

Thanks, Curious. Amusing that the short clip includes two chokings!

Carol_Herman said...

Yup! Two chokings. And, neither one of them is Bradley's neck!

pbAndjFellowRepublican said...

141 miles!

I'd assume that was a joke (and Mills may too if she reads this), but I recall an earlier post re Meade and a long race w/ harsh terrain.

Note to Mills: believe the miles!

Anywho, that's enough about you folks. I racked up more than 37 miles in my kayak on Sunday. So, next time WI is doing a bike/kayak biathelon y'all are going down when I come to town, so don't try to clown, and don't frown when you fall down.

-pb&jFRLyricalGangster

Paco Wové said...

sniveling, overpaid, pampered academics

I'm sorry to have to tell you this, MM, but you've been cast out of the brotherhood of the proletariat. You're no longer working class!

roesch-voltaire said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Beta Rube said...

I can't wait to test the Mills theory with my Yukon. It's been mothballed for the summer and I've been driving a high mileage little sedan, idling in traffic jams like everyone else.

roesch-voltaire said...

The problem is just what is considered personal space varies from culture to culture and even person to person. For example I notice in Italy folks get very close to each other when talking. This also seems to be the case when I visit in New York among New Yorkers and among my Jewish friends. So how do we know when we have entered the space bubble of another, which is why I suspect no one in the testimony describes the incident in terms of inches, but only makes the general claim Bradley got into his face. But really if someone enters my face/ space and I am uncomfortable, I just ask them to back off, no need for any physical response, unless I have been touched, and as Prosser notes that did not happen. By the way thank for the link to Emily's blog as I do not have the time check out all the interesting bloggers.

Seven Machos said...

Roesch -- The issue really isn't the personal space. It's the lie Bradley obviously told.

Writ Small said...

Ann Althouse said. . .

This isn't something I would do. . .

To be honest, I just want to see you talk on this topic. The opposition isn't so critical - although seeing you jolly stomp over Emily's arguments would be a real pleasure.

Is there anyone in the BH community who would make a good matchup? Kaus and Althouse would be fantastic, although you might just agree on too much.

Suggested topics:

Ann explains Chokegate

Wisconsin Woes = Union throes?

Mickey on Obama's missed opportunities

Ann vs. Mickey: Handicapping the Republican field

Obama Quits?

There is a *lot* of topic crossover to explore.

Milwaukee said...

The problem is that if a person reaches a position through something other than logic, logic won't move them from that position. How did so many leftist become so delusional?

Once Bradley's office became an impromptu conference room, she lost the right to through an individual out.

So the majority of 4 wanted something done, and could have done something without the whole court participating, but they were such good sports they looked for the others.

Just as the left taught us impeachment won't work, they are teaching us that our manners are not our allies.

Chip S. said...

@roesch-voltaire: I say w/o snark that your comment is a perfect expression of contemporary liberalism as it is ridiculed by us 'wingers on this board.

You contribute a cosmopolitan observation about cultural differences, complete with a bit of worldly insight from your travels to beautiful Italy and your extensive NYC experience, that you (perhaps sincerely) believe supports a claim that appears risible to the rest of us, thereby demonstrating the remarkable ability of the clever and erudite to rationalize just about anything.

A simple person like me thinks that Wisconsinites probably have expectations of personal space that are subject to a much smaller range of variation than occurs between Americans and Italians, or even Madisonians and New Yorkers, so that your explanation seems just silly. That, of course, makes me appear quite provincial to a more worldly and cultured observer. But it doesn't mean that the sophisticated rationalization is a correct interpretation.

This is similar to the manner in which an apparent rube like Palin can actually be better on policy than a sophisticate like Obama, even though she speaks in homely terms.

chrisnavin said...

Roesch-Volatire,

How many space bubbles can fit on the head of a pin?

PackerBronco said...

"In any case, she's a local blogger.

8/31/11 7:25 PM"

Are you saying that she lives in her own little bubble?

Writ Small said...

From the Blaska link. . .

Three of the justices (Prosser, Roggensack, and Gableman) have her raising a fist and one of them, Justice Patience Roggensack says that Bradley would have hit Prosser had she not pulled them apart.

Justice Roggensack told Justice Bradley that she did not stop him [Prosser] from anything, and added, "I stopped you from hitting him." [Page 54 of 70]



roesch-voltaire said...

But really if someone enters my face/ space and I am uncomfortable, I just ask them to back off, no need for any physical response, unless I have been touched, and as Prosser notes that did not happen.

And that happens when you are rushed by someone with raised fists with a possible intention to strike? I doubt sincerely your personal space experiences at all compare what Prosser was faced with. If they do, please elaborate.

Carol_Herman said...

Feh. Bubbles are bubbles that would be recognized just about anyplace in the USA.

As to "noses," and "spaces" ... the issue at hand is that Bradley MADE IT UP! Her "space wasn't invaded."

Prosser reacted! And, he couldn't quite turn around and flee, either. Because there was a piece of furniture in the way.

The people who come here?

Not necessarily from Madison.

And, you can't really tell how they vote, anyway.

If Bradley wanted the safety of space ... she should have excused herself and ran to the bathroom. Where she'd find an open stall. Where she could not just bolt close the door ... but she could also lower her drawers. Do what she had to do.

That's NOT what happened!

And, so far it's still a good mystery story.

Cbolt says it will end in a punt.

Sometimes, I think he's right.

And, sometimes, I think Gableman. Who lives in Wisconsin. And, who was a witness. Not just an observer ... (Unlike Crook who wasn't there) ... might have dropped off a note to the Judiciary Committee?

The day before this hits the newspapers ... something flew over the transom at the Judiciary Committee.

Besides. Those up on the bench ... KNOW BRADLEY ... just as they know Prosser.

3 of Prosser's colleagues, as a matter of fact ... WENT to Prosser with an IDEA. He shot that one down. And, together 4 justices went looking for their Chief.

All in a day's work.

Bradley remains a PIECE OF WORK.

And, nobody's got "bubble spaces." It's a red herring. Here. There. And, everywhere! Including among those who sit on Wisconsin's Supreme Court.

What will the Judiciary Committee's outcome be?

I don't think they'll bring a ruler ... looking to define "bubble space."

As to "how many angels can you get on the top of a pin," nobody back, when the question was asked, had any idea about our quantum world. Even Einstein wasn't born, yet.

I wish we had more insight into how the Judiciary Committee works.

Up ahead, though? I don't think we're gonna see re-runs of KLOPPENHOPPEN any time soon! I think people, in general, are gonna ask better questions about "qualifications." (Waving around a Catholic high school's teaching credential ... won't do the trick.)

Americans? They're becoming much more sophisticated shoppers! Gone, too, is the day that Ma Bell owned all the telephones.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

RV is to liberalism what Titus is to homosexuality.

DADvocate said...

That's about as good as logic gets for a liberal. Things should be the way I think they should be because that's the way things should be.

DADvocate said...

The problem is just what is considered personal space varies from culture to culture and even person to person.

What cultures are Bradley and Prosser from? The same one.

What are their cultural differences? None.

SunnyJ said...

Mills explanation suddenly makes it clear to me what the capitol demonstrators, Tea Party attackers and Walker Stalkers are so frustrated about...they are advancing their bubble...and the rest of us refused to back up.

Who knew were obligated to do that based on the bubble chronicles?

We are so sorry not to assist you by participating in our own demise. Hope that doesn't bust your bubble!

Chef Mojo said...

In any case, she's a local blogger.

Don't know in which county Emily Mills resides, but I imagine her head is in the next county over after that bitch slap.

Meade said...

@Sunny J - v. well put.

Shanna said...

Dumb. If someone moves into your space purposefully in that manner, they are trying to dominate you. If you scoot back, you have lost.

Not to mention that what Bradley did is just plain rude.

William said...

This is like some Larry David episode where the protagonists torture each other about the moral responsibilities of someone who left a water stain on a piece of furniture....The arguments pro and con of this case reveal not the morality of the protagonists but the exaggerated sense of their own self importance. Doesn't anyone have sufficient ego detachment to take a step back and ponder the absurdity of their positions? You are all using silly string to hang each other.

chickenlittle said...

Mills, "The Champagne of Throttled Fears"*

______________
*Inspired by a 1950's era Miller Beer jingle: link

DADvocate said...

Mills, "The Champagne of Throttled Fears"

Excellent.

Real American said...

/she was wearing a short skirt.

Mr. Forward said...

Dawn. Silly String. 10 paces.
The lawn at Blaska's Stately Manor.
Meade can be Ann's second
Bill Lueders would do for Emily's.

AllenS said...

"Take one more step closer, and the bubble gets it."

Henry said...

Yeah, but what about the cadenza's personal space bubble? Who will speak for the cadenza?

Curious George said...

" Chip S. said...
@roesch-voltaire: I say w/o snark that your comment is a perfect expression of contemporary liberalism as it is ridiculed by us 'wingers on this board."

This is correct but then I think you give r-v way too much credit. R-V has a standard MOI:

1) Couch the topic in terms that make it seem that he is a even minded person. Throw is some personal or anecdotal evidence to support this even minded position. None of this actually has anything to do with the directly with the topic at hand. With that done, proceed to:

2) Ignore all the actual facts at hand and frame his position with more anecdotal evidence, generally of a personal nature, because of course he has just demonstrated how even minded he is.

Now look at I wrote and re-read his.

His first statement he makes the case that no one really knows what "personal space is" and he gives all his stupid examples of Italy and NYC. It's meaningless.

Then he ignores the actual facts of the Prosser/Bradlet situation and offers an alternative scenerio and then goes from there.

I find it boring and intellectually dishonest. It's why liberals can't win the war of ideas. It's why liberal radio always fails.

MTN said...

Whoa, didn't Emily Mills play Frodo in LOTR?

Mills: I'm also an avid road and mountain biker

Gabriel Hanna said...

Emily Mill's notion of personal space is the "your face was in the way of my fist" defence.

Henry said...

Personally I'm enjoying Roesch-Voltaire's take on the Emily Mills space bubble theory. Emily describes great big space bubbles with boundary issues. RV describes baroque space bubbles that deflate in context. I think the extrapolation from RV's theory that Bradley is really a New York Italian Jew has a lot going for it. She talks with her hands! She ignores other people's personal space! She's the same dimensions as Joe Pesci! Prosser is clearly a rube not to know this already.

DADvocate said...

Space bubbles for space cadets.

roesch-voltaire said...

Why Chip I did not know you were an expert on the amount of personal space folks in Madison need.Please reference your study or experience. Your refutation is a perfect example of right-wing thought unable see generalities made from direct observation. My point is that the issue is quite subjective other then to say Americans generally require more personal space than others, but even here there are gender differences and personal style differences. (P:S; there are a fair number of ex-New Yorkers who live in the mid-west just in case you didn't know.) By the way just what are the facts in terms of the personal space, all that we know for sure is that Bradley was within arms reach of a man six inches taller and fifty pounds heavier. When the detective re-enacted the scene with Prosser this again was subjective and no measurements of distance were taken-- sloppy work at that.

Raul said...

Packer Bronco - "Are you saying that she lives in her own little bubble?"

Not quite.

cboldt said...

-- why I suspect no one in the testimony describes the incident in terms of inches --
Instead of suspecting what is described, one could read the testimony and find descriptions phrased in terms of inches.
"right fist less than six inches from the left side of his face"
"face approximately one foot from his face"
"fist came within about an inch every time she would extend her fist"
"maintaining control within an inch of his face"