Althouse: "To everyone who likes that Lewandowsky got charged: Will you agree that everyone who does nothing more than that should undergo criminal prosecution?"

March 30, 2016

"To everyone who likes that Lewandowsky got charged: Will you agree that everyone who does nothing more than that should undergo criminal prosecution?"

"Are you willing to pay the taxes to cover that? Are you ready to find out that you've already done it and you're going to be needing to hire a lawyer? Oh, but it's so funny when it happens to somebody else, somebody you don't like. If that's what you think, please just admit to yourself that you are entirely morally corrupt."

Said I, talking over on Facebook.

221 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 221 of 221

MadisonMan said...: This garbage is worse than World Cup Soccer.

Worth repeating.; 3/31/16, 9:28 AM
Darcy said...: @MayBee

Thank you for Michelle Fields "in her own words". It just confirmed my feeling all along that this was intentionally overblown. No one tried to "throw her to the ground". Ugh.

I don't like Trump. But I don't like agenda driven reporting. This stinks.; 3/31/16, 9:39 AM
mikee said...: Meanwhile, Trump's public appearances are mobbed by violent leftist agitators with the specific intent of depriving all other attendees of their 1st Amendment rights of free association and free speech. Very, very few arrests, and Trump is denounced by the same leftists when their attacks are defended against.

This reminds me of Nixon's sweaty armpit all over again.; 3/31/16, 9:39 AM
ndspinelli said...: Althouse needs to get control of her husband. He is mean, nasty and angry; trolling other blogs of people that left this horseshit blog. Give him some love, Annie. Oh, and you were just like this Princess and the Pea woman when someone touched you.; 3/31/16, 9:40 AM
Darcy said...: I wonder if all of the people suggesting that Lewandowski should have apologized immediately have also suggested that Fields should have walked back her original accusation. Surely she has watched the video now and has to realize she was, at minimum, mistaken. Not acknowledging that is dishonest.; 3/31/16, 9:41 AM
Rick said...: JCC said...
@ Rick -

Sorry, but you're missing the point. Unlawful touching is a crime

By definition anything "unlawful" is a crime. Let's presume you meant non-consensual.

This isn't the issue. You claimed Trump's lies and her treatment by Breitbart elevated this event above other non-consensual touchings. The claim that these events justify bringing charges where other touchings without these elements would not justify them is false.; 3/31/16, 9:44 AM
MayBee said...: The traffic violation has occurred either way and is always there. But the other driver avoids a ticket and court if you agree to let them just fix your damages without calling the cops.

But in your example, the other driver has made good by paying for your damages. You agree to this because both of your insurance rates will go up if you report it.
If they hit and run and then later call to apologize (but not pay), do you then decide not to report them? You feel good because you got an apology?; 3/31/16, 9:56 AM
MayBee said...: Darcy- you and I are in absolute agreement!; 3/31/16, 9:59 AM
TRISTRAM said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 3/31/16, 10:32 AM
cubanbob said...: ""To everyone who likes that Lewandowsky got charged: Will you agree that everyone who does nothing more than that should undergo criminal prosecution?""

Lets put it this way, those who like Lewandowsky getting charged ought to be thrilled when Hillary is sent up the river to The Big House for a prison term of forever for corruption and treason.; 3/31/16, 10:58 AM
Flowers said...: I can't believe this is being framed as anti woman abuse. My God. It's as bad as the alleged culture of rape on campus. Real victims of rape and sbuse should be disgusted.; 3/31/16, 11:13 AM
n.n said...: Flowers:

It certainly distorts the conversation, doesn't it.

The relevant public interest is if this was a social or criminal violation, if it was a justified act (e.g. defense), or if it was a contrived incident. The gender of the alleged victim is immaterial in this context.; 3/31/16, 11:56 AM
Oscar DeNoe said...: Jeesus! First year L. Sch. hobgoblin incarnate: The lady with egg shell sensibilities.; 3/31/16, 12:37 PM
Achilles said...: jr565 said...
"I don't think this is in fact a political trial. Since Corey did grab her arm. But if you think it Has become a political trial, then it was even more important for the trump campaign NOT to go the direction they did.
Telling the press "she's a liar." "Then, "she didn't scream. Wouldn't a person scream if their arm was bruised" is the exact wrong way to minimize the damage.
There were two outcomes. One where Corey looks at the tape with Michelle and says "sorry. Wasn't my intent. But look, I didn't even realize there was a problem. How do we rectify this?" He wouldn't have been fired, no charges would be brought.
Which is worse?"

Pure garbage. Someone needs to draw a line against this SJW garbage. After they are done with Trump do you think they will leave Cruz alone?

If Cruz continues to side with the SJW's to damage Trump he will be all alone when they come for him.; 3/31/16, 1:32 PM
hombre said...: I really, really, REALLY disagree!

And that's what counts, isn't it?; 3/31/16, 1:51 PM
Beldar said...: I commend this post by Patrick Frey -- a Los Angeles assistant district attorney who blogs at Patterico.com -- to our host, to correct her misimpressions or false assumptions regarding the prosecutorial resources committed so far to this matter: Lewandowski “Charged” By Police, Not Prosecutors.

Ms. Fields has done what any citizen in these circumstances has a perfect right to do. And now the system will do its work -- even if Prof. Althouse disapproves.; 3/31/16, 2:14 PM
grackle said...: The comment on 3/30/16 at 6:01 PM is NOT by me but by someone else using my handle.; 3/31/16, 2:43 PM
jg said...: grackle is on point. an awful lot of bias-motivated thinking and advocacy that borders on disingenuous (i.e. do you really think you know L lied, that an apology would have killed everything, etc?); 3/31/16, 2:56 PM
grackle said...: Does Ann Coulter still support Trump? Find out at the URL below:

http://tinyurl.com/jpxmj7y; 3/31/16, 4:01 PM
JCC said...: @ Rick -

The statute reads "unlawful touching..." so you don't need to presume anything but that if someone touches another person in circumstances that are proscribed by statute, it's a crime. Look it up if you like. I realize it sounds circular but it's not. And I did not say anything of the kind - that circumstances elevate this instance etc. What I said was that in the mind of the victim, the circumstances elevated this beyond the stage wherein a reasoned conversation may have settled things. The crime occurred either way. The discretionary event is the decision to prosecute or not to prosecute. A crime occurred. Period. Everything else flows from that. You're twisting what I said.

Maybee -

What you do is up to you, obviously. But whatever you do, the collison has occurred and the traffic infraction has occurred. Unlike a criminal offense, the cops probably will not write a delayed ticket regardless of the evidence, while in a criminal offense, they will go to the prosecutor for a warrant - as they have in this case - if they feel they have sufficient evidence and a substantive crime or a sufficiently noisy victim. But your emotional response to the factual event only determines what you do and what you want. The event has occurred regardless. I'm not sure why this is difficult to get, so maybe I'm not explaining it well. An apology doesn't alter the facts somehow - how could it? It only might change your reaction and your wishes pertaining to what the courts do about the event, that is, prosecute or forget it. e.g. Ann Althouse was the victim of a simple battery, but chose to not prosecute. The cops evaluated, decided it was a minor offense and went with her wishes. Had she suffered serious injury, though, they probably would have said to her "Yeah, sure" and arrested the guy no matter what she wanted. Had she been yelling and screaming for the guy to go to jail, they would have evaluated the facts, and had the evidence been there, probably arrested the guy for a misdemeanor.

A alleged crime occurs. The victim, after a delay, makes a police report. Had she been mollified by the Trump people, she probably would have never made the report, and nothing else would have happened, but she was accused of lying (by Trump et all), so she did make the report. So the cops investigate, as they did here. The victim brings them videos, the tape recording, and a witness in the form of a reputable reporter from another news outlet. The cops may or may not have tried to contact the alleged pusher/shover/whatever he was. Anyway, they took their investigation to the prosecutor, who went in front of a jduge and got an arrest warrant. That's it. The cops and the prosecutor don't take sides in these things. They just go with what they find out. If they win, fine. If they lose, fine. They don't care either way. This is not a case where either cops or prosecutor have a vested interest because it's not really a public safety issue or a continuing crime. Both cops and prosecutors will see this as a giant pain in the neck, because they have better things to be doing than getting in the middle of a pie fight between the media and a national politician.; 3/31/16, 7:16 PM
JCC said...: And this is late but I see that media just reports that the prosecutor was the source of charges is incorrect. The Jupiter cops charged in this case based on probably cause. The State Attorney published a statement that they had nothing to do with the charges and would evaluate when they received the forms from the police and make a decision whether to proceed, since the State Attorney has a higher standard - proof beyond a reasonable doubt - in prosecuting than cops in arresting.

Which strikes me as unusual on the part of the cops. Normally, you would put the burden back on the victim in a minor case like this and expect the victim to actually appear (at the SAO) and swear out the warrant personally, if only to relieve the cops if any liability down the road.; 4/1/16, 7:51 AM