President Trump got in the face of ABC’s Rachel Scott after she asked him a question about the rationale behind his national midterm voter bribe.
“Mr. President, on the checks: The U.S. is still $40 trillion in debt. If your economic policies are working, why do you need an incentive for people to turn out to vote?” she asked Thursday night.
…
He could be found not guilty due to Presidential action all day long for not committing assault and battery for all I care.
So long as the boxing champ working for AXY news or whatever is also found to have acted in self defense in accordance to their jurisdiction after their reflexive and mighty right hook starts a needed constitutional crisis.
The courts can handle the absurdity.
Not that the presidential immunity is ok at all, far from it.
But there’s a vital distinction between “Can’t be charged for anything while performing Presidential duties” and “Anyone who exercises a legal right that crosses unto the protected person has that legal right deactivated”.
Which…yes, pretty much is defacto currently for 99/100 things that any aggrieved party could claim as a grievance committed by the US. Gov, currently and effectively, I’m aware.
But unstoppable force meeting immovable mouth?
I feel codifying that too deeply would be a legal bridge too far.
Not for decency but because what it means for the puppeteering interests. The reporter would be more at risk of ending in a black site than a courtroom, imo.
The self-defender wouldn’t live to see trial. The secret service would eliminate them before their fist connected, let alone the matter reached court.
It doesn’t matter how big or tough you are. It does not matter what is legal, what is right or wrong, or any other factor. The victim would be dead, and the perp would be immune.
I don’t think you’re appreciating the different reaction times and speeds here. The punch would be a response to Trump’s lunge. It could be very fast and almost instinctual. The secret service response would be slower.
Even if the reporter had a secret service agent person standing behind them with a gun to their head and their finger on the trigger, the secret service agent wouldn’t be able to react that fast. Primarily because they weren’t planning to shoot the person and it’s difficult to tell if they’re just flinching or counter punching for a split second.
Before or after the punch connects makes little difference to the corpse, but it’s possible if it’s the right person I guess.
What you’re saying doesn’t make sense to me, as a person who has trained to react to similar situations. I’m going to switch to talking about this as a generic bodyguard protecting a client situation because it feels wrong to talk about striking the president, even in self defense.
A person who defends themselves by punching once as a quick reaction is not going to be taking a threatening posture. In fact, they’ll be on the back foot backing away. Any decent bodyguard wouldn’t be considering using lethal force at that moment. They would be getting in between their client and the boxer. They’re not blind to the fact that it was their client who made the aggressive move, and the other person was just reacting and trying to get away.
And I don’t think it matters much who the people involved are. As long as they’ve developed those boxing reflexes, even a person who is just a boxing gym regular would react faster than the fastest bodyguard. This is because one person is reacting on pure instinct, while the other has to make a judgement.
A bodyguard’s job is not to simply execute any person who their client attacks.
Except we’re not talking about a regular bodyguard are we. We’re talking about protecting an office, not a person. An idea, not a human being. It does not matter of the office holder is right or wrong in that moment. The office must be protected, and that includes from people with a rightful grievance against its current occupant.
Uhh… Secret Service definitely, 100%, see themselves as protecting a person.
I can see what you’re saying, though. If the Secret Service agents were all switched out for demigods who have superhuman reflexes and who think completely unlike humans, then you certainly wouldn’t be wrong here.
No not demigods. Zealots maybe, though I will grant you that depends on the agent.
i mean, people have a lot of different images of them. I view them in black suits with big mustaches, dark sunglasses, tasers and bear spray on the hip and big badges that say TREASURY on them. Florsheim shoes. Squeak a little on the right foot. I bet Michael Gross would do a great job hold on i gotta write this part into my vampire screenplay. I might be getting them confused with IRS agents tho.
ice found that when one of their great great great grandfather came over on Ellis Island an "I* was not dotted in their name this it’s not legal
Who am I fucking kidding here, ice would just disappear them and unalive em without hesitation while wearing masks in unmarked cars like this microdicked pussy ass bitches they are
anyone trained well enough to throw One Serious Punch is trained well enough to not throw One Serious Punch :ε
I addressed the realpolitik in my last sentence re: black sites.
You seem to overestimate the acumen of the current members of the praetorian guard, in a way that is out of sync with their recorded performance lately.
The hypothetical presented has the perpetrator instigating a physical altercation in a moment of passionate rage, whereupon the perpetrator has placed themselves in an unfavorable position from which there is not enough time to avoid consequences.
Whether the Secret Service risks shooting their charge to kill the hypothetical reporter on the spot or does their actual job and throws the sack of lies over the back of a strapping agent is not a part of the hypothetical.
In such a scenario, the victim may be dead, but the perp, does not escape the classical (maladjusted) but natural response to saying shit like what is regularly produced with impunity, to another human being. The elderly perp.
You’re looking at the whole hypothetical exercise the wrong way. Despite its cathartic construction, it’s not about how big or tough.
The enemy cannot be considered neither overwhelmingly strong nor inconsequentially weak.
To say either one in absolutist terms is to play word games, rather than approaching a fight how it should be approached.
Honest estimation bound to context is required to “Know thy enemy”.