• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fox News contributor punched in face at pro-union protests in Michigan [W:867]

Funny (peculiar) and sad that the True Believers can look at physical evidence which totally destroys their particular belief and yet make loud statements that it supports what they say.


I've yet to see a true "unedited" version of the Crowder tape but the relevant portions of several do show that the man who punched Crowder was either tripped or punched to the ground before he jumped up and punched Crowder. Crowder may or may not have assaulted the guy first, that part is definitely unclear but obviously someone had assaulted the union man first and because of Crowder's early actions, the guy thought it was Crowder who had assaulted him.

Crowder's Youtube page

Mr Crowder has some kind of a problem because the page says:
"New video every Thursday!

Videos of the stand-up comedian, FoxNews Contributor and social/political commentator Steven Crowder.

New video every Thursday!"

yet the last video posted was "2 months ago" and it is the "unedited" version. The very beginning of the video indicates editing as it shows two different times for the "raw video" to start, with one time superimposed over the other.
 
Last edited:

I'm not saying anything remotely close to that. First off, I didn't say that the tent was Union space. I said that the union guys were "all up in their (the Americans for Prosperity/Steven Crowder and his crew) space." My argument is that these media guys who create stories using selective editing are scum and if they get punched trying to provoke people to get some good angry union guys on tape, I don't feel an ounce of sympathy for them and obviously prosecutors don't feel sympathy for Crowder either. That's why no charges were pressed.

Crowder admits he and his crew pushed people. They showed up blatantly provoking protestors (a journalist who's question is "why won't you let me work?" is not a journalist fyi) and continued to engage them when they got angry, they got into a pushing match, and a guy who was pushed down punched him in the face.

Do I want to live in a society where people react violently to views they disagree with? No, of course not. I wouldn't have punched Crowder. But seeing the scumbag tactics Crowder used to create his story, and knowing that he and his crew got involved and were pushing people, I am quite glad he was ultimately exposed as the liar he is. We haven't seen the last fake story from him yet, though. He'll be back, and he'll be crying like a baby telling us the big bad liberals took away his toys and you'll all be outraged.
 

So your argument is that Union people that were intent on destroying private property were in the right to assault someone when Crowder and his news crew tried to protect said property?

So why werent they then charged with destruction of private property? Because there is no question of that. Note: Crowder has not been charged either, indicating he committed no assault either.

Truth is the officials involved know what side their bread is buttered on and probably dont want to risk union backlash into their careers. Prosecution of this was political as much as factual, imo.
 
MaggieD said:
What that unedited video does prove is that it was NOT self-defense.
Click to expand...

What makes you assume that reviewing the videos was the totality of the state police investigation? Don't investigations usually include questioning witnesses?

Why do suppose that Crowder only submitted an edited video to the police?
 
Catawba said:
What makes you assume that reviewing the videos was the totality of the state police investigation? Don't investigations usually include questioning witnesses?
Click to expand...

Yes, they usually do. By all means provide these documents for our further review...thx
 
Dickieboy said:
Yes, they usually do. By all means provide these documents for our further review...thx
Click to expand...


I am not the one challenging the state police investigation. I'm sure that will come out in Crowder's appeal, right? :lamo
 
Catawba said:
What makes you assume that reviewing the videos was the totality of the state police investigation? Don't investigations usually include questioning witnesses?

Why do suppose that Crowder only submitted an edited video to the police?
Click to expand...

What the video clearly showed was that the guy got up off the ground and re-initiated a fight. No one was kicking him...no one was standing over him ready to hit him when he got up...he very clearly got up, went over to the guy and started punching. It's called mutual combat at best (not self-defense) -- if, in fact, the reporter pushed him to the ground in the first place.
 

Stupid idiot had it coming to him eh? Oh yeah, he was just "asking for it."

Use that same argument for rape, and you'll rightfully be called a misogynist.
 
Catawba said:
I am not the one challenging the state police investigation. I'm sure that will come out in Crowder's appeal, right? :lamo
Click to expand...

Crowder's appeal to what?
 

Thanks for sharing the findings of your investigation. The legal ruling according to the state police investigation was that the union guy acted in self defense.
 
Catawba said:
Thanks for sharing the findings of your investigation. The legal ruling according to the state police investigation was that the union guy acted in self defense.
Click to expand...

I don't agree. If he'd shot the guy "in self defense" think they wouldn't have prosecuted?
 
MaggieD said:
I don't agree. If he'd shot the guy "in self defense" think they wouldn't have prosecuted?
Click to expand...

If they have stand your ground laws they probably wouldn't.
 
MaggieD said:
I don't agree. If he'd shot the guy "in self defense" think they wouldn't have prosecuted?
Click to expand...

Obviously, the state police felt the actions of the union guy were justifiable according to their investigation. Your disagreement does not alter the findings of the official investigation by the State Police.
 


You posted that you had watched an "unedited" video - where did you find it? The one labeled "unedited" that is posted on Crowder's YouTube page is not what I would call "unedited". What happened between the time when the union guy is shown talking (yelling) at Crowder and when he is shown on the ground?

I've previously posted that we don't know what happened to the union guy simply because there is no video available for those few seconds but as others have noted, under various "Stand Your Ground" laws, the union guy would have been justified if he had pulled out a concealed weapon after he ended up on the ground.


If anybody has seen an actual unedited video of the confrontation, it would definitely help to calm the debate if the rest of us could take a look
 

That's exactly my point. The "unedited version" does not show what one needs to know in order to say the man on the ground acted in self-defense. That's all there is to look at as far as I know. And from that, it's impossible to call it "self-defense" in any way, shape or form.
 
Catawba said:
Thanks for sharing the findings of your investigation. The legal ruling according to the state police investigation was that the union guy acted in self defense.
Click to expand...
A legal ruling huh?
You are just being silly.
There was no such legal ruling.
 
Which is why the decision comes off as fishy when couple that with the fact that they did not charge Crowder with filing a false report or with pressing false charges.
 
Excon said:
A legal ruling huh?
You are just being silly.
There was no such legal ruling.
Click to expand...

The State Police did an investigation after Crowder pressed charges, submitted them to the prosecuting attorney, and his decision was that it was self defense and did not move the case to court.

What was illegal about the finding?
 
Catawba said:
The State Police did an investigation after Crowder pressed charges, submitted them to the prosecuting attorney, and his decision was that it was self defense and did not move the case to court.

What was illegal about the finding?
Click to expand...

I think Excon's point is that a DA's opinion isn't a legal finding. If you'd like another example, look to the Zimmerman case.
 
MaggieD said:
I think Excon's point is that a DA's opinion isn't a legal finding. If you'd like another example, look to the Zimmerman case.
Click to expand...

Please explain what makes the findings of a state police investigation not legal?
 
Catawba said:
Please explain what makes the findings of a state police investigation not legal?
Click to expand...

You used the term "legal ruling." There was no legal ruling. It is the opinion of the DA that, in light of their investigation, the guy acted in self-defense, thus no charges will be filed. That's not a legal ruling. That's the result of an investigation. In the Zimmerman case, the results of the initial investigation indicated self-defense. Due to pressure, the case was re-opened for investigation and charges were filed. The initial investigation's findings were not a legal ruling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…