The woman is White House press secretary, a person serving the Constitution via the White House under the President and appointed by the President. Maybe not a "Public Officer" in technical terms but still serving the law.
Still not a police officer or any special law that is in place here.
Why can't you understand that he struck her? How do you not understand that by now?
Because your statement is crooked and false.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8rXqqLPbo4&feature=youtu.be&t=61
She initiated the encounter, reaching aggressively towards Jim multiple times and touching him on the chest and right arm already before "the encounter". She aims to grab the mic but also hits Jim, only after the last reach, his arm comes down in a defensive reflex. If Jim's arm move is a strike then so where all her touches.... If there actually is any assault here, the woman initiated it and is at fault. #pussypass denied
This "assault case" is bullshit, no matter how much you want it to be true... Why don't you understand this already.......
edit: this wasnt Sarah Sanders btw, this was not the white house press secretary, this was just an intern.
This has gone beyond discussion or debate. I'm happy to discuss and debate and change my own mind but you have stubbornly taken it to the realm of arguing based alone on the fact that my original point has been proven and backed up with law, interpretation, and actual lawyer stuff. Despite that, you're continuing to argue because you feel something different. I don't do arguments. Arguments are nothing more than asking for permission to say that you are correct. And since I have cited the law and you refuse to acknowledge that, you are either trolling or incapable of understanding something besides your own emotions.
So go ahead and have that last word. On me. It's the weekend and one should feel good about the beginning of a weekend. So have your say regardless of what it is but this thread is done.
Gotta love your condescending tone, your original point wasn't proven, your secondary point was proven, and I admitted and acknowledged that. So your whole remark above is basically bullshit on a stick from the getgo.
This still leaves your primary point wide open for discussion as your secondary point hardly applies to the situation to make a reasonable comparison. I simply turned your "lawyer stuff" around and pointed out that Sarah Sanders the intern instigated the "assault" here, (Generally, “assault” is defined as the threat or use of force on an individual that causes the individual to have a reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact) by reaching at, touching and harassing Jim while he was speaking. Jim merely defended himself against this "assault" in a moderate defensive gesture (no matter how much you speed it up). That's not feefees, that is in the linked footage to which i applied your cited law, but seemingly you can't handle that argument and instead try taking the hypothetical moral high-ground to give yourself a superior feeling, well good for you.
I'm just wondering if this was Donny instead of Jim, would you still call it assault? I still wouldn't..... So I come to the conclusion that you are either trolling or incapable of understanding something besides your own emotions.
anyways Enjoy your weekend!
The woman is White House press secretary, a person serving the Constitution via the White House under the President and appointed by the President. Maybe not a "Public Officer" in technical terms but still serving the law.
From https://criminallawdc.com/dc-assault-lawyer/laws/ (actual lawyers in DC where this happened)
Apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact. Sarah Sanders stopped as soon as he struck her arm. 1. He struck her. 2. Offensive contact in the line of her duties. She can 100% press charges for assault and would likely win.
Why can't you understand that he struck her? How do you not understand that by now?