Rushinbear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey said:

---

bearlyamazing said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Goobear said:

---

Well if roles were reversed would it not be all over?

---

It is all over the news.

---

Where? CNN has 90 stories on their site and 20 videos and none of them are of this story. MSNBC has 36 and none of them are this incident. They'd be the lead story if the student punched were a Dem and the perpetrator a guy in a MAGA hat.

Let's be real here.

And a massive LOL to 71bear's, "A couple of kids get into a disagreement" nonsense. In what world? Two punches to the face will get you jail time in most situations, especially violently delivered with lots of witnesses.

---

Not sure, I haven't looked everywhere. I know when I came home and the local news was on (ABC 7), it was one of the lead stories. It certainly came to this board quickly enough. It's not as though it isn't being reported.

If you're wondering why it's not national news on the level of Jussie Smollett, it's probably because he was an actor on a popular network show and this is one attack on an unknown college student. The levels of fame are not comparable. Maybe give it more than six hours to percolate through the news cycle though.

---

It is on google news and other internet news sites. I don't think it will have legs, though the administration and police probably will go after the kid who threw the punches because that is what they do these days. '71 is right, in the old days this would be considered a scrap between two college kids and forgotten.

---

This is far from the old days. And, even in the old days, this would not have been considered a beef between two students. It would have been ignored, as well. If the tables were turned, it would have been considered major Right on Left violence.

Those who try to diminish this event forget having played up the sucker punch that a member of the audience threw at the heckler who was being ushered out of a Trump event.

---

You don't see the difference between an individual idiot and a sucker punch from a member of an angry crowd riled up by a Presidential candidate?

Folks, it is called "Confirmation Bias"----estrogen defeats patriarchy and loses to pigment.

We look for confirmation in what we wish to believe is right. And the rest of you are the "bad guys".

well, look, right on cue...

https://huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5c71cbd2e4b03cfdaa55d133?ncid=engmodushpmg00000003&fbclid=IwAR1_d_JSInFcQBuReANFfeLneIKjNrjbgzDTPIvuE2Igltr3Nv8DZequJB8

MiZery said:

---

So why do they not show the whole video

---

Having enjoyed all four pages of this thread (a classic BI intramural) I keep wondering what started this and why the guy in the hat has the other guy's coat. Is this really about speech or maybe something else started the fracas? No excuse for punching, just wonder if the punch had much to do with speech.

01Bear said:

---

well, look, right on cue...

https://huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5c71cbd2e4b03cfdaa55d133?ncid=engmodushpmg00000003&fbclid=IwAR1_d_JSInFcQBuReANFfeLneIKjNrjbgzDTPIvuE2Igltr3Nv8DZequJB8

---

Link does not work.

This is a perfect description. Social media makes outrage out of nothing. This wast so much political as two childish adults. In 1980 you could wear your Anderson, Reagan, Carter, or Kennedy button and nobody said anything

dajo9 said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey said:

---

bearlyamazing said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Goobear said:

---

Well if roles were reversed would it not be all over?

---

It is all over the news.

---

Where? CNN has 90 stories on their site and 20 videos and none of them are of this story. MSNBC has 36 and none of them are this incident. They'd be the lead story if the student punched were a Dem and the perpetrator a guy in a MAGA hat.

Let's be real here.

And a massive LOL to 71bear's, "A couple of kids get into a disagreement" nonsense. In what world? Two punches to the face will get you jail time in most situations, especially violently delivered with lots of witnesses.

---

Not sure, I haven't looked everywhere. I know when I came home and the local news was on (ABC 7), it was one of the lead stories. It certainly came to this board quickly enough. It's not as though it isn't being reported.

If you're wondering why it's not national news on the level of Jussie Smollett, it's probably because he was an actor on a popular network show and this is one attack on an unknown college student. The levels of fame are not comparable. Maybe give it more than six hours to percolate through the news cycle though.

---

It is on google news and other internet news sites. I don't think it will have legs, though the administration and police probably will go after the kid who threw the punches because that is what they do these days. '71 is right, in the old days this would be considered a scrap between two college kids and forgotten.

---

This is far from the old days. And, even in the old days, this would not have been considered a beef between two students. It would have been ignored, as well. If the tables were turned, it would have been considered major Right on Left violence.

Those who try to diminish this event forget having played up the sucker punch that a member of the audience threw at the heckler who was being ushered out of a Trump event.

---

You don't see the difference between an individual idiot and a sucker punch from a member of an angry crowd riled up by a Presidential candidate?

---

No. They're both examples of violence against those with whom you disagree. There are those who try to justify a distinction by using details between which there is no consequence. Whether the guy on Sproul planned it, encouraged it, designed it to provoke (and no one has persuaded us that this was what he did - only speculated in favor of his own bias), the other guy had no right to hit him (twice).

There are those on the other side who claim that such violence is designed to silence the Right, Trumpers, what have you. We'll decide on the basis of evidence of that, too.

sycasey said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey said:

---

bearlyamazing said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Goobear said:

---

Well if roles were reversed would it not be all over?

---

It is all over the news.

---

Where? CNN has 90 stories on their site and 20 videos and none of them are of this story. MSNBC has 36 and none of them are this incident. They'd be the lead story if the student punched were a Dem and the perpetrator a guy in a MAGA hat.

Let's be real here.

And a massive LOL to 71bear's, "A couple of kids get into a disagreement" nonsense. In what world? Two punches to the face will get you jail time in most situations, especially violently delivered with lots of witnesses.

---

Not sure, I haven't looked everywhere. I know when I came home and the local news was on (ABC 7), it was one of the lead stories. It certainly came to this board quickly enough. It's not as though it isn't being reported.

If you're wondering why it's not national news on the level of Jussie Smollett, it's probably because he was an actor on a popular network show and this is one attack on an unknown college student. The levels of fame are not comparable. Maybe give it more than six hours to percolate through the news cycle though.

---

It is on google news and other internet news sites. I don't think it will have legs, though the administration and police probably will go after the kid who threw the punches because that is what they do these days. '71 is right, in the old days this would be considered a scrap between two college kids and forgotten.

---

This is far from the old days. And, even in the old days, this would not have been considered a beef between two students. It would have been ignored, as well. If the tables were turned, it would have been considered major Right on Left violence.

Those who try to diminish this event forget having played up the sucker punch that a member of the audience threw at the heckler who was being ushered out of a Trump event.

---

You don't see the difference between an individual idiot and a sucker punch from a member of an angry crowd riled up by a Presidential candidate?

---

No. They're both examples of violence against those with whom you disagree. There are those who try to justify a distinction by using details between which there is no consequence. Whether the guy on Sproul planned it, encouraged it, designed it to provoke (and no one has persuaded us that this was what he did - only speculated in favor of his own bias), the other guy had no right to hit him (twice).

There are those on the other side who claim that such violence is designed to silence the Right, Trumpers, what have you. We'll decide on the basis of evidence of that, too.

---

Yes, but I'm sure that next time there is political violence coming from the right vs. someone on the left, you will definitely post 10 times about it on this message board, right?

---

In fact, I will. I expect you to hold me to it,altho I also expect to have a discussion about its conformity to our "shared" vision of political violence, no?

I also expect that you will reciprocate, yes? Please confirm.

01Bear said:

---

well, look, right on cue...

https://huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5c71cbd2e4b03cfdaa55d133?ncid=engmodushpmg00000003&fbclid=IwAR1_d_JSInFcQBuReANFfeLneIKjNrjbgzDTPIvuE2Igltr3Nv8DZequJB8

---

Dang it! I forgot which article that was. But here's another one that also mentions a Republican leadership candidate calling Democrats "the enemy":
https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article226661024.html?fbclid=IwAR3tkcc6GcGPTtBt316ghdnQqKR8Vrkwt4LO60MhUHWs4WHWXRD2V-D7O_I

*Edit*
I remembered the article and found a link from the Yahoo! page to it:
https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/nra-slammed-apos-target-practice-011328265.html

This bickering is exactly what is wrong with this country right now. Not talking about making this progressively greater and compromising but all or nothing... like a foolish Vegas Gambler

LunchTime said:

---

Fyght4Cal said:

---

The puncher called the punchee a "racist mother****er". I wonder what that was about. Also, the punchee's shirt resembled a Bernie tee.

---

it was his signs. "This is maga country" and "fake hate crimes hurt real victims."

Daily Cal and a couple more conservative papers have more details and full video of the two cameras. is the start of the confrontation from the phone they are fighting over.

The guy punching also says he will shoot the guy he is punching, something I wouldn't take seriously as an outsider, but on campus is typically taken seriously.

Probably this guy gets off with an expulsion and reinstatement after some make good, and community service. As it should be.

---

I have viewed the attached video and the video attached to other posts several times to see if I could tell what really happened. All I can say is that "the record is incomplete" either intentionally or in intentionally"
1. It looks like the punchee first was talking to a guy with the grey hooded sweatshirt then was talking with a second guy who was wearing a black t-shirt carrying a black sweat shirt.
2. We do no see the beginning of either conversation.
3. In the first conversation the gray shirt guy was getting angry that the punchee was video taping him. The punchee seemed to be close and "in his face". The gray sweat shirt guy was getting angry.
4. Then somehow the camera somehow winds up on the ground. Was it dropped by or knocked out of the hand of the punchee?
5. Next we see the black t-shirt guy. Again we don't see the start of this conversation. This guy is also angry. And the punchee is again in the face of this guy.
6. And for some reason the punchee is holding this guy's sweatshirt and there is a tugging match. (Why? We don't know)
7. BTW we can see what appears to be the guy in the gray sweatshirt standing in the crowd nearby watching what is happening
8. The guy in the black t-shirt gets into a shouting match with the punchee and several names are called or other hostile words are exchanged. As apparently the guy in the black t-shirt is really getting angry.
9. Then the guy in the black t-shirt hits the punchee.
10. There doesn't seem to be a "beating" where there are many punches thrown. But apparently only one one punch is thrown by the guy in the black t-shirt. There were also several shoves and pulls by both
11 who was at fault and who started it is far from clear since we didn't see the entire episode.
12. Was the punchee looking to antagonize someone. He clearly iantagonized two different people in a short period of time.
To me he apparently intended to antagonize two different guys. a. He clearly got in the face or each guy. b. He clearly videoed the guy in the gray sweatshirt against his will then justifies it by saying I'm/you're in public
Then he grabbed the sweatshirt of the guy in the black t-shirt. (We didn't see this happen but we did see the struggle for the black sweatshirt)
So the punchee was not entirely innocent of causing the fracas
13. If this had happened on the football field and I had been a ref: I would have thrown a flag on both the punchee and the guy in the black t-shirt. Offsetting fouls.
14 for those asking why flag the punchee. Remember that game where the opposing team player was mouthing off near the Cal sidelines and was hit with an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty.
Remember this is a football board.

I think those two guy knew each other before or have crossed paths which adds to the weirdness or conflicting interpretations. Very often with violence, people know each other before hand or has a connection or if an acquaintance.

Yogi Bear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

A couple of kids get into a disagreement and it makes the "news". Yikes. I'm thankful social media didn't exist during my days at Berkeley. Heck, someday these guys will get together over a beer and laugh about all the stupid things they did in their college days. It isn't about politics. It's about growing up......

---

These guys are never going to socialize with each other.

---

Of course they will. I get along famously now with a guy who was my sworn enemy in HS and at Cal. Enemies to the point where we had a physical altercation just outside the vice-principal's office. And then carried that ish 5 months later to Spens-Black.

Another Bear said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

Bear19 said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

01Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Violence is never justified against mere speech.

---

I'm pretty sure almost everyone in this thread, CRBear included, has already agreed with this statement. He said the guy shouldn't have thrown a punch. Why the continued repeating of this talking point?

---

I may have to disagree with this point. Violence is rarely justified against speech, but there may be times when it is justified (and I don't necessarily mean in response to "Yo mama" jokes). A call to arms against one's loved ones by a demagogue in front of a rabid crowd, for instance, strikes me as a time when violence may be justified.

---

The terminology is FIGHT WORDS.


fighting words
Dictionary result for fighting words
noun INFORMAL
[ol]

words indicating a willingness to fight or challenge someone.

• US
  words expressing an insult, especially of an ethnic, racial, or sexist nature.

[/ol]

Quote:

---

Fighting Words

Overview

Fighting words are, as first defined by the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) in Chaplinsky v New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942), words which "by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality."

Fighting words are a category of speech that is unprotected by the First Amendment. Further, as seen below, the scope of the fighting words doctrine has between its creation in Chaplinsky and the Supreme Court's interpretation of it today.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fighting_words

---

---

I'm familiar with Chaplinsky but actually had Brandenburg in mind. While Chaplinsky dealt with fighting words (e.g., insults), a demagogue need not resort to them to lather up a crowd and incite them to violence. However, by inciting a crowd to violence, that demagogue may fall afoul of the imminent lawless action test.

Of course, since you're throwing caselaw at me, I assume this means you've attended law school to some extent and understand that these cases address whether the state has a right to criminalize speech. Whereas, in my hypothetical, the state's right to restrict speech is not at issue. Rather, I posited an instance where a person may be justified (perhaps extra-legally) in the use of violence in response to speech. As such, I'm sure you understand how neither Chaplinsky nor Brandenburg really apply.

---

Thems thar fightin words!

---

Nope...that's jackass lawyer stuff.

BTW, definitely not a lawyer and zero law school.

---

You're right. I shouldn't have given you the benefit of the doubt in assuming you attended law school. I should've realized you were someone who was throwing out random facts in a vain (and ultimately fruitless) endeavor to prove how smart he is by referencing a case that was not on point to the issue at hand.

I guess I was a jack ass for trying to meet you halfway by discussing your Chaplinsky reference as one colleague to another. I must've been a real jerk to even try to soften the blow by suggesting another case that wasn't getmane to my original point either, just so my initial comments wouldn't seem as curt.

Mea culpa.

---

Nope you're a jackass for acting like a lawyer. And assuming...how freakin' lawyerly of you! And right on queue! Overall a great demonstration of lawyers acting like lawyers. And people wonder how lawyers get a bad rep.

But no worries, some of my best friends are lawyers. REALLY!

---

Again, my bad for acting like a lawyer and (1) treating you like a colleague, (2) addressing the legal point you raised with sincerity, and (3) being civil. I suppose I should've just resorted to calling you a jackass and then claimed that it's okay because i am friends with plenty jackasses.

Thanks to you, I've learned that not everyone who cites caselaw is actually competent to do so nor knows what he is doing. I suppose I should be grateful to you for that.

Rushinbear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey said:

---

bearlyamazing said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Goobear said:

---

Well if roles were reversed would it not be all over?

---

It is all over the news.

---

Where? CNN has 90 stories on their site and 20 videos and none of them are of this story. MSNBC has 36 and none of them are this incident. They'd be the lead story if the student punched were a Dem and the perpetrator a guy in a MAGA hat.

Let's be real here.

And a massive LOL to 71bear's, "A couple of kids get into a disagreement" nonsense. In what world? Two punches to the face will get you jail time in most situations, especially violently delivered with lots of witnesses.

---

Not sure, I haven't looked everywhere. I know when I came home and the local news was on (ABC 7), it was one of the lead stories. It certainly came to this board quickly enough. It's not as though it isn't being reported.

If you're wondering why it's not national news on the level of Jussie Smollett, it's probably because he was an actor on a popular network show and this is one attack on an unknown college student. The levels of fame are not comparable. Maybe give it more than six hours to percolate through the news cycle though.

---

It is on google news and other internet news sites. I don't think it will have legs, though the administration and police probably will go after the kid who threw the punches because that is what they do these days. '71 is right, in the old days this would be considered a scrap between two college kids and forgotten.

---

This is far from the old days. And, even in the old days, this would not have been considered a beef between two students. It would have been ignored, as well. If the tables were turned, it would have been considered major Right on Left violence.

Those who try to diminish this event forget having played up the sucker punch that a member of the audience threw at the heckler who was being ushered out of a Trump event.

---

You don't see the difference between an individual idiot and a sucker punch from a member of an angry crowd riled up by a Presidential candidate?

---

No. They're both examples of violence against those with whom you disagree. There are those who try to justify a distinction by using details between which there is no consequence. Whether the guy on Sproul planned it, encouraged it, designed it to provoke (and no one has persuaded us that this was what he did - only speculated in favor of his own bias), the other guy had no right to hit him (twice).

There are those on the other side who claim that such violence is designed to silence the Right, Trumpers, what have you. We'll decide on the basis of evidence of that, too. So it's okay for a

---

Interesting that you think its fine for the President to incite violence except if it was President Obama.

Rushinbear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey said:

---

bearlyamazing said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Goobear said:

---

Well if roles were reversed would it not be all over?

---

It is all over the news.

---

Where? CNN has 90 stories on their site and 20 videos and none of them are of this story. MSNBC has 36 and none of them are this incident. They'd be the lead story if the student punched were a Dem and the perpetrator a guy in a MAGA hat.

Let's be real here.

And a massive LOL to 71bear's, "A couple of kids get into a disagreement" nonsense. In what world? Two punches to the face will get you jail time in most situations, especially violently delivered with lots of witnesses.

---

Not sure, I haven't looked everywhere. I know when I came home and the local news was on (ABC 7), it was one of the lead stories. It certainly came to this board quickly enough. It's not as though it isn't being reported.

If you're wondering why it's not national news on the level of Jussie Smollett, it's probably because he was an actor on a popular network show and this is one attack on an unknown college student. The levels of fame are not comparable. Maybe give it more than six hours to percolate through the news cycle though.

---

It is on google news and other internet news sites. I don't think it will have legs, though the administration and police probably will go after the kid who threw the punches because that is what they do these days. '71 is right, in the old days this would be considered a scrap between two college kids and forgotten.

---

This is far from the old days. And, even in the old days, this would not have been considered a beef between two students. It would have been ignored, as well. If the tables were turned, it would have been considered major Right on Left violence.

Those who try to diminish this event forget having played up the sucker punch that a member of the audience threw at the heckler who was being ushered out of a Trump event.

---

You don't see the difference between an individual idiot and a sucker punch from a member of an angry crowd riled up by a Presidential candidate?

---

No. They're both examples of violence against those with whom you disagree. There are those who try to justify a distinction by using details between which there is no consequence. Whether the guy on Sproul planned it, encouraged it, designed it to provoke (and no one has persuaded us that this was what he did - only speculated in favor of his own bias), the other guy had no right to hit him (twice).

There are those on the other side who claim that such violence is designed to silence the Right, Trumpers, what have you. We'll decide on the basis of evidence of that, too.

---

Yes, but I'm sure that next time there is political violence coming from the right vs. someone on the left, you will definitely post 10 times about it on this message board, right?

---

In fact, I will.

---

In that case, you've already failed, because those things did happen and I'm pretty sure you didn't post 10 times about them.

But that's my point: it's impossible for anyone to follow all news items all the time. You see what comes through your filter. The same is true for you as it is for anyone on the left. I'm telling you right now that your filter is currently only showing you the incidents of violence from the left against the right, for whatever reason. My advice is to try adjusting that filter.

sycasey said:

---

santacruzbear said:

---

This episode fits the narrative that Cal is hostile to conservative or politically incorrect thought and is not an open marketplace of ideas. It hurts the university we all care for so much. It is amazing that there are still people, among them posters on this board, who deny this reality. One of the reasons there is such optimism for Chancellor Christ is the sense that she will resist the idealogical bullies of the left, in contrast to the feckless Dirks administration.

---

How exactly is the University responsible for this incident?

---

Cal should appoint one policeman for every person that enters campus to accompany that person at all times that person is on campus to make sure nothing bad happens to that person.
Anything less is a dereliction of responsibility
["That's a joke, son, a joke".].

GivemTheAxe said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

Fyght4Cal said:

---

The puncher called the punchee a "racist mother****er". I wonder what that was about. Also, the punchee's shirt resembled a Bernie tee.

---

it was his signs. "This is maga country" and "fake hate crimes hurt real victims."

Daily Cal and a couple more conservative papers have more details and full video of the two cameras. is the start of the confrontation from the phone they are fighting over.

The guy punching also says he will shoot the guy he is punching, something I wouldn't take seriously as an outsider, but on campus is typically taken seriously.

Probably this guy gets off with an expulsion and reinstatement after some make good, and community service. As it should be.

---

I have viewed the attached video and the video attached to other posts several times to see if I could tell what really happened. All I can say is that "the record is incomplete" either intentionally or in intentionally"
1. It looks like the punchee first was talking to a guy with the grey hooded sweatshirt then was talking with a second guy who was wearing a black t-shirt carrying a black sweat shirt.
2. We do no see the beginning of either conversation.
3. In the first conversation the gray shirt guy was getting angry that the punchee was video taping him. The punchee seemed to be close and "in his face". The gray sweat shirt guy was getting angry.
4. Then somehow the camera somehow winds up on the ground. Was it dropped by or knocked out of the hand of the punchee?
5. Next we see the black t-shirt guy. Again we don't see the start of this conversation. This guy is also angry. And the punchee is again in the face of this guy.
6. And for some reason the punchee is holding this guy's sweatshirt and there is a tugging match. (Why? We don't know)
7. BTW we can see what appears to be the guy in the gray sweatshirt standing in the crowd nearby watching what is happening
8. The guy in the black t-shirt gets into a shouting match with the punchee and several names are called or other hostile words are exchanged. As apparently the guy in the black t-shirt is really getting angry.
9. Then the guy in the black t-shirt hits the punchee.
10. There doesn't seem to be a "beating" where there are many punches thrown. But apparently only one one punch is thrown by the guy in the black t-shirt. There were also several shoves and pulls by both
11 who was at fault and who started it is far from clear since we didn't see the entire episode.
12. Was the punchee looking to antagonize someone. He clearly iantagonized two different people in a short period of time.
To me he apparently intended to antagonize two different guys. a. He clearly got in the face or each guy. b. He clearly videoed the guy in the gray sweatshirt against his will then justifies it by saying I'm/you're in public
Then he grabbed the sweatshirt of the guy in the black t-shirt. (We didn't see this happen but we did see the struggle for the black sweatshirt)
So the punchee was not entirely innocent of causing the fracas
13. If this had happened on the football field and I had been a ref: I would have thrown a flag on both the punchee and the guy in the black t-shirt. Offsetting fouls.
14 for those asking why flag the punchee. Remember that game where the opposing team player was mouthing off near the Cal sidelines and was hit with an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty.
Remember this is a football board.

---

Re no. 6, how are you able to ascertain whose sweath shirt they are fighting over? I assumed it was the punchee's not puncher's - just an assumption. Did I miss something?

BearGoggles said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

Fyght4Cal said:

---

The puncher called the punchee a "racist mother****er". I wonder what that was about. Also, the punchee's shirt resembled a Bernie tee.

---

it was his signs. "This is maga country" and "fake hate crimes hurt real victims."

Daily Cal and a couple more conservative papers have more details and full video of the two cameras. is the start of the confrontation from the phone they are fighting over.

The guy punching also says he will shoot the guy he is punching, something I wouldn't take seriously as an outsider, but on campus is typically taken seriously.

Probably this guy gets off with an expulsion and reinstatement after some make good, and community service. As it should be.

---

I have viewed the attached video and the video attached to other posts several times to see if I could tell what really happened. All I can say is that "the record is incomplete" either intentionally or in intentionally"
1. It looks like the punchee first was talking to a guy with the grey hooded sweatshirt then was talking with a second guy who was wearing a black t-shirt carrying a black sweat shirt.
2. We do no see the beginning of either conversation.
3. In the first conversation the gray shirt guy was getting angry that the punchee was video taping him. The punchee seemed to be close and "in his face". The gray sweat shirt guy was getting angry.
4. Then somehow the camera somehow winds up on the ground. Was it dropped by or knocked out of the hand of the punchee?
5. Next we see the black t-shirt guy. Again we don't see the start of this conversation. This guy is also angry. And the punchee is again in the face of this guy.
6. And for some reason the punchee is holding this guy's sweatshirt and there is a tugging match. (Why? We don't know)
7. BTW we can see what appears to be the guy in the gray sweatshirt standing in the crowd nearby watching what is happening
8. The guy in the black t-shirt gets into a shouting match with the punchee and several names are called or other hostile words are exchanged. As apparently the guy in the black t-shirt is really getting angry.
9. Then the guy in the black t-shirt hits the punchee.
10. There doesn't seem to be a "beating" where there are many punches thrown. But apparently only one one punch is thrown by the guy in the black t-shirt. There were also several shoves and pulls by both
11 who was at fault and who started it is far from clear since we didn't see the entire episode.
12. Was the punchee looking to antagonize someone. He clearly iantagonized two different people in a short period of time.
To me he apparently intended to antagonize two different guys. a. He clearly got in the face or each guy. b. He clearly videoed the guy in the gray sweatshirt against his will then justifies it by saying I'm/you're in public
Then he grabbed the sweatshirt of the guy in the black t-shirt. (We didn't see this happen but we did see the struggle for the black sweatshirt)
So the punchee was not entirely innocent of causing the fracas
13. If this had happened on the football field and I had been a ref: I would have thrown a flag on both the punchee and the guy in the black t-shirt. Offsetting fouls.
14 for those asking why flag the punchee. Remember that game where the opposing team player was mouthing off near the Cal sidelines and was hit with an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty.
Remember this is a football board.

---

Re no. 6, how are you able to ascertain whose sweath shirt they are fighting over? I assumed it was the punchee's not puncher's - just an assumption. Did I miss something?

---

Probably because punchee was searing a light jacket already, but puncher was wearing a short-sleeve t-shirt. With everyone else in the photo dressed as if the day was the standard crisp and cool 65 Berkeley day, it's likely that puncher also had an extra layer of clothes (e.g., sweatshirt, light jacket). While punchee may have brought an extra layer, it's seems a little less likely than the other explanation.

01Bear said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Re no. 6, how are you able to ascertain whose sweat shirt they are fighting over? I assumed it was the punchee's not puncher's - just an assumption. Did I miss something?

---

Probably because punchee was searing a light jacket already, but puncher was wearing a short-sleeve t-shirt. With everyone else in the photo dressed as if the day was the standard crisp and cool 65 Berkeley day, it's likely that puncher also had an extra layer of clothes (e.g., sweatshirt, light jacket). While punchee may have brought an extra layer, it's seems a little less likely than the other explanation.

---

He also walks away with it

Go!Bears said:

---

01Bear said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Re no. 6, how are you able to ascertain whose sweat shirt they are fighting over? I assumed it was the punchee's not puncher's - just an assumption. Did I miss something?

---

Probably because punchee was searing a light jacket already, but puncher was wearing a short-sleeve t-shirt. With everyone else in the photo dressed as if the day was the standard crisp and cool 65 Berkeley day, it's likely that puncher also had an extra layer of clothes (e.g., sweatshirt, light jacket). While punchee may have brought an extra layer, it's seems a little less likely than the other explanation.

---

He also walks away with it

---

I thought of that, but walking away with something doesn't indicate ownership (legal ownership, anyway). If the jacket belonged to punchee, then puncher just mugged him.

BearGoggles said:

---

okaydo said:

---

The "liberal media" gave more coverage to the "liberal embarrassing" Jussie Smollett story than to the "conservative embarrassing" Coast Guard story. Even though the Coast Guard was planning to kill prominent Democratic leaders.

Even CNN was more interested in the Jussie than the Coast Guard story.

Oh, and CNN just hired a recent Trump administration official and GOP operative, with no journalism experience, to serve as a political editor, overseeing 2020 campaign coverage ... of Trump. (This is different than hiring a former Trump official as a pundit. This is highly unusual.)

---

A political editor selects stories and direct news coverage - they don't write stories. It seems to me having a different (conservative) point of view at a place like CNN is appropriate - certainly not unusual. If CNN wants to cover the republican side of 2020, it probably makes sense to have someone on staff who understands that side.

If you're upset about this, then you must be really upset about

Stepanopuoulos, a leading adviser to both clintons and a highly partisan dem, heading the ENTIRE news department at ABC, including moderating presidential debates.

Or Jim Sciutto worked in the Obama administration and then became a "reporter" for CNN covering Trump.

Jeff Greenfield was a speechwriter for Bobby Kennedy

David Shipley (political editor at bloomberg) left a position as special assistant to President Clinton to join The New York Times as an Op Ed Editor.

Tim Russert was an aide to Pat Moynihan and Mario Cuomo

Pierre Salinger was a White House press secretary for both JFK and LBJ before becoming an ABC News correspondent.

Jake Tapper, once served as press secretary to former Dem Rep. Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky

Chris Cuomo is an lead anchor at CNN. Remind me, who are his father and brother?

All of these people are/were "reporters" or editors, not pundits. Amazing that the left can't tolerate having one editor/reporter they disagree with.

---

Yup. It's hilarious that Fox News has liberal commentators on constantly every day to offer counterpoints and all CNN has is a fake Republican like Ana Navaro and a new hire to bring the tiniest semblance of balance and the left and CNN employees get up in arms. Just ridiculous.

bearlyamazing said:

---

It's hilarious that Fox News has liberal commentators on constantly every day to offer counterpoints and all CNN has is a fake Republican like Ana Navaro and a new hire to bring the tiniest semblance of balance and the left and CNN employees get up in arms. Just ridiculous.I

---

Wait . . . do you really think Ana Navarro is the only conservative commentator on CNN?

So the entire left is upset about Isgur's hire, deeming her unsuitable to be a political editor where she might have some (but not complete) editorial control.

The political director at CNN - Isgur's boss - is a man named David Chalian. Chalian was previously fired from Yahoo for a hot mike episode where he was caught saying Romney was happy to have a party with black people drowning. He was referring to the republican convention which took place during a hurricane.

Chalian was fired by yahoo for these partisan and insulting remarks, only to be hired to head CNN's political reporting. If partisanship is an issue, it is hard to fathom how Chalian can be the boss, but Isgur can't be an employee.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Chalian

https://www.weeklystandard.com/daniel-halper/reporter-romneys-happy-to-have-a-party-with-black-people-drowning

BearGoggles said:

---

So the entire left is upset about Isgur's hire, deeming her unsuitable to be a political editor where she might have some (but not complete) editorial control.

The political director at CNN - Isgur's boss - is a man named David Chalian. Chalian was previously fired from Yahoo for a hot mike episode where he was caught saying Romney was happy to have a party with black people drowning. He was referring to the republican convention which took place during a hurricane.

Chalian was fired by yahoo for these partisan and insulting remarks, only to be hired to head CNN's political reporting. If partisanship is an issue, it is hard to fathom how Chalian can be the boss, but Isgur can't be an employee.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Chalian

https://www.weeklystandard.com/daniel-halper/reporter-romneys-happy-to-have-a-party-with-black-people-drowning

---

Did Chalain work for a politician or political party and go directly to being a news director (with no intervening steps working in journalistic organizations)? I ask, because that's the complaint about Isgur. If he didn't, this is false equivalence. The complaint is not just about any journalist who said something politically biased.

Breaking news: The alleged assailant has been arrested

Article about arrest

Bearlyamazing is on YouTube!

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3Dr4Ad2IGkq-M&ved=2ahUKEwiCj6i9qeLgAhUDnZ4KHX1MBLIQjjgwAHoECAoQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2EJwJ1MOnsFNCp6GW7C5eZ

Staying on theme:

• Someone sold pot to a freshman. Freshman went back to Unit 2 only to find that it was oregano.
• A homeless man slapped another homeless man at People's Park for farting too close to him while eating a sandwich.

oski003 said:

---

Bearlyamazing is on YouTube!

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3Dr4Ad2IGkq-M&ved=2ahUKEwiCj6i9qeLgAhUDnZ4KHX1MBLIQjjgwAHoECAoQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2EJwJ1MOnsFNCp6GW7C5eZ

---

He is the SFCityBear of Youtube. Get to your point already.

B.A. Bearacus said:

---

Staying on theme:

• Someone sold pot to a freshman. Freshman went back to Unit 2 only to find that it was oregano.
• A homeless man slapped another homeless man at People's Park for farting too close to him while eating a sandwich.

---

"He should sue the *******!
I won then went to J.G. Wentworth
for my lump some pay out!

oski003 said:

---

Bearlyamazing is on YouTube!

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3Dr4Ad2IGkq-M&ved=2ahUKEwiCj6i9qeLgAhUDnZ4KHX1MBLIQjjgwAHoECAoQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2EJwJ1MOnsFNCp6GW7C5eZ

---

Note how the guy lies from the start (claiming Hayden Williams is a Cal student) then makes a false equivalence to the Jussie Smollet case. Lol, gotta love the right wing dingbats and their aternative facts.

A 28 year old grad student. Who Knew!

kelly09 said:

---

A 28 year old grad student. Who Knew!

---

What could possibly be the point of your statement and what position does it advance?