In the 1990s, broadcaster Charles Sykes wrote an important book called “A Nation Of Victims: The Decay of the American Character.”
Fast forward to 2016, and Mr. Sykes is defending a character on grounds he once rejected in his trailblazing book.
When Mr. Sykes lamented the “The Decay of the American Character,” no reader was under the impression it was the mettle of reporter Michelle Fields he was hankering for and hoping to see restored.
I’ve watched the grainy footage that has fueled the hysterics of Ms. Fields and her shameful sisterhood, housebroken males included. The whole world has watched.
In it, Donald Trump can be clearly observed recoiling defensively, as Ms. Fields presses up against him.
Invisible to the naked eye was the assault Fields alleges.
Still, if Hillary Clinton’s flesh were being pressed by a reporter like Fields, and sidekick Huma Abedin forcefully flicked the reporter aside, I’d say the same. No assault occurred. No litigation should follow. Leave Huma the heck alone.
In other words, a reasonable individual can easily accept—even in the absence of visual evidence—that a protective campaign manager, former cop Corey Lewandowski, might have instinctively shoved the pushy reporter away from Mr. Trump.
To frame this melee as an assault and manufacture a national incident is beneath contempt; is disgraceful.
Unacceptable is that the law rushed to validate Fields’ hurt feelings by charging Lewandowski with a misdemeanor battery.
As unacceptable was the reaction of Ms. Fields and her solipsistic sisters—those with the Y chromosome included.
Ms. Fields is not a victim and her conduct demonstrates decay of character.
Were she a reasonable professional, Ms. Fields would’ve grasped that there was no intention to harm her; only to protect a man who is in constant, real danger. (A bruised massive ego aside, Fields was unharmed.)
Mr. Trump is the object of unparalleled death threats and hatred. If someone moves you aside in a journalistic scrum; it’s because they perceive you to be a threat to such a man.
What would a pro have done? Step back. Take five. Shrug it off. Or give the grabber a piece of her mind.
Better still, Ms. Fields, call CNN’s heroic war correspondent Arwa Damon for perspective. If this recipient of the Courage in Journalism Award doesn’t reply because under fire, give Clarissa Ward a tinkle in Syria. Raise your staccato tart-like voice. Those bombs are loud.
Look: Michelle Fields and her enablers are no conservatives. These women and their male helpers inhabit a solipsistic, narcissistic, decidedly progressive universe.
In “A Nation of Victims,” Mr. Sykes had described a lamentable process whereby America’s formative institutions had morphed from transmitting timeless values, to being propelled by a therapeutic ethos, a “social contract with The Self.”
A contract with The Self—or the selfie—better describes the new breed of badly bred, unprofessional, Michelle Fields millenials.
The woman’s claims-making is that of someone who sees herself as the center of a small universe, pussy-whipped, feminized and sissified by her ilk.
Ditto the empaneled female screeches who’ve come to her rescue, and are seen on anti-Trump TV, baying in unison for the blood of Messrs. Trump and Lewandowski. (At least two of the phony conservative females who’ve detected a crime against Fields—S. E. Cupp and Meghan McCain—are borderline retarded.)
The Sykes book I devoured in the 1990s would never have countenanced such unbecoming conduct; would never have demanded that a man be brought to heel for defending an imperiled presidential candidate.
Now, the New Mr. Sykes was asserting on anti-Trump TV that a real man would apologize to a woman.
Did Sykes mean to say a real man would cop to a physical assault he did not commit, based on a woman’s say-so?
No! Real men affirm reality.
The immutable reality is that no assault occurred. Therefore, no litigation should follow.
I don’t know how the law got to a place where it considers it a crime to shove an individual aside so as to maintain a perimeter around a man, Mr. Trump, who is the object of death threats and hatred.
I do know that law is force. Whenever a lawmaker legislates, he creates more potential criminals out of individuals whose actions were once—still are—naturally licit.
Our venerated legal system locks up more people per 100,000 individuals than do China and Russia, respectively. Yet look at the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution is remarkable in its brevity. The laws under which free men were meant to live and thrive are few and fundamental.
That Mr. Lewandowski is being criminalized and his employer maligned for an infraction invisible to the naked eye tells me something is very wrong with the law.
The same can be said for the culture. The contagion whipped-up by Ms. Fields and her coven of pseudo-conservatives should repulse any conservative-minded man or woman, irrespective of his or her feelings about Mr. Trump.
The assault on Ms. Fields was as real as the ectoplasm said to spill from a medium’s mouth during séance (which is to say, as truthful as what comes out of Megyn Kelly’s mouth).
This despicable woman, Fields, purports to be a ‘libertarian’. With friends like that, who needs enemies?
However, while I fully expect the criminal charges to be dropped, looking at the relevant Florida statutes, it is difficult to see what legal defence Lewandowski has.
Section 784.03 (‘Battery; felony battery’) of the 2015 Florida Statutes states:
[quote]”(1)(a) The offense of battery occurs when a person:
1. Actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other; or
2. Intentionally causes bodily harm to another person.
(b) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person who commits battery commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(2) A person who has one prior conviction for battery, aggravated battery, or felony battery and who commits any second or subsequent battery commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. For purposes of this subsection, “conviction” means a determination of guilt that is the result of a plea or a trial, regardless of whether adjudication is withheld or a plea of nolo contendere is entered.”[unquote]
Lewandowski’s conduct clearly falls under either sub-section (1)(a)1 or sub-section (1)(a)2, depending on whether a jury decides, on the facts, that Lewandowski caused the bruising to Fields’ lower arm. This is ‘simple’ battery in Florida because, in any event, Fields suffered no serious injuries and there was no weapon or other enhancement involved.
The legal defences available for a charge of simple battery in Florida are those that generally apply in the state in response to accusations of non-deadly use-of-force. They include:
(i). Self-defence.
(ii). Defence of other(s).
(iii). Defence of property.
(iv). Consent.
(v). Accidental touching.
(vi). Touching incidental to other conduct not intent on making contact.
(vii). Other factors or motivations showing a lack of intent.
(viii). Lack of evidence or conflicts in the evidence.
I can’t see that (i), (iii), (v), (vi) would apply. Lewandowski was not acting in self-defence or in defence of property, he cannot claim to have touched Fields accidentally and the touching – whatever else can be said – was not incidental to other conduct.
That leaves us with (ii), (iv), (vii) and (viii).
(ii). Defence of other(s)
This could apply on the basis that he was defending Trump.
Section 776.012 (‘Use or threatened use of force in defense of person’) of the 2015 Florida Statutes states:
[quotes]”(1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.”[unquote]
I cannot see how Lewandowski could have reasonably believed that Fields was a threat to Trump. Fields is just a journalist and was clearly acting as such when harrying Trump at the rally, and unless Lewandowski can demonstrate convincingly that he didn’t know this, then I do not see how the statutory defence can apply.
(iv). Consent
I do not know Florida law, so cannot comment definitively on the applicability of my thoughts to the situation, but it might be possible to argue that Fields implicitly consented to battery in that situation and as a professional journalist she knew, or should have known, that she might be in for some rough handling if she ever found herself proximate to Trump – especially if she began harrying him, as she does in the video.
(vii). Other factors
Again, I don’t know Florida law, but possibly Lewandowski could establish that there was insufficient intent on the basis either that he was trying to protect Trump (similar to (ii) above, but not quite the same as ‘defence of others’), or he was rendering assistance to Fields in moving her away from a potentially dangerous situation, or both. There are probably other citable factors that could assist him.
(viii). Lack of evidence or conflicts in the evidence
Fields’ version of events has thrown up some inconsistencies. She says she was thrown back and almost fell, and that Lewandowski grabbed her upper arm, but the video does not support her account of things completely.
In view of the above, I expect Lewandowski’s attorneys will be trying to get the matter dropped, but if that fails, then they will be relying on a jury to exercise ‘common sense’ in the matter. I am not a Florida attorney, but my reading of this is that the law (or at least, the statutory letter of the law) is not on Lewandowski’s side here.
Though most of us would not like to admit it, the reality is that he did grab Fields’ arm (whether it was the upper or lower arm doesn’t matter in establishing ‘probable cause’) and he does not appear to have a solid legal defence for his actions.