32 votes

Old Man Punches News Reporter In The Face!

Guilty or INNOCENT of assault?

Was the 68-year old man holding the door for the reporter...or....did he ask for it! I'm not for violence, but, I am for self-defense and property rights!

http://youtu.be/YU9NBiCjuFU

Vote and comment!
I love it ... "only costs $35 to bust this man in the mouth"..."Don't you DARE!"



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

For those that think that the old guy was the aggressor

you need to understand what really happened. The old guy started with the collar grab and threat but he stopped and retreated (but we don't know what happened before the collar grab, so this is only a guess that the old guy started it). But he did retreat! The reporter followed and badgered the old guy. Then grabbed the door to enter. The reporter trespassed on private property where he was not welcome or invited and was aggressively attempting to enter the building. The reporter became the aggressor and the old guy became the defender at that point. He had every right to defend himself and his property from an aggressive person actively violating those rights. Violence was his last recorse at this point since the reported was commiting violence to him by his willful trespass.

To all of you who insists the

To all of you who insists the old man opened the door for the reporter... are you blind? The old man clearly did not leave the door open. He opened it and was on his way in when the reporter grabbed the door and swung it open.

I sweat, you people just see what you want to see.

"You didn't say I couldn't come in!"

I'm going to sneak into someone's house at night, and when they shoot me I'll get all butthurt about it and say "hey! You didn't tell me I couldn't come in!"

Entering the private residence of another person without their permission = trespassing. He deserved a punch or more.

Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito

.

of course the old man was guilty for simple assault but the reporter was hounding him and got a good ole american kick in the ass!
Right on POP!

"OH NO! He has a SON?" Neoconservatives and Liberals EVERYWHERE!

Rand Paul 2016

Down goes Doughy Guy!

Down goes Doughy Guy!

Southern Agrarian

The "punchee"

should have to pay the $35 for the lesson learned!
Don't start nothing you don't want finished!

When Fascism goes to sleep, it checks under the bed for Ron Paul!

Punch was within his rights

if someone follows me to my door that I don't want coming inside and they pull the door open to enter then that is what they get too. The reporter did not have permission to enter private property but did anyway. He is guilty of trespassing.

...

I'm just curious if there was a no trespassing sign up. It did look like he was following the guy in though, and it seemed obvious that he wasn't wanted there.

learn how "spin" work...missing adjectives etc.

"As Chirico asked him questions about the business, Donald Wilder turned and punched Chirico in the chin, knocking him to the ground."

Maybe it should read; As (an aggressive)Chirico persistently asked him
questions in a physical manner(while grabbing the door handle from the presumed business owner, who had already indicated Chirico was not welcome there), Donald Wilder, (in self defense) turned and punched Chirico in the chin, knocking him to the ground.

Not Guilty

He gave the guy a good warning and didn't really do any harm. If he hit him with a bat or shot him then that would have been disproportionate, but as it was the only thing he hurt was this guys pride. It is almost like a woman slapping you for making a rude comment. Calling it assault would be silly.

I don't see

I don't know all the background of this situation, but I'm not inclined to defend the sucker-punching of someone. The old man didn't punch the reporter because he felt physically threatened, nor did he punch him because he felt his property was "under assault" by an outside threat... he punched the reporter because he was agitated by the questioning. We all get agitated from time to time, and violence is an easy cop-out way of dealing with the agitation.

Punching a harmless person in the face is neanderthal behavior, plain and simple. If the old man was bothered by the reporter, he should have went inside, called the police, and had the reporter escorted away, if simply asking him to leave didn't work. This wasn't an act of defense, it was an act of stress-relief, and thus, it's ridiculous. As someone else mentioned, if Ben Swann was doing an investigative piece and received the same treatment, or any RP 2012 supporters received similar treatment by authorities or GOP folks, we'd be outraged, and for good reasoning. You don't practice physical violence unless you are defending yourself, your family/friends, or someone/something else in need... Period.

What sucker punch?

He held the reporter with one hand earlier, making a fist with the other. Is that not enough warning that you are about to get punched?

I suggest studying property rights before you buy a house or a business, Sir.

Lima-1, out.

If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.

Apparently you don't know

Apparently you don't know what a sucker punch is. A sucker punch is punching someone when they aren't gearing for a fight. The report may have been a nuisance, but he wasn't there for a display of physical dominance or a physical altercation of any sort. He was being a pain in the ass and following the man into the building, and WHAMO, the man turned around and jacked him in the face. That is a sucker punch.

Don't tell me about property rights; I defend them whole-heartedly. I didn't say the old man needs to go to jail for what he did. I said it was a neanderthal display. It was unnecessary. It was an exhibition of violence for the purpose of stress-relief... not for self-defense. Thus, it is bogus.

Go ahead and defend unnecessary violence all you want. It's your life.

You're right

6 years in the US ARMY and I have NO FUCKING CLUE what a sucker punch is.

Jesus Christ, read my post again. The reporter KNEW this guy had hostile intent if he DIDN'T leave the property. I didn't know the grabbing a guys collar while making a fist meant, "I would LOVE for you to continue to stay next to me and/or enter my business."

You must think the pen can solve everything. It can't. I don't advocate violence in EVERY situation, but this reporter had it coming. I'm sorry you don't see it that way, but I'd hope you'd treat me the same if I tried to trespass onto your property.

The man followed the law and you call him a neanderthal. *Sigh*

Lima-1, out.

If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.

I never said that the old

I never said that the old man's actions in the beginning were passive or inviting. I'm saying that the reporter followed him toward the door, then held the door, and the old man turned around and jacked him... THAT IS A SUCKER PUNCH. He wasn't there to fight, he wasn't expecting a fight (regardless of the old mans statements earlier... the reporter obviously didn't break out the fisticuffs stance and prepare for battle). That is a sucker punch. I'm not sure what your Army service would have to do with sucker-punches.

I never said the pen could solve everything. If my home was being broken into, I'd prepare myself for a fight. If my car was being broken into, I'd prepare myself for a fight. If some reporter is asking me questions which I don't care to answer, I'd tell him or her to take a hike. If they followed me to my doorway of my home, I'd walk in and shut the door in their face. If they followed me INTO my home, I'd "escort" them out the door by getting a little physical. At no time, unless they started to shout threats or get physical with me, would I prepare for a fight. If they stayed on my property, I'd call the police.

Technically, intentionally walking across my lawn would be trespassing on my property. If you did that, I would not punch you in the face. Only if you had clear intention of harming my property, or myself, would I resort to physical violence. The fact that you'd break out the fisticuffs or guns at simple trespassing is a reflection of your character, not mine. Girl Scouts selling cookies are technically trespassing. Ron Paul supporters walking up to a door and ringing a bell are technically trespassing (especially if there is a Romney or Obama sign out front).

Harmless

A person on private property who is told to leave yet continues to get in your face then trys to follow you into your building is very lucky to just get a punch in the face.

PERIOD

sovereign

I refuse to accept violence

I refuse to accept violence as an acceptable alleviation of stress. If you wish to, so be it, but I'm sick of unnecessary violence and this is an example of it.

I'm making an assumption here, but it is one based on statistics... This older man is likely a Christian. I get annoyed when Christians choose not to follow their savior's teachings. This man could have turned the other cheek, walked into the business and called the police. His resort to violence was not made in self-defense, again, the reporter posed no physical threat... he was nothing more than a pain in the ass. The violence was exhibited for stress-relief, and that is unacceptable.

Sure, the reporter

didn't pose a physical threat, but he was breaking the law. The man told him to leave the PRIVATE PROPERTY and he didn't.

Opinions are fun, but not law.

Lima-1, out.

If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.

Again, I never said the old

Again, I never said the old man should be jailed for what he did. I criticized his choice of exercising unnecessary violence rather than going inside and calling the police to get rid of the reporter.

You acknowledged the reporter was not posing a physical threat... Then you are acknowledging my very point that the old man needn't "defend himself" with violence. The fact that he's likely a Christian further exacerbates the issue, because turning the other cheek would be the answer to the question WWJD?

Again, go ahead and cheer for unnecessary violence. It's your life.

You still don't get the law, world!

I acknowledge that the reporter posed no physical threat, yes. But your logic cannot defeat the law, Sir. You say that you defend property rights. THEN WHY ARE YOU ARGUING WITH ME?

Just say it's your opinion and it's not a law. I'm fine with that.

Lima-1, out.

If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.

I already said it isn't the

I already said it isn't the law... Clearly, since I said the old man should NOT be punished (jail/fine/etc), that means I know he was within his rights. My statement has always been opinion; opinion that the man acted like a neanderthal and behaved in a way that was unnecessary, and is opposite of how HIS savior would have acted.

My argument is that the people in this thread claiming the reporter 'deserved it' or 'got what was coming to him,' are defending aggressive violence... I find that sad.

Why is that, though?

Do you believe in Karma, World? There were better ways this reporter could have "gotten Mr. Wilde" without getting in his face or even contacting him at all.

If Mr. Wilde didn't have a business license like the article says at CBS, then why didn't the reporter just turn him in and let the authorties handle the questioning?

At least you're staying cordial.

Lima-1, out.

If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.

High Morals soon drop to the

Laws of the Jungle. I do not like violence dont think its the first best solution. I have but one life and I wont be turning cheeks to many times. So you have made dicissions and mine are not exactly the same. Good for us. If you want to be non violent and not get punched in the face, (unless you wish to force your nonviolent ways upon the other guy? Good luck doing that in a non violent way.) its prudent to not get up in his face asking questions that anger others and certianly after being told that your goina get punched in the face its best to not grab the door and try to go into his place. So yah meybe looked violent to you to me looked like somone got what they needed. Meybe the guy who punched him was a real skunk bad guy. Still when you ask for a fist sandwitch and one gets served up, time to take your medicine and learn a lesson.

sovereign

What an absurd argument. A

What an absurd argument. A neo-con can and will make the exact argument when defending the relentless bombing of ME countries in "response" to 9/11. Not to mention, any of them will make the same argument about RP supporters at the GOP debates or conventions when they were 'disruptive,' as they can claim they feared for their safety.

You either believe in living peacefully whenever possible (that is, always except in cases of self-defense), or you don't. You don't, fair enough. It's your life.

What he said

Holy Hyo po crat bat man. Except in cases of self defense. Yah thats what I said, when we get to self defence it goes to the laws of the jungle. When the little tickle bears cry for Jesus as their heads are chopped off I go to Jungle law time.
SO stop huffing and puffing. No NeOcOn here for sure. The claim of fear for safety was a lie by GOP polecats. Nothing to do with my point. If your asking how to protect yourself from liars? Well first best is to stay away from them, disengage. In every case I have experienced I have been able to disengage from any liars I have encountered. So because they lied and called for a bunch of thugs in uniform to oust the Liberty gang, in what way do you relate that to my initial diatribe?

Are you telling me that the RP gang was in the GOP's face, the GOP threatened violence, and the RP group still got in the GOP's face, so when the GOP punched the RP group, the RP group deserved it because they could have backed off? Did I get that turned around?

sovereign

I'm not sure I followed your

I'm not sure I followed your points.

RP supporters have purposefully been nuisances at debates, conventions, caucuses, and at live program tapings numerous times over the years. I protect their speech rights and I'd be outraged (and have been) when they've been roughed up. Think of the people throwing snowballs at Hannity, or the "F U Frank" people screaming at Frank Luntz... Look at how the two of them just kept on their way, ignoring the frustrating and stress-inducing taunts. (Both instances were on private property, one being some center and the other being the hotel Hannity was at). If either of them had cold-cocked an RP supporter, this site would have been outraged.

I do not agree

I have not found RP supporters to be agressive. FU Frank needed to be tared and feathered he got off light. Unbleivable your lost. Listen to me carfully. Wake up somtimes you best learn to be a man. When liars theives and mass murders are around you, you best wake up. Discusting that you cant understand any comon sense. Unbelievable you cant be for real, paid shill, meybe just a dumbed down medicated propagandized lost soul. What ever.

You cant figure out when its right to stand up and when its wrong so you just bend over thats the correct position for you.

sovereign

Holy Hypocrit, Batman!

"What an absurd argument. A neo-con can and will make the exact argument when defending the relentless bombing of ME countries in "response" to 9/11."

Comparing 9/11 to this sitation is absurd. You can't possibly live life peacefully when someone is always trying to break the law. People that break the PEACE should be dealt with, forcefully.

Do you disagree with that or not? Would you like it if the old man just called the police and charged the reporter with trespassing?

Lima-1, out.

If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.

If the reporter was breaking

If the reporter was breaking the law, then call the goddamned police. He was NOT threatening violence, or any physicality at all. He was asking questions and being a nuisance.

I disagree, completely, that people who "disrupt the peace" should be dealt with "forcefully" if that force is violence. Again, RP supporters were constantly "disturbing the peace" at functions; so long as they aren't being violent or making threats of violence, they don't deserve to be violently treated. Your position is that they should be.

You keep mixing up my position with one in which the old man should be punished. I do NOT believe he should face jail time or a fine or whatever for punching the reporter, because as you mentioned, the reporter was on his private property and didn't leave. My beef with him is with the actions he took, as they were unnecessary.

There are multiple people in this post who've commented that the reporter 'deserved' the punch, or that he 'got what was coming to him.' THAT is the absurdity. People don't "deserve" to get punched, or have any violence against them. Legitimate uses of violence (self-defense) are done, not to dish out a "deserved" punishment, but to protect one's self, family/friends, strangers from the violent actions of the perpetrator. So long as we believe in dishing out violence to "deserving" people as a method of "punishment", rather than as a method of protecting ourselves, our society will be filled with nonsense. If you can't understand that, I pity you.