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!


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.

And I keep telling you

that your logic is bunk compared to the law. I KNOW that you don't believe the old man broke the law, but that's the WHOLE point.

And, again, another terrible analogy: RP supporters didn't break any laws and THAT"S WHY the GOP couldn't use force. The Reporter did break the law by trespassing. He was told to leave and he didn't. See the difference or do you just pity everyone that doesn't hold your opinion?

Lima-1, out.

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

You are missing the point,

You are missing the point, because the law isn't the point. We both agree that the old man should receive any jail-time or fine, so leave the law out of it.

I'm discussing behavior. My original comment, if you bother to read it, is my take on the video. I see an annoying reporter, and I see an old man who punches the annoying reporter in the face. In the thread, I see people not just saying that the old man is within his rights (which I agree, he is), I see people morally justifying his violence (which I do not agree, and thus, is my point).

My argument is based on the facts that as the reporter was NOT violent, threatening violence, or physically intimidating, the old man's violent display was not that of self-defense, but that of aggressive stress alleviation. I do not believe in violence for stress alleviation; I believe in violence only for defensive purposes; and thus... the point. The point is not the law. The point is that I'm bothered by the number of folks who claim to be non-aggressive non-violent, yet they believe that people "deserve" violence being done to them in certain cases. That is absurd, is the whole point of anything I've said on this topic. I outlined pretty straightforwardly.

If you can't understand that humans shouldn't partake in violence unless defending themselves or others, then yes, I do pity you, and anyone else who thinks like you. If you can't understand why people don't 'deserve' to be treated violently, then yes, I do pity you and anyone else who thinks like you.

Then what do you suggest

when someone barges in your house and the police are 15 minutes away? You just can't defend yourself with only words or sign language or a pen.

Maybe you will get a chance to see what I mean when this gooberment tries to infringe a little more. But I certainly hope it doesn't come to that.

Lima-1, out.

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

I tend to agree with you ..so

I tend to agree with you ..so I watched it again... I can't figure out why the reporter followed him knowing he was not welcomed. I don't get that the old man was holding the door for him...to the contrary the reporter opened the door to walk in. I think we all as a society have lost our sense of propriety and what is expected courtesy. It will be interesting to follow the story and get more details.

It sounds to me like the

It sounds to me like the reporter was trying to get answers to tough questions which the old man didn't want to answer. He was being a pain in the ass, and the old man should have just called police and shut the door on the reporter.

Sorry, world

but most people just aren't in line with your philosphy. The reporter wasn't invited (clearly, to everyone but yourself) and he kept pushing.

Lima-1, out.

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


"most people just aren't in line with your philosphy."

"most people" voted for Obamney.

You don't need to be invited to a place that is open to the public. do you stand outside Burger King waiting for an invitation? if the owner head explicitly told him to leave then it might be a different story. But this is assault unless there is something the video isn't showing.

if someone

grabs your shirt threatens to punch you and then walks away and you follow them, its your own stupid fault for getting punched. If he had punched him at first okay you could call it battery but not after he walks away and you follow him. You are just asking for it.

If the reporter was your son and the older fella was Romney...

...and the exact same thing happened, who would be in the wrong then? It's a public business, and he never told the reporter that he couldn't come in. I feel for this older guy, but that looks to be assault.

How is it a public buisness

If the business is owned by the govenment it would be a public business. This is a private property issue. The owner tells somone to leave his property the individual refuses then trys to follow the man into his private building. Are you kidding.

Just because A person operates a buisness that atracts as you call it THE PUBLIC, it does not mean that he gives up the right of private property. So look again please.



"The owner tells somone to leave his property the individual refuses"

You're inventing facts to support your position. it is a business open to the public. it does not require an invitation any more than you need to be invited to Burger King. Again, if this were one of newts goons, then you would all be crying assault. the lack of objectivity here is a surprise and pretty disappointIng.

Look its a private business and a private buisness can

Refuse and order anyone they wish off their property. He clearly stated that he was gona punch the guy.

Do you need a written notice to understand your not wanted?

Your lack of sense is typical.


nope. needs to be a direct order.

depending on the unwanted patron to *infer* an order to leave would just give owners a license to feel free to assault any patron they may have exchanged hostile words with or looked at a "mean" way.

I would have said to my son

I would have said to my son "If you were the older man who had asked to be left alone, yet these strangers with a camera kept insisting on invading your privacy before handling your property which could be seen as a threatening act, what would you have done?

Yes, he never told the reporter that he couldn't come in. But I don't tell people they can't enter my home when I'm walking inside. People just know not to attempt to enter. Also, people have the decency to know that when I make it known to them they are annoying me and I do not wish to speak to them whilst looking physically agitated, they should leave me alone. When you let the press trample all over you, press freedom prevails in the ugliest of circumstances. But if you tell them directly "I have no desire to speak with you and wish to be left alone", that freedom turns into harassment. The consequences of harassment should not be a surprise.

"The older man who had asked

"The older man who had asked to be left alone"

this never happened. And even if it did it's not the same as saying "get off of my property.“

One's "home" has nothing to do with this situation.

I won't claim to know what constitutes harassment. I don't think this rises to the level of harassment. But, even if it did, I'm pretty sure you can't just deck someone for it.

again, if this were one of Newt's goons, you would all be crying assault.

Next case

Guilty of simple assault for the initial grabbing and threatening. Not guilty for popping him in the snoot when the reporter held the door open.

Ĵīɣȩ Ɖåđşŏń

"Fully half the quotations found on the internet are either mis-attributed, or outright fabrications." - Abraham Lincoln

The old man was completely

The old man was completely within his rights. The idiot reporter did not have an invitation to enter the mans property. Not telling him he could not enter is irrelevant you cannot enter someones property without consent period. Otherwise anyone could enter your property and say well you did not say I couldn't. The fact that anyone is unsure of this is amazing...

End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!

Get Prepared!

Mixed bag, probably no case unless injury

The reporter did not sneak up on the old man as they approached the door; he was speaking clearly and loudly enough into his microphone. The old man's hearing seemed fine when they spoke earlier.

Did the reporter encroach on the man's business office? Maybe, since he entered without permission. But the old man gave no warning and did NOT close the door behind him, leaving it for the reporter to grab.

If they want to waste money on attorneys, so be it. There was misbehavior on both sides, so unless the reporter suffered real injury from the punch or his fall, I don't think either side has much of a case.

Then again, if the camera was rolling between their two confrontations, that could be revealing! Seems odd that the cameraman would stop filming in the middle of such a scene. If someone from the station posted it, I wonder if they edited out part of the footage to protect their reporter.

The hardest thing of all to explain to this man...

is the fact that there are people out there in the world, without faces, some without names, all without family or any other relation to this man, yet who are still interested in his story, and interested to the point where we are willing to stick our unseen necks out and proffer an opinion on what we saw happen there,
and what we think about it.

That's a toughie.

Tweeting occasionally as himself @cudnoski on the twitter.

I'mma punch you again

now GIT!

The reporter is right

The Old man never specifically warned the reporter not to enter his property, at least not on camera. Yes I have the right to admit or not admit whoever I want on my property, but I don't have the right to punch or shoot or use any kind of force with out first making my intention clear that he is not welcome. All that we see in this video is the Old man turn around and punch the reporter, followed by him saying "Don't you dare attempt to enter my business". He should have said that first, and if the reporter refused to comply then by all means punch him.

No, you do not have to make

No, you do not have to make your intentions clear. If you are inviting someone, you make that clear. Otherwise you don't enter another's property. The man clearly did not want to talk to him.

He closed the door on him,

He closed the door on him, made it clear he did not want to talk to him. The reporter grabbed the door and tried to walk in. The old man saw it and punched him in the face, defending his property. He was absolutely in the right. If any jury found this old man guilty of anything I would truly be twice as disappointed in humanity as I have been for the last 10 years.

Many factors at work here

It depends on how much the reporter was haggling the old man, and how concise the old man was in stating that he wanted to be left alone. If the reporter continued to follow the old man, going so far as to attempt to enter his property, this could be considered aggravated harassment, public intimidation, elder abuse, trespassing, and possibly forcible entry.

However, the old man had grabbed the reporter and made a threat to punch him prior to the potential property rights violation. It is unclear whether or not this was early in the initial questioning, or immediately following it. If it was immediately following initial questioning in a public space, the old man made a threat of assault, verbally, which could be considered intent to commit the act later on.

Now here is another caveat: Was the reporter attempting to enter the man's closed, private property, or opened store front. If the store was opened for business at the time that the reporter attempted to enter, jurisprudence of the 14th amendment strictly prohibits the old man from preventing the entry of this individual on certain grounds. The old man would have to come up with some reason like the presence of news reporters inside his establishment would interrupt his regular flow of business.

However, most likely the old man felt intimidated. This will go to court for sure. The reporter will likely be fired for haggling an old man, and the old man will likely plea down to a fine instead of a petty misdemeanor.

However, depending on the local laws, the old man could always claim he was under duress, that the event caused him emotional distress, and so forth, thus exoneration of the old man. Both individuals seemed to have acted like morons when you really look at it, but it also appears to be edited out of context by the newspaper who published it on YouTube. The full tape will likely be requested by the police, if it is investigated. If both are smart, they will just call it even. :P

the reporter assaulted the old man

and the old man battered the douchebag who didn't listen when he said to leave him alone.

Assault and Battery are 2 different things.
reporters DO assault people daily, look it up.

At Common Law, an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.

I use Blue Wave, but don't expect one of THEIR silly taglines.

Yeah, but the reporter wasn't

Yeah, but the reporter wasn't really doing that. I agree the reporter was wrong but he didn't threaten him. The term threaten in this context means to threaten bodily harm. He might have been bugging him but he wasn't threatening him with bodily harm. In the end, the old guy was in the right to punch him and the reporter has no civil case whatsoever.

I don't mean to take the reporters side

I don't know all the details. Was he on private property when he was punched? Did the man request that the reporter not enter his establishment?

All the guy had to do was not respond to the questions and/or remarks from the reporter.

If this was Ben Swann asking questions would you guys jump on him like this?

He walked away and closed the

He walked away and closed the door. The reporter held it open and walked in. That was his own decision. It was the old man's decision to punch him in the face for being where he was not welcome.

The reporter was entering

a place of business, not a home. And he did not walk in, he attempted to. As you can see, his feet did not make it past the threshold of the door.

You wouldn't make for a very good lawyer. You can't just punch people in the face when you feel irritated. Well, you can, but not without consequence.

Private property most certainly has its laws in the US. However, the reporter did not enter the property and without a proper disclaimer or threat you can't just assault whomever you choose. From the appearance of the video, the man did not clearly state to the reporter that he did not wish him to be in his store or on his property. If the reporter was on public property at the time, he had a right to be there. If he was not, the older man should have explicitly indicated he did not want the reporter there. End of story. Violence was uncalled for in this incident.


I bet he owns the parking lot too... Private property doesn't necessitate it being indoors.

NOTE: I am not advocating violence in any way. The content of the post is for intellectual, theoretical, and philosophical discussion. FEDS, please don't come to my house.