Skip to main content

View Diary: Prosser vs Bradley: Investigations Go Forth (211 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Did I ever say that I had the complete statements? (0+ / 0-)

    No, of course I didn't. All I've repeatedly said is what we know, given the evidence we currently have.

    Whenever I address ANY topic, that's what I talk about - the evidence we currently have!

    Individuals don't always accurately describe their interactions with others - in fact, they mostly don't. They describe it through their own prism, as do witnesses too, but the outside observers are more likely to accurately describe it than someone directly involved might depict themselves.

    Given the evidence we have, she wasn't impacted by a chokehold. And if she wasn't, it makes it sound much more likely that his hands incidentally hit her neck as I've repeatedly suggested - that his had his arms outstretched with his palms perpendicular to the floor and his thumbs next to each other, and when he prepared to respond to the perceived threat he felt as she approached him with raised fists, his thumbs struck her in the front of her neck and his fingers just sort of naturally fell around the sides of her neck.

    That's given the depiction by multiple sources who say that there was no squeezing, no chokehold.

    I have never "surmised" she was lying. Again, your preconceived notions are getting the best of you.

    Oh, and a chokehold doesn't have to be from behind, nor does it require any props.

    And there are all kinds of ways that his hands could have avoided hitting her arms. And again, having one's hands on either side of another's neck isn't always equivalent to grabbing. Not one source is quoted as saying that she was grabbed.

    And I suspect that if there were marks, this would have already resulted in an arrest. As it has not (but has already been preliminarily investigated) I suspect that there are no marks, which, again, supports the version as I have surmised it happened - no violence, incidental contact.

    I hope he did do something, so that he can get kicked off the court and a Democrat can have a chance to win the seat! The evidence doesn't look like it supports that he did commit a crime.

    If you hold your hands out in front of you, with your palms facing the wall, your thumbs are going to naturally be next to each other - you imply that it's some distorted position to hold one's hands in if one is trying to protect oneself from someone coming towards them! It's not. And if one was trying to push that oncoming person away, one's hands could easily wrap around whatever they touched - an arm, a face, a neck, a boob, without any intent to harm the other person with a squeezing motion.

    •  Why would there be a sheriff's investigation if (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Seneca Doane, BYw

      things occurred as you interpret the accounts?

      The case you make would have Bradley being investigated as the aggressor for charging, with her possibly charged with assault or battery and Prosser not charged at all because he was defending himself. Is this what you are asserting?

      Bradley then would be at high risk for perjury for her Saturday statements

      "The facts are that I was demanding that he get out of my office and he put his hands around my neck in anger in a chokehold," Bradley told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel."put his hands around my neck in anger in a chokehold"

      and responding directly Prosser's contention that he's be fully exonerated ...

      "You can try to spin those facts and try to make it sound like I ran up to him and threw my neck into his hands, but that's only spin."
      •  Why would there be an investigation? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        David PA

        Did you really ask this question?

        Why did Kenneth Starr spend millions of dollars? Because he had to investigate the allegations made by others. Just like these groups will have to investigate the allegations made by others.

        The incident should be investigated. From the evidence we have, it does look like she was the aggressor after he acted like an asshole, and it's likely that if there isn't contradictory evidence found, that the finding will be that no charges will be filed against either one, since he wasn't really "assaulted" by her, despite getting up in his face with her fist raised, and all he did was repel the perceived attack with reasonable force.

        And no, there's absolutely no evidence of perjury. Perjury is an intent to deceive in a material matter AFTER having been sworn to tell the truth! She has not been sworn at any point in time when she's been giving statements to the media. That was just a stupid allegation on your part.

        And yeah, it does look like she exaggerated what happened to her. He DID put his hands out, and they DID contact her neck. That's not equivalent to him putting her in a chokehold.

        As I've written repeatedly, she likely got hit with his thumbs in the throat, and that hurts when it happens, but that's not the same as being choked.

        And according to another source, Bradley admitted that he didn't actually choke her - just that he was about to, and had she not been pulled away from her, she would have been choked. Well, we don't live in a "Minority Report" world.

        •  Not sure how you have so much clarity. You (0+ / 0-)

          could be right, but you could be off quite a bit too. Given what we've seen in print of the accounts, you're really putting yourself out there: big reward if you're right, humble pie if not.

    •  I won't hide this one, because if you want to (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      itskevin, BYw

      reveal your thinking like this, people should see it.  I want to make sure that I characterize your argument correctly.

      Here's your argument as I understand it:

      1. Bradley said that she was in a chokehold.  This is not plausible as there is no evidence that she was ever choked.  No other witness says that she was choked.  We can therefore conclude that her testimony is uncorroborated.

      2. If she was not choked, then the compelling alternative is that there was only "incidental contact."  Your model is that, if you are pushing away someone who is moving towards you, it would be easy to accidentally wrap your fingers around their neck with your thumbs pressing (lightly!) around their throat.  This is presumably because you believe that the "pushing" position (arms extended forward from the body, thumbs together, palms perpendicular to the floor parallel to one another, fingers pointing upwards), naturally converts to the "strangling" position (arms extended forward from the body, thumbs together, palms facing each other, fingers pointing forward or curled around the neck).

      Do I correctly characterize your argument?  Have I left out anything material?

      To protect the Latino "community of interest" in redistricting Orange County, Santa Ana, eastern Garden Grove, and central Anaheim must be in the same legislative districts.

      by Seneca Doane on Tue Jun 28, 2011 at 09:33:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Nope, you didn't get it (0+ / 0-)

        And given your inability to interpret what I say in any reasonable fashion, you should stop trying. You've failed massively and repeatedly.

        1. I never said anything that could be legitimately interpreted to mean that I thought it wasn't plausible that she was actually choked. Never. NOTHING!

        2. Try it out, gently, on your significant other - or hell, try it against the doorcasing leading into the room you're next to right now. Push on them at the region where their neck joins their body with your hands close to one another and your thumbs almost touching. See where your hands and finger end up. What will happen is that your fingers will go alongside the neck. A snapshot of that effort could look like you're strangling your SO, when of course you're really not.

        •  Where in the above do I assert (0+ / 0-)

          that you "thought it wasn't plausible that she was actually choked."

          I said that you said that it wasn't plausible that she was "in a chokehold."

          I said that you said that there is no corroborating evidence that she was ever choked.

          Do you deny either statement?  Could she have been choked without being -- as you have repeatedly pointed out that she was not -- "in a chokehold"?

          Because I cannot believe that you do not understand the difference between "being choked" and "being in a chokehold," given that your whole point about lack or corroboration seems to depend on this distinction, I continue to believe that you are a smart person who is, for reasons unknown, arguing in bad faith.  I therefore have to hide rate this comment as well.

          You know how to reach Meteor Blades if you'd like.  I'd welcome his intervention.

          To protect the Latino "community of interest" in redistricting Orange County, Santa Ana, eastern Garden Grove, and central Anaheim must be in the same legislative districts.

          by Seneca Doane on Wed Jun 29, 2011 at 09:03:20 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site