Larry Baer

[Tom Sawyer]

You can't blame the victim here. She took someone else's phone, so she's responsible for the consequences of that person taking his phone back from her.

She’s the victim. I don’t blame her. I blame him for behaving violently towards his spouse, as I would blame her were the roles reversed. This is not the way one should treat one’s spouse or anyone you care about.

Ffs, I do not require that my husband ask my permission to touch any of my belongings. He does not require that I get his permission to touch his. I’m pretty sure he has the password to my email if he bothers to remember it. I might be annoyed if he went through my email or my phone but I would hardly knock him to the ground for doing so. He sometimes uses my computer and sometimes I use his. He’s answered my phone for me, and I gave answered his. I’ve read him his texts if he didn’t have his glasses. Nor did I attack him physically or verbally for taking cash from my purse or my car keys because he needed my car. Why on earth would I? Why would I be married to someone I could not trust, or who could not trust me? I certainly cannot imagine knocking to the ground any person I cared about—over a cell phone, ffs. Or anything.


This was not a man trying to retrieve stolen property from a stranger. This was a man who is not capable of behaving civilly to his spouse.

She took someone else's stuff and got wrestled to the ground as he took it back. The moral of the story is to not take other people's stuff.

 

[Toni]

You can't blame the victim here. She took someone else's phone, so she's responsible for the consequences of that person taking his phone back from her.

She’s the victim. I don’t blame her. I blame him for behaving violently towards his spouse, as I would blame her were the roles reversed. This is not the way one should treat one’s spouse or anyone you care about.

Ffs, I do not require that my husband ask my permission to touch any of my belongings. He does not require that I get his permission to touch his. I’m pretty sure he has the password to my email if he bothers to remember it. I might be annoyed if he went through my email or my phone but I would hardly knock him to the ground for doing so. He sometimes uses my computer and sometimes I use his. He’s answered my phone for me, and I gave answered his. I’ve read him his texts if he didn’t have his glasses. Nor did I attack him physically or verbally for taking cash from my purse or my car keys because he needed my car. Why on earth would I? Why would I be married to someone I could not trust, or who could not trust me? I certainly cannot imagine knocking to the ground any person I cared about—over a cell phone, ffs. Or anything.


This was not a man trying to retrieve stolen property from a stranger. This was a man who is not capable of behaving civilly to his spouse.

She took someone else's stuff and got wrestled to the ground as he took it back. The moral of the story is to not take other people's stuff.

Really? This is how you would treat your wife?

I wouldn’t even do that if my husband took the last brownie I had hidden in my special hiding place for tomorrow’s lunch. And if I had accidentally caused him to fall, I would immediately help him up, offering profuse apologies and offer to split the brownie.

 

[Toni]

She was sitting in a chair looking at the phone. He physically assaulted her to take the phone from her. Yes, it was a physical assault.

Doesn't matter.

It looks like his objective was to grab the phone. She doesn't appear to have had much to do with it, other than she was holding the phone.

Whether it is right to grab a phone from someone depends on context. If it was her phone I suppose you could call it an assault. If it was his phone and she wouldn't give it back it seems reasonably justified.

No one has any right to occupy someone else's phone without their permission. If women want to be treated equally, this is sometimes what you get. You can't prevail on the cultural bias that a man should not do that to a woman. You're just a person that took something that belongs to another person.

My husband and I share an account with our cell phone service. We’ve each purchased our current phones through the same service provider/account.

I got my cell phone first. I opened the account and added my husband when he finally caved and got a cell phone a few years later. The account is still in my name. I get the bills. I pay the bills. I pay the bills with our joint checking account. In fact, I pay all of our bills from the same joint checking account and have since before we were married.

Whose cell phone is it?

Would she have been justified in knocking her husband down to take her phone back?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

It’s not shared property. I don’t know where you’re getting that from. I’m getting the claim that it was his personal property which she took without his permission from her, so wherever it is yours going with this weird derail, it nothing except a weird derail and not something about the topic being discussed.

Don't accuse me of a derail. You are simply not looking at the situation legally. Married people share property, even if he calls it his phone. While they are married, they share the bills and property, including the phone bill. If he gets a divorce, he can get a judge or some arbiter to agree it should be his phone. While they are married, she can go to the utility company and get all the info on phone calls he made. He has no real expectation of privacy in his joint phone account. And his prioritization of his phone over her body was a douchy thing to do, jusy like it would be douchy for her to kick the house door into his nose.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Married people share property, even if he calls it his phone.

No. SHE calls it his phone and SHE says she took it without his permission. I'm of the position that we should believe women when they tell us what happened.

 

[Toni]

Married people share property, even if he calls it his phone.

No. SHE calls it his phone and SHE says she took it without his permission. I'm of the position that we should believe women when they tell us what happened.

I call it my husbad’s phone, too, although it is on a account in my name. I have never asked his permission to pick
up his phone or to answer it, nor has he ever asked my permission either.

But then we don’t have an abusive relationship.

Victims of domestic abuse often deny abuse, even when there are bruises and fractures. They often take the blame: I shouldn’t have made him/her so angry! I know that he/she is so particular about his/her dinner/ironing/cell phone.

That does not mean that it isn’t abuse.

There is a reason that police responding to reports of domestic abuse take someone in, even if the victim chooses to say nothing happened.

 

[repoman]

 

[laughing dog]

All I can say is that I pity the spouse of anyone who condones what Mr. Baer did. It was wrong.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Married people share property, even if he calls it his phone.

No. SHE calls it his phone and SHE says she took it without his permission. I'm of the position that we should believe women when they tell us what happened.

So what. I call my wife's phone her phone but we pay the bill out of jointly owned money and the account is in my name. She's done 10 upgrades to the account and family phones without me present even though it's all in my name. We are married so that's how it works. She also just ordered me a new bank card from our joint account because mine has damage. Now, just like my wife and myself, they are still married. It is still technically jointly owned phone account and payed for out of the pool of their marriage money. She can legally go to the phone company and get a listing of all numbers he called. He doesn't have an expectation of privacy. The semantics of possession hardly matters either. It is douchy to choose grabbing a phone over hurting someone.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Married people share property, even if he calls it his phone.

No. SHE calls it his phone and SHE says she took it without his permission. I'm of the position that we should believe women when they tell us what happened.

So what. I call my wife's phone her phone but we pay the bill out of jointly owned money and the account is in my name. She's done 10 upgrades to the account and family phones without me present even though it's all in my name. We are married so that's how it works. She also just ordered me a new bank card from our joint account because mine has damage. Now, just like my wife and myself, they are still married. It is still technically jointly owned phone account and payed for out of the pool of their marriage money. She can legally go to the phone company and get a listing of all numbers he called. He doesn't have an expectation of privacy. The semantics of possession hardly matters either. It is douchy to choose grabbing a phone over hurting someone.

That’s a really interesting aside, but not related to a situation where both parties recognize that the phone only belonged to one of them and both recognize that the other took it without permission.

 

[laughing dog]

So what. I call my wife's phone her phone but we pay the bill out of jointly owned money and the account is in my name. She's done 10 upgrades to the account and family phones without me present even though it's all in my name. We are married so that's how it works. She also just ordered me a new bank card from our joint account because mine has damage. Now, just like my wife and myself, they are still married. It is still technically jointly owned phone account and payed for out of the pool of their marriage money. She can legally go to the phone company and get a listing of all numbers he called. He doesn't have an expectation of privacy. The semantics of possession hardly matters either. It is douchy to choose grabbing a phone over hurting someone.

That’s a really interesting aside, but not related to a situation where both parties recognize that the phone only belonged to one of them and both recognize that the other took it without permission.

That is really interesting but not related at all to his inappropriate treatment of her: the fact he wanted his phone back from her hand does not justify his actions.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Was she snooping on his phone ? Is that why she wouldn’t return the phone when asked ?

And it’s not up to you to judge other people’s marriage arrangements.

And the only way to deal with that is violence. Gotcha..

There are other ways to handle these situations of course. But why is her asshole behavior given a free pass ?

Why is the non-violent behavior being spoken of less than the violent behavior? You seriously just asked that question?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So what. I call my wife's phone her phone but we pay the bill out of jointly owned money and the account is in my name. She's done 10 upgrades to the account and family phones without me present even though it's all in my name. We are married so that's how it works. She also just ordered me a new bank card from our joint account because mine has damage. Now, just like my wife and myself, they are still married. It is still technically jointly owned phone account and payed for out of the pool of their marriage money. She can legally go to the phone company and get a listing of all numbers he called. He doesn't have an expectation of privacy. The semantics of possession hardly matters either. It is douchy to choose grabbing a phone over hurting someone.

That’s a really interesting aside, but not related to a situation where both parties recognize that the phone only belonged to one of them and both recognize that the other took it without permission.

Yes, you have established that the woman (wife) might have done something inappropriate. The trouble is, her action is being used to whitewash his reaction, which could have been any number of actions, anything from do nothing to wait a little longer to physically apprehend it back from her to take out a gun / kill her.

There seems to be limited number of scenarios where such a boisterous reaction would seem justified. That'd include things like she was about to purchase $100 million in bitcoin or he was expecting an important call and she was being a complete jackass and keeping him from getting the call or he was about to be the 76th caller on Wankman and the Buttman $5,000 radio contest.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

So what. I call my wife's phone her phone but we pay the bill out of jointly owned money and the account is in my name. She's done 10 upgrades to the account and family phones without me present even though it's all in my name. We are married so that's how it works. She also just ordered me a new bank card from our joint account because mine has damage. Now, just like my wife and myself, they are still married. It is still technically jointly owned phone account and payed for out of the pool of their marriage money. She can legally go to the phone company and get a listing of all numbers he called. He doesn't have an expectation of privacy. The semantics of possession hardly matters either. It is douchy to choose grabbing a phone over hurting someone.

That’s a really interesting aside, but not related to a situation where both parties recognize that the phone only belonged to one of them and both recognize that the other took it without permission.

Yes, you have established that the woman (wife) might have done something inappropriate. The trouble is, her action is being used to whitewash his reaction, which could have been any number of actions, anything from do nothing to wait a little longer to physically apprehend it back from her to take out a gun / kill her.

There seems to be limited number of scenarios where such a boisterous reaction would seem justified. That'd include things like she was about to purchase $100 million in bitcoin or he was expecting an important call and she was being a complete jackass and keeping him from getting the call or he was about to be the 76th caller on Wankman and the Buttman $5,000 radio contest.

Yes, if he'd had a different reaction to her actions, the situation would be different. That's trivially obvious and I fail to see how that's a point about anything. The reaction which he did have - to grab the phone and use sufficient force to pull it away from her while focusing his efforts on retrieving the phone - was an appropriate reaction.

 

[dismal]

It’s not shared property. I don’t know where you’re getting that from. I’m getting the claim that it was his personal property which she took without his permission from her, so wherever it is yours going with this weird derail, it nothing except a weird derail and not something about the topic being discussed.

Does that justify his actions as shown in the video? This is his spouse, whom he claims was injured at the time of the incident. This is not a random stranger.

The actions were:

a) one person took the other's phone without permission
b) the person whose phone was taken took it back, and because the person who took the phone tried to hold onto it, the person who took the phone fell over

The first action is the morally wrong one. If you suffer consequences from taking and trying to hold onto someone else's property you are not the victim. Your hands are not clean. You are the initiator.

 

[Toni]

It’s not shared property. I don’t know where you’re getting that from. I’m getting the claim that it was his personal property which she took without his permission from her, so wherever it is yours going with this weird derail, it nothing except a weird derail and not something about the topic being discussed.

Does that justify his actions as shown in the video? This is his spouse, whom he claims was injured at the time of the incident. This is not a random stranger.

The actions were:

a) one person took the other's phone without permission
b) the person whose phone was taken took it back, and because the person who took the phone tried to hold onto it, the person who took the phone fell over

The first action is the morally wrong one. If you suffer consequences from taking and trying to hold onto someone else's property you are not the victim. Your hands are not clean. You are the initiator.

So, if instead of knocking her to the ground, her screaming, he had pulled out a gun and shot her in the head, he would have been justified?

 

[dismal]

So what. I call my wife's phone her phone but we pay the bill out of jointly owned money and the account is in my name. She's done 10 upgrades to the account and family phones without me present even though it's all in my name. We are married so that's how it works. She also just ordered me a new bank card from our joint account because mine has damage. Now, just like my wife and myself, they are still married. It is still technically jointly owned phone account and payed for out of the pool of their marriage money. She can legally go to the phone company and get a listing of all numbers he called. He doesn't have an expectation of privacy. The semantics of possession hardly matters either. It is douchy to choose grabbing a phone over hurting someone.

That’s a really interesting aside, but not related to a situation where both parties recognize that the phone only belonged to one of them and both recognize that the other took it without permission.

Yes, you have established that the woman (wife) might have done something inappropriate. The trouble is, her action is being used to whitewash his reaction, which could have been any number of actions, anything from do nothing to wait a little longer to physically apprehend it back from her to take out a gun / kill her.

There seems to be limited number of scenarios where such a boisterous reaction would seem justified. That'd include things like she was about to purchase $100 million in bitcoin or he was expecting an important call and she was being a complete jackass and keeping him from getting the call or he was about to be the 76th caller on Wankman and the Buttman $5,000 radio contest.

Wow, Jimmy, I guess if he'd killed her you'd have an excellent point. Killing someone for taking your phone seems like a disproportionate response. I wonder if the law has ever dealt with things like proportional responses? How can anyone even know?

But let's assume it has. Let's assume we must ask ourselves whether responses to wrongful acts must be proportional.

Now we're left with the question: is taking a phone back a reasonable and proportional response to someone taking your phone?

Jeez, it's a tough call isn't it.

- - - Updated - - -

The actions were:

a) one person took the other's phone without permission
b) the person whose phone was taken took it back, and because the person who took the phone tried to hold onto it, the person who took the phone fell over

The first action is the morally wrong one. If you suffer consequences from taking and trying to hold onto someone else's property you are not the victim. Your hands are not clean. You are the initiator.

So, if instead of knocking her to the ground, her screaming, he had pulled out a gun and shot her in the head, he would have been justified?

*sigh*

Is there a place you all go to get fed the same ridiculous answers?

And he doesn't "knock her to the ground". He grabs his phone and pulls it away. She ends up on the ground because she will not let go of his phone. Watch the video again. He directs none of his action toward her. He's entirely focused on getting his phone back.

 

[Toni]

Yes, you have established that the woman (wife) might have done something inappropriate. The trouble is, her action is being used to whitewash his reaction, which could have been any number of actions, anything from do nothing to wait a little longer to physically apprehend it back from her to take out a gun / kill her.

There seems to be limited number of scenarios where such a boisterous reaction would seem justified. That'd include things like she was about to purchase $100 million in bitcoin or he was expecting an important call and she was being a complete jackass and keeping him from getting the call or he was about to be the 76th caller on Wankman and the Buttman $5,000 radio contest.

Wow, Jimmy, I guess if he'd killed her you'd have an excellent point. Killing someone for taking your phone seems like a disproportionate response. I wonder if the law has ever dealt with things like proportional responses? How can anyone even know?

But let's assume it has. Let's assume we must ask ourselves whether responses to wrongful acts must be proportional.

Now we're left with the question: is taking a phone back a reasonable and proportional response to someone taking your phone?

Jeez, it's a tough call isn't it.

He didn't just take the phone back. He lunged at her, wrestled it away from her, knocking her to the ground, causing her to cry out for help. That much we can see from the video.

Here's a longer description: https://www.thedailybeast.com/resol...responds-to-viral-video-of-incident-with-wife

Eye witnesses told the San Francisco Chronicle they saw the couple arguing for about 20 minutes in a public plaza before the incident, and added that Pamela seemed “seemed pretty terrified” afterward. They said Baer only calmed down after two bystanders intervened.

“He knocks her down off her chair and gets on top of her and puts his hands on her,” one witness recalled. “She was screaming for help.”

and there's this:

Later, the Giants released a second statement from Baer apologizing to his wife, his children, and the organization, adding, “I will do whatever it takes to make sure that I never behave in such an inappropriate manner again.”

and this:

Pamela Baer also issued a statement through an attorney, claiming she lost her balance and fell from the chair due to an injury to her foot. She said the incident began when she took Baer’s cell phone and did not want to give it back. “I did not sustain any injury based on what happened today,” she added. “Larry and I always have been and still are happily married.”

Frankly, I do not put any weight at all in the sincerity or veracity of either released statement.

 

[Toni]

Yes, you have established that the woman (wife) might have done something inappropriate. The trouble is, her action is being used to whitewash his reaction, which could have been any number of actions, anything from do nothing to wait a little longer to physically apprehend it back from her to take out a gun / kill her.

There seems to be limited number of scenarios where such a boisterous reaction would seem justified. That'd include things like she was about to purchase $100 million in bitcoin or he was expecting an important call and she was being a complete jackass and keeping him from getting the call or he was about to be the 76th caller on Wankman and the Buttman $5,000 radio contest.

Wow, Jimmy, I guess if he'd killed her you'd have an excellent point. Killing someone for taking your phone seems like a disproportionate response. I wonder if the law has ever dealt with things like proportional responses? How can anyone even know?

But let's assume it has. Let's assume we must ask ourselves whether responses to wrongful acts must be proportional.

Now we're left with the question: is taking a phone back a reasonable and proportional response to someone taking your phone?

Jeez, it's a tough call isn't it.

- - - Updated - - -

The actions were:

a) one person took the other's phone without permission
b) the person whose phone was taken took it back, and because the person who took the phone tried to hold onto it, the person who took the phone fell over

The first action is the morally wrong one. If you suffer consequences from taking and trying to hold onto someone else's property you are not the victim. Your hands are not clean. You are the initiator.

So, if instead of knocking her to the ground, her screaming, he had pulled out a gun and shot her in the head, he would have been justified?

*sigh*

Is there a place you all go to get fed the same ridiculous answers?

And he doesn't "knock her to the ground". He grabs his phone and pulls it away. She ends up on the ground because she will not let go of his phone. Watch the video again. He directs none of his action toward her. He's entirely focused on getting his phone back.

I guess that's why she's screaming for help and why it took two bystanders to calm him down.

There is no part of any recounting of this that indicates that he regretted that his injured wife fell or that he was in any way concerned about her fall or her. At all. He does seem pretty concerned about the fact he might face some kind of sanction.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

He does seem pretty concerned about the fact he might face some kind of sanction.

And rightly so. Facing some kind of sanction for taking back your own property from someone who took it from you would be a pretty shitty thing to have to experience and nobody should need to go through something like that.