Larry Baer

[Tom Sawyer]

Yes, all that context does matter. If it wasn’t his phone which she had taken without his permission then none of responses about how it was an appropriate action against someone who’d taken his phone without his permission would apply. That’s trivially obvious enough that it didn’t need to be explicitly stated.

 

[thebeave]

She has admitted her role in the situation, and seems to think its less of a big deal than people here who weren't involved. Doesn't she know best?

https://www.tmz.com/2019/03/01/larry-baer-giants-san-fransico-ceo-wife-altercation/

Pam Baer also released a 2nd statement ... saying, “I would like to clarify the events of today. My husband and I had an argument in public about which we are quite embarrassed."

"I took his cellphone. He wanted it back and I did not want to give it back. I started to get up and the chair I was sitting in began to tip. Due to an injury I sustained in my foot three days ago, I lost my balance. I did not sustain any injury based on what happened today. Larry and I always have been and still are happily married.”

This is reminscent of another recent Bay Area event involving SF Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi who grabbed his wife's arm to keep her from jumping out of the backseat of their car while he was driving and they were having an argument. Her arm was bruised in the process of him trying to restrain her. Despite her protests to drop the whole thing, the mob took over and almost destroyed him, her and their family. After the whole thing blew over, she was so furious she created a "one woman play" to illustrate how the whole mob mentality of DV advocates nearly ruined their lives. I wonder if Larry and Pam remember that incident and are hoping to diffuse the situation avoid a similar kind of blowout.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Mirkarimi

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yes, all that context does matter. If it wasn’t his phone which she had taken without his permission then none of responses about how it was an appropriate action against someone who’d taken his phone without his permission would apply. That’s trivially obvious enough that it didn’t need to be explicitly stated.

His v hers is muddled in a married relationship.

 

[RavenSky]

I'm seeing the same pattern here as elsewhere... blame her for his actions by claiming (without evidence) that she "stole" the phone, or "grabbed" the phone, or other assumptions that put the blame on her for his aggressive behavior.

So let's play some more "what if".

What if he wanted her to hold the phone, as many men do want their wives to hold the phone in her purse?

What if the phone was sitting on the bench, and she picked it up?

Any of these "what ifs" are nonsense because no matter what the prior circumstances, assault and battery is NOT an appropriate way to regain possession of a cell phone from your spouse.

I don't think it's really that complicated:

Person A has Person B's phone and won't give it back: that amount of force seems reasonable from Person B to take it back
Person A has Person A's phone: no amount of force is reasonable from Person B to take it.

Dragging words like "spouse" and gender into it are irrelevant. We should not try to assess the dynamics of someone else's marriage. Nor should we presume special treatment based on gender. We should treat them as individuals with their own moral agency.

First of all, I assigned ZERO "special treatment" to anyone because of their gender. Your incorrect assumptions otherwise lead to your inability to see this situation clearly, in my opinion.

Second, the fact that these two people are married to each other (or otherwise have an ongoing relationship with each other) DOES matter. Far too many people seem to be trying to portray her like some mugger in the street, and are making unsubstantiated assumptions that she "stole" his phone as if this somehow justifies his assault and battery.

It doesn't.

And it wouldn't if the genders here had been reversed, either.

 

[starwater]

If people know who you are in public, you have to remember the whole world is watching. I agree that there could be worse going on in private, or this could be a spat that was really nothing.

 

[RavenSky]

Yes, all that context does matter. If it wasn’t his phone which she had taken without his permission then none of responses about how it was an appropriate action against someone who’d taken his phone without his permission would apply. That’s trivially obvious enough that it didn’t need to be explicitly stated.

Whether she had permission to be holding his phone is immaterial.

Would you encourage or applaud your child to literally assault another family member over a pair of borrowed earrings?

 

[dismal]

I'm seeing the same pattern here as elsewhere... blame her for his actions by claiming (without evidence) that she "stole" the phone, or "grabbed" the phone, or other assumptions that put the blame on her for his aggressive behavior.

So let's play some more "what if".

What if he wanted her to hold the phone, as many men do want their wives to hold the phone in her purse?

What if the phone was sitting on the bench, and she picked it up?

Any of these "what ifs" are nonsense because no matter what the prior circumstances, assault and battery is NOT an appropriate way to regain possession of a cell phone from your spouse.

I don't think it's really that complicated:

Person A has Person B's phone and won't give it back: that amount of force seems reasonable from Person B to take it back
Person A has Person A's phone: no amount of force is reasonable from Person B to take it.

Dragging words like "spouse" and gender into it are irrelevant. We should not try to assess the dynamics of someone else's marriage. Nor should we presume special treatment based on gender. We should treat them as individuals with their own moral agency.

First of all, I assigned ZERO "special treatment" to anyone because of their gender. Your incorrect assumptions otherwise lead to your inability to see this situation clearly, in my opinion.

Second, the fact that these two people are married to each other (or otherwise have an ongoing relationship with each other) DOES matter. Far too many people seem to be trying to portray her like some mugger in the street, and are making unsubstantiated assumptions that she "stole" his phone as if this somehow justifies his assault and battery.

It doesn't.

And it wouldn't if the genders here had been reversed, either.

As I said, we should look at them as individual people. This is a person taking his phone back from another person. Period. Is the amount of force appropriate for taking something back from someone who has it without permission and refuses to return it? This is the only question.

We should not judge them by our standards of what a marriage ought to be like. Judging what is going on in someone else's marriage from the outside is a game for fools and assholes. What their marriage ought to be like is their business entirely, not ours at all.

 

[untermensche]

Just saying it was assault doesn't make it so.

They tussled over a phone. He was stronger. He won.

That doesn't make it assault.

If she was stronger she would have won.

What he did is the very definition of "assault and battery"

"the crime of threatening a person together with the act of making physical contact with them."

Somebody hack UM's account? Their posts recently have been insane.

Also, who's phone it is? This was his wife, not some stranger. Property ownership lines are quite muddled. However, physically harassing a woman (wife or stranger), the lines aren't quite as gray.

TWO people fought over a phone.

She assaulted him as much as he assaulted her.

Just because he is bigger and stronger doesn't make it assault.

 

[RavenSky]

As I said, we should look at them as individual people. This is a person taking his phone back from another person. Period. Is the amount of force appropriate for taking something back from someone who has it without permission and refuses to return it? This is the only question.

You AGAIN make assumptions that are not in evidence. You have zero evidence that she had his phone "without permission".

As to your question, "is the amount of force appropriate for taking something back": No. It is too much.

We should not judge them by our standards of what a marriage ought to be like. Judging what is going on in someone else's marriage from the outside is a game for fools and assholes. What their marriage ought to be like is their business entirely, not ours at all.

This is just another bullshit excuse for condoning spousal abuse.

- - - Updated - - -

She assaulted him as much as he assaulted her.

Horseshit.

 

[repoman]

How about for the sake of roleplaying a hypothetical we posit that it was his phone and he was cheating on her and that she was looking for that evidence in the middle of an argument.

 

[untermensche]

She assaulted him as much as he assaulted her.

Horseshit.

Dogshit.

 

[dismal]

You AGAIN make assumptions that are not in evidence. You have zero evidence that she had his phone "without permission".

As to your question, "is the amount of force appropriate for taking something back": No. It is too much.

This is just another bullshit excuse for condoning spousal abuse.

Pretty sure I made conditional statements with "if" and everything. Oh yes. there it is right in there plain as can be:

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.

Person A has Person B's phone and won't give it back: that amount of force seems reasonable from Person B to take it back
Person A has Person A's phone: no amount of force is reasonable from Person B to take it.

Of course that's a strange point to make after this was posted and we have facts in evidence:

Pam Baer also released a 2nd statement ... saying, “I would like to clarify the events of today. My husband and I had an argument in public about which we are quite embarrassed."

"I took his cellphone. He wanted it back and I did not want to give it back."

You should brush up on your reading before posting.

You might have also caught the part where I said you are wasting time dragging words like "spousal" into it. These must be thought of as two individual people, each with their own moral agency.

If your opinion is it was "abuse", one person abusing another, I disagree. He grabbed his phone and took it, whatever happened to her was a result of trying to hold onto something that wasn't hers.

 

[Sarpedon]

If they are married, isn't his phone also her phone? I'm not married, but I thought ownership in common was kind of part of the arrangement.

I also seem to recall a case where a man, during an argument with his wife, tore the phone from the wall (pre cell phone) and was criminally charged. The idea being that depriving someone of the ability to call for help is an aggressive act. He argued it was HIS phone etc, but that made no difference.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Yes, all that context does matter. If it wasn’t his phone which she had taken without his permission then none of responses about how it was an appropriate action against someone who’d taken his phone without his permission would apply. That’s trivially obvious enough that it didn’t need to be explicitly stated.

Whether she had permission to be holding his phone is immaterial.

Would you encourage or applaud your child to literally assault another family member over a pair of borrowed earrings?

It's not a child, it's an adult. If somebody took your phone and didn't want to give it back, would your reaction be "Well shit, I guess I need to go and buy a new phone now"? Or would you try to get your phone back? If you don't want people ripping a phone out of your hand, make sure it's not their damn phone in your hand.

 

[dismal]

Yes, all that context does matter. If it wasn’t his phone which she had taken without his permission then none of responses about how it was an appropriate action against someone who’d taken his phone without his permission would apply. That’s trivially obvious enough that it didn’t need to be explicitly stated.

Whether she had permission to be holding his phone is immaterial.

Would you encourage or applaud your child to literally assault another family member over a pair of borrowed earrings?

It's not a child, it's an adult. If somebody took your phone and didn't want to give it back, would your reaction be "Well shit, I guess I need to go and buy a new phone now"? Or would you try to get your phone back? If you don't want people ripping a phone out of your hand, make sure it's not their damn phone in your hand.

It's weird how her "defenders" (as if she wants or needs their defending...) keep asking us to consider her a "child" or a "spouse" instead of an individual with her own moral agency.

Would we be having this conversation if it was two 25 year old guys? How many youtube hits would "bro takes other bro's phone and falls off chair trying to hold onto it when bro takes it back" get? How many TMZ investigations?

How much effort would there be to cast the 25 year old phone grabbing bro as a victim?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

So I bet some people would be okay with him kicking her out of their house, too, literally kicking her into the road, because it's "his" house in the same sense it's "his" phone.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

So I bet some people would be okay with him kicking her out of their house, too, literally kicking her into the road, because it's "his" house in the same sense it's "his" phone.

No, that’s not a good analogy. A better analogy would be that if he changed the locks on the house and she kicked the door in, it wouldn’t be breaking and entering because it’s her damn house and she’s allowed to kick in the door if she wants to. People can use appropriate levels of force to retain their own possessions.

 

[RavenSky]

How about for the sake of roleplaying a hypothetical we posit that it was his phone and he was cheating on her and that she was looking for that evidence in the middle of an argument.

It may explain his aggressive behavior, but not excuse it

 

[RavenSky]

You should brush up on your reading before posting.

Maybe YOU should

I stipulate to the fact that it is his phone she is holding.

Or perhaps you don't understand what the word "stipulate" means.

You might have also caught the part where I said you are wasting time dragging words like "spousal" into it. These must be thought of as two individual people, each with their own moral agency.

And you would still be wrong

If your opinion is it was "abuse", one person abusing another, I disagree. He grabbed his phone and took it, whatever happened to her was a result of trying to hold onto something that wasn't hers.

I don't care if you agree or not, because you are still wrong.

By your argument, child abuse is A-OK, too.

You are wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, all that context does matter. If it wasn’t his phone which she had taken without his permission then none of responses about how it was an appropriate action against someone who’d taken his phone without his permission would apply. That’s trivially obvious enough that it didn’t need to be explicitly stated.

Whether she had permission to be holding his phone is immaterial.

Would you encourage or applaud your child to literally assault another family member over a pair of borrowed earrings?

It's not a child, it's an adult. If somebody took your phone and didn't want to give it back, would your reaction be "Well shit, I guess I need to go and buy a new phone now"? Or would you try to get your phone back? If you don't want people ripping a phone out of your hand, make sure it's not their damn phone in your hand.

Would you assault your wife if she was holding something that belonged to you and didn't move fast enough for your liking? Even if, at that moment, you were angry?

I doubt it.

 

[Angry Floof]

It's astounding the lengths some people will go to to excuse or downplay violence by men.