seedhi Posted October 2, 2014 Posted October 2, 2014 another bhakt reaction. Didn't you see videos where bhakts were hounding him, harassing him like pack of stray animals while he was handling all that with smile? And the incident which happened on 7th Avenue which is not available on video but was reported by Dainik Bhaskar reporter where Rajdeep Sardesai had to come out under human shield? Picking a random video where RS lost composure for some time under continuous, incessant, prolonged harassment, abuse and heckling won't change the fact how unruly and uncivilized bhakts were.You said they assaulted him, when he assaulted a person in the crowd first. You are a bare faced liar. According to your logic, Inzamam was justified in assaulting a spectator in Toronto because of heckling in the Sahara cup several years ago?
Raghav_12 Posted October 2, 2014 Posted October 2, 2014 You said they assaulted him, when he assaulted a person in the crowd first. You are a bare faced liar. According to your logic, Inzamam was justified in assaulting a spectator in Toronto because of heckling in the Sahara cup several years ago? No. He wasn't justified. I clearly told he lost composure after prolonged and constant abuse, heckling from Modi bhakts which were not allowing him even to speak or do his job as reporter. Watch for first 2.4 mins of this video. And there are other incidents which are not on video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22X3nIVRgJI
Raghav_12 Posted October 2, 2014 Posted October 2, 2014 You said they assaulted him' date=' when he assaulted a person in the crowd first. [b']You are a bare faced liar. According to your logic, Inzamam was justified in assaulting a spectator in Toronto because of heckling in the Sahara cup several years ago? I am not a liar. As per one video clip, Rajdeep Sardesai who lost his composure after constant heckling and took on the person abusing him. But this is not whole incident just a side plot. read detailed incident here http://www.firstpost.com/living/attack-on-rajdeep-sardesai-eye-witness-account-from-madison-square-garden-1735471.html If you ask me, can I say based on that particular video, that bhakts assaulted Rajdeep sardesai, i would say no. But based on other versions available and looking at the unruliness of crowd, i would say yes, they did.
FischerTal Posted October 2, 2014 Posted October 2, 2014 The gist of the matter is kambhakts think sar desai can ask uncomfortable questions but when the other side gives uncomfortable answers create a scene, call one of the guys an a-hole start a fight and play victim to absolve yourself of the crime.
FischerTal Posted October 2, 2014 Posted October 2, 2014 You said they assaulted him, when he assaulted a person in the crowd first. You are a bare faced liar. According to your logic, Inzamam was justified in assaulting a spectator in Toronto because of heckling in the Sahara cup several years ago? He has always been like that. The shrooms being sold at aap headquarters are very potent
seedhi Posted October 2, 2014 Posted October 2, 2014 I am not a liar. As per one video clip, Rajdeep Sardesai who lost his composure after constant heckling and took on the person abusing him. But this is not whole incident just a side plot. read detailed incident here http://www.firstpost.com/living/attack-on-rajdeep-sardesai-eye-witness-account-from-madison-square-garden-1735471.html If you ask me, can I say based on that particular video, that bhakts assaulted Rajdeep sardesai, i would say no. But based on other versions available and looking at the unruliness of crowd, i would say yes, they did.No they did not assault Rajdeep first. Even the "alternate" version you refer to has the crowd verbally abusing Rajdeep, not assaulting him. When you say that the crowd assaulted him, you are LYING!
The-Ramones Posted October 2, 2014 Posted October 2, 2014 He has always been like that. The shrooms being sold at aap headquarters are very potent I hope the brooms there are put to some good use today onwards.
Raghav_12 Posted October 2, 2014 Posted October 2, 2014 The gist of the matter is kambhakts think sar desai can ask uncomfortable questions but when the other side gives uncomfortable answers create a scene' date=' call one of the guys an a-hole start a fight and play victim to absolve yourself of the crime.[/quote'] There is difference between uncomfortable questions and obnoxious behavior. Uncomfortable Question: Look at the Bhakts reaction on this TV show where attempted humour. Is this justified? Obnoxious behaviour: Bhaang pee rakhi hai kya gandhi Jayanti par.
Raghav_12 Posted October 2, 2014 Posted October 2, 2014 No they did not assault Rajdeep first. Even the "alternate" version you refer to has the crowd verbally abusing Rajdeep' date=' not assaulting him. When you say that the crowd assaulted him, you are LYING![/quote'] 1. Physically/Bodily preventing somebody from doing his/job may be called assault which Modi Bhakts did. If you want replacement of word, I can use word - Bhakts physically intimidated rajdeep sardesai. 2. Version of bhaskar editor says, he had to be protected using human shield. That doesn't have to be done in case of peaceful protests or no physical danger is posed. Again I can say bhakts tried to assualt sardesai in want to better phrase as per your definitions of assault. In either way, it doesn't change the fact that how unruly and abusive, typical to their reputation,Modi bhakts were in whole incident.
FischerTal Posted October 2, 2014 Posted October 2, 2014 There is difference between uncomfortable questions and obnoxious behavior. Uncomfortable Question: Look at the Bhakts reaction on this TV show where attempted humour. Is this justified? Obnoxious behaviour: Bhaang pee rakhi hai kya gandhi Jayanti par. This entire post reeks of obnoxious behavior but is not surprising from someone whose sole purpose is to criticize Modi. When did anyone in the crowd say anything of that sort to rajdeep. In fact, he came there with an agenda but the crowd just gave it back to him which caused him to pent up his anger from being passive aggressive to full on aggressive and making statements like Kuch logon ke pass paise aata hain par class nahin. Was he doing journalistic duty when he made such a reprehensible statement like that?
rkt.india Posted October 2, 2014 Posted October 2, 2014 I am not a liar. As per one video clip, Rajdeep Sardesai who lost his composure after constant heckling and took on the person abusing him. But this is not whole incident just a side plot. read detailed incident here http://www.firstpost.com/living/attack-on-rajdeep-sardesai-eye-witness-account-from-madison-square-garden-1735471.html If you ask me, can I say based on that particular video, that bhakts assaulted Rajdeep sardesai, i would say no. But based on other versions available and looking at the unruliness of crowd, i would say yes, they did. Conclusion is Rajdeep lost his calm when he did not get the answers he wanted from the people. Those people were not diplomats or politicians who will be diplomatic and give naive answers. Neither this was a show organized by his channel. He was asking random questions to random people and those answers annoyed him. People than started taunting him. He lost his composure and started abusing. He was the one who started abusing and then pushed a guy and tried to hit him.
The-Ramones Posted October 2, 2014 Posted October 2, 2014 Conclusion is Rajdeep lost is calm when he did not get the answers he wanted from the people. Those people were not diplomats or politicians who will be diplomatic and give naive answers. Neither this was a show organized by his channel. He was asking random questions to random people and those answers annoyed him. People than started taunting him. He lost his composure and started abusing. He was the one who started abusing and then pushed a guy and tried to hit him. But but but. He was just doing his job as a journalist. And it is my job to protect him even if he gets physical first. - Random thoughts of demented mind.
Raghav_12 Posted October 2, 2014 Posted October 2, 2014 Conclusion is Rajdeep lost is calm when he did not get the answers he wanted from the people. Those people were not diplomats or politicians who will be diplomatic and give naive answers. Neither this was a show organized by his channel. He was asking random questions to random people and those answers annoyed him. People than started taunting him. He lost his composure and started abusing. He was the one who started abusing and then pushed a guy and tried to hit him. In this video, rajdeep lost composure for a moment, not denying that. But only after constant heckling and abusing from Modi Bhakts. They were not even allowing him to put questions. When a single person is surrounded by unruly and shouting bunch of 50 persons, who are targetting that single person only, it would amount to physical intimidation from any aspect. Try to see yourself in that situation. However that is occupational hazard of being a journalist to Rajdeep sardesai should have exercised higher threshold. Anyways, Modi Bhakts didn't do any good to their reputation with this behaviour.
seedhi Posted October 2, 2014 Posted October 2, 2014 1. Physically/Bodily preventing somebody from doing his/job may be called assault which Modi Bhakts did. If you want replacement of word, I can use word - Bhakts physically intimidated rajdeep sardesai. 2. Version of bhaskar editor says, he had to be protected using human shield. That doesn't have to be done in case of peaceful protests or no physical danger is posed. Again I can say bhakts tried to assualt sardesai in want to better phrase as per your definitions of assault. In either way, it doesn't change the fact that how unruly and abusive, typical to their reputation,Modi bhakts were in whole incident.No it cannot be called assault. As long as physical contact is not initiated purposefully to injure or disarm, it cannot be called assault. Merely standing one's ground or verbal altercation is not assault. As far as physical danger to Rajdeep is concerned, if the crowd wanted to assault him, he would have been thrashed badly given how he was outnumbered. But he was not in any danger. He did not complain to the NYPD who were nearby either. You blatantly lied when you said that the crowd assaulted him. This is of course typical of AAPtards, a trait pioneered by the your khalifa Kejriwal himself.
Raghav_12 Posted October 2, 2014 Posted October 2, 2014 No it cannot be called assault. As long as physical contact is not initiated purposefully to injure or disarm' date= it cannot be called assault. Merely standing one's ground or verbal altercation is not assault. As far as physical danger to Rajdeep is concerned, if the crowd wanted to assault him, he would have been thrashed badly given how he was outnumbered. But he was not in any danger. He did not complain to the NYPD who were nearby either. You blatantly lied when you said that the crowd assaulted him. This is of course typical of AAPtards, a trait pioneered by the your khalifa Kejriwal himself. Absolutely Not. You need to improve on your understanding of terms. Physical contact is never a necessary condition for an incident being called assault. In common law, assault is the act of creating apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact with a person. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault 50 shouting, unruly, abusing people would definitely create an apprehension of harmful contact. Read further, The term is often confused with battery, which involves physical contact. an act that causes another to apprehend immediate and personal violence, or in the more limited sense of a threat of violence caused by an immediate show of force I don't expect you to take back your allegation of me lying here but ideally you should.
seedhi Posted October 2, 2014 Posted October 2, 2014 Absolutely Not. You need to improve on your understanding of terms. Physical contact is never a necessary condition for an incident being called assault. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault 50 shouting, unruly, abusing people would definitely create an apprehension of harmful contact. Read further,From what you have posted : American common law has defined assault as an attempt to commit a battery. There was absolutely no attempt to commit battery by the crowd. The first attempt was made by Rajdeep. Shouting and abusing is not assault as per american law and is usually protected under free speech. I don't expect you to take back your allegation of me lying here but ideally you should.You are a liar, and your post reinforces the fact.
seedhi Posted October 2, 2014 Posted October 2, 2014 Here is the NY Law on Assault: http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article120.htm . As far as I can see, assault even the most basic form (third degree), means that the injury must have been caused. S 120.00 Assault in the third degree. A person is guilty of assault in the third degree when: 1. With intent to cause physical injury to another person, he causes such injury to such person or to a third person; or 2. He recklessly causes physical injury to another person; or 3. With criminal negligence, he causes physical injury to another person by means of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument. Assault in the third degree is a class A misdemeanor. @Raghav_12. you have once again blatantly lied here: Absolutely Not. You need to improve on your understanding of terms. Physical contact is never a necessary condition for an incident being called assault.
rkt.india Posted October 2, 2014 Posted October 2, 2014 In this video, rajdeep lost composure for a moment, not denying that. But only after constant heckling and abusing from Modi Bhakts. They were not even allowing him to put questions. When a single person is surrounded by unruly and shouting bunch of 50 persons, who are targetting that single person only, it would amount to physical intimidation from any aspect. Try to see yourself in that situation. However that is occupational hazard of being a journalist to Rajdeep sardesai should have exercised higher threshold. Anyways, Modi Bhakts didn't do any good to their reputation with this behaviour. How are you sure they were Modi bhakts? So everyone there was a Modi bhakt or everyone who did not agree with Rajdeep was Modi Bhakt. Everyone who voted for Modi is a Modi Bhakt. Then I must be a bhakt of NOTA because I had voted NOTA. So it means 18-20,000 Modi bhakts were there. Then why it only happened with Rajdeep? A lot of other Indian media channels were there too. People everywhere are like that. It was a mob, not an organized program. He also said they all are Hindu communal when he did not get the kind of answers he wanted. On what basis? This is where he lost it. Things like these provoked people to heckle him. They were not there just to heckle him. They had come for a program, but he was certainly intentionally trying to provoke them and create controversy. I used to think very high about this guy, Rajdeep Sardesai.
Raghav_12 Posted October 2, 2014 Posted October 2, 2014 Here is the NY Law on Assault: http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article120.htm . As far as I can see' date= assault even the most basic form (third degree), means that the injury must have been caused. @Raghav_12. you have once again blatantly lied here: You can say whatever you want. It is meaningless. I have shown you definition of Assault from widely acknowledged source wikipedia. It is clearly written that "physical contact" is not a necessary condition for an incident to be called assault. Now you can bring further definition of third degree assaults or whatever, but by basic definition of assault doesn't require injury. Threat of battery was there or not, it is interpretation. If person has to be circled around by other human, i would believe threat was there. You can make 100's post calling me liar but that doesn't change the fact. Once again I am posting link for your reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault
Number Posted October 2, 2014 Posted October 2, 2014 How are you sure they were Modi bhakts? So everyone there was a Modi bhakt or everyone who did not agree with Rajdeep was Modi Bhakt. Everyone who voted for Modi is a Modi Bhakt. Then I must be a bhakt of NOTA because I had voted NOTA. So it means 18-20' date='000 Modi bhakts were there. [b']Then why it only happened with Rajdeep? A lot of other Indian media channels were there too. People everywhere are like that. It was a mob, not an organized program. He also said they all are Hindu communal when he did not get the kind of answers he wanted. On what basis? This is where he lost it. Things like these provoked people to heckle him. They were not there just to heckle him. They had come for a program, but he was certainly intentionally trying to provoke them and create controversy. I used to think very high about this guy, Rajdeep Sardesai. One must wonder. There were even a good no. of protestors against Modi who had placards like Convict Modi, arrest Modi for 2002. And still there was no violence between these protestors and Modi fans there. Rajdeep is a known Modi hater, he said after 2007 elections victory that Gujarat women vote for Modi because of sex-appeal and that was on live TV. Such blatant hate that he even insulted women voting for him.
Recommended Posts