A man harasses a woman for wearing a Puerto Rico shirt, saying it's 'un-American'

[Asclepias]

The Cook County Commissioner, Jesus Garcia, is going to far with wanting the man to be charged with a hate crime but the guy is still a racist jackass and was completely in the wrong.

You do realize that Puerto Ricans are mostly white, right?

Can you prove that? Most Puerto Ricans I know are Black or NA.

 

[Marion Morrison]

The Cook County Commissioner, Jesus Garcia, is going to far with wanting the man to be charged with a hate crime but the guy is still a racist jackass and was completely in the wrong.

You do realize that Puerto Ricans are mostly white, right?

Can you prove that? Most Puerto Ricans I know are Black or NA.

And Haitians are Jews, too, huh, Asclepias?

 

[EverCurious]

Ohhhh noooo....the guy almost touched her....the nerve.

He got right up in her face and invaded her space in a pavilion she rented. Plus he showed his uneducated ignorance about Puerto Rico.

Yup, and almost touched her. Ummm...rented a pavilion, isn't this a public park, they don't rent pavilions.

Of course they do...all the time. Where do you live where they don't?

California.

Then you are lying....I live in California and you can rent pavilions at any park I've been to that has them.

If you can that's cool, I presume one can go to the site I linked (Forest Preserves of Cook County) and find out.

That's not the way it works in Alaska parks, nor in Arizona, Utah, and Nevada (that I've seen) is all. In those places you pay a fee to get into the park, you could pay an extra fee to "rent" a camping spot, but idk they're not covered like that one was and they're not "private" in the sense that like you rent that camping spot and no one else is allowed on it.
IF she rented that particular pavilion, then why was the drunk dude even there, and why was it seemingly just her and her dog/kid (we never see whom she's calling "baby girl") - there were many tables there, but no one else in her party recorded this asshat? No one else there seemed to be with her - even the guy who confronted the drunk at the end (he pushed the drunk and the drunk pushed him back) didn't seem to know her, or the police officer.

Even if one argues that she rented that space, and it was then quasi-private property and the drunk shouldn't have been on it, then one would have to face the reality that protesting Trump rallies was under similar circumstance - Trump rented a space that became quasi-private property. Which means the hecklers and protesters that entered that space would be guilty of similar "harassment" and subject to "grabbing" - presumably she wanted him arrested, or at a minimum, removed from "her" area. Yet when hecklers and protesters were removed from Trump rallies the left declared Trump was anti free speech.

My question, and it's a huge question that eclipses this single event, is which is it? Is the girl in this video "defending her rightfully purchased space" or is she "anti free speech" according to the left? (And I'm going to skip the easy argument about illegal entry to the country because it's far far to simple to make.)

This constant hypocrisy is why folks have such a problem with the modern lefts ideas; they're flippant and random, there's no possible way for folks to respect the "new way" when the "new way" evolves on a daily basis - which means no matter /what/ folks do, they're in the wrong as far as the left is concerned. It is an impossible, unfair, and unjust society and completely unacceptable in a truly "free" society like America. It forces one to consider other areas where such flippant ideology will be applied to important foundations of law and such. A good point would be the idea of gender pronouns, the left says there is an infinite amount of them, then they want folks punished for not using the "proper one" - what the fuck is the proper one when folks can just make them up on the spot?

Another, very troubling one for many of us, is what level of Islamic culture are we supposed to accept and allow? Do we allow the portions that oppress women? Just the ones that see women as lesser than men? Or do we insist that Muslims are going to have to let that entire idea of non-equality between the sexes go? What about pedophilia? While in the ME our soldiers were told that we had to allow young men to be raped because it was their culture. Are we going to tell Muslims that that part of their religion isn't allowed, or do we let them do it as our soldiers had to? How about the whole freedom of religion issue? Islam teaches that everyone who doesn't believe in religion should convert or die.

How the hell can we expect the current left to navigate these very important societal questions, especially when they can't even maintain a constant opinion on such very simple and integral concepts to America as freedom of speech? We cannot...

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

He got right up in her face and invaded her space in a pavilion she rented. Plus he showed his uneducated ignorance about Puerto Rico.

Yup, and almost touched her. Ummm...rented a pavilion, isn't this a public park, they don't rent pavilions.

Of course they do...all the time. Where do you live where they don't?

California.

Then you are lying....I live in California and you can rent pavilions at any park I've been to that has them.

If you can that's cool, I presume one can go to the site I linked (Forest Preserves of Cook County) and find out.

That's not the way it works in Alaska parks, nor in Arizona, Utah, and Nevada (that I've seen) is all. In those places you pay a fee to get into the park, you could pay an extra fee to "rent" a camping spot, but idk they're not covered like that one was and they're not "private" in the sense that like you rent that camping spot and no one else is allowed on it.
IF she rented that particular pavilion, then why was the drunk dude even there, and why was it seemingly just her and her dog/kid (we never see whom she's calling "baby girl") - there were many tables there, but no one else in her party recorded this asshat? No one else there seemed to be with her - even the guy who confronted the drunk at the end (he pushed the drunk and the drunk pushed him back) didn't seem to know her, or the police officer.

Even if one argues that she rented that space, and it was then quasi-private property and the drunk shouldn't have been on it, then one would have to face the reality that protesting Trump rallies was under similar circumstance - Trump rented a space that became quasi-private property. Which means the hecklers and protesters that entered that space would be guilty of similar "harassment" and subject to "grabbing" - presumably she wanted him arrested, or at a minimum, removed from "her" area. Yet when hecklers and protesters were removed from Trump rallies the left declared Trump was anti free speech.

My question, and it's a huge question that eclipses this single event, is which is it? Is the girl in this video "defending her rightfully purchased space" or is she "anti free speech" according to the left? This constant hypocrisy is why folks have such a problem with the modern lefts ideas; they're flippant and random, there's no possible way for folks to respect the "new way" when the "new way" evolves on a daily basis - which means no matter /what/ folks do, they're in the wrong as far as the left is concerned. It is an impossible, unfair, and unjust society and completely unacceptable in a truly "free" society like America. It forces one to consider other areas where such flippant ideology will be applied to important foundations of law and such. A good point would be the idea of gender pronouns, the left says there is an infinite amount of them, then they want folks punished for not using the "proper one" - what the fuck is the proper one when folks can just make them up on the spot?

Another, very troubling one for many of us, is what level of Islamic culture are we supposed to accept and allow? Do we allow the portions that oppress women? Just the ones that see women as lesser than men? Or do we insist that Muslims are going to have to let that entire idea of non-equality between the sexes go? What about pedophilia? While in the ME our soldiers were told that we had to allow young men to be raped because it was their culture. Are we going to tell Muslims that that part of their religion isn't allowed, or do we let them do it as our soldiers had to? How about the whole freedom of religion issue? Islam teaches that everyone who doesn't believe in religion should convert or die.

How the hell can we expect the current left to navigate these very important societal questions, especially when they can't even maintain a constant opinion on such very simple and integral concepts to America as freedom of speech? We cannot...

THAT pretty much says it all!

 

[Asclepias]

The Cook County Commissioner, Jesus Garcia, is going to far with wanting the man to be charged with a hate crime but the guy is still a racist jackass and was completely in the wrong.

You do realize that Puerto Ricans are mostly white, right?

Can you prove that? Most Puerto Ricans I know are Black or NA.

And Haitians are Jews, too, huh, Asclepias?

I'm sure some of them are descended from the original Hebrews but what does that have to do with my question about having proof that most Puerto Ricans are white?

 

[Marion Morrison]

The Cook County Commissioner, Jesus Garcia, is going to far with wanting the man to be charged with a hate crime but the guy is still a racist jackass and was completely in the wrong.

You do realize that Puerto Ricans are mostly white, right?

Can you prove that? Most Puerto Ricans I know are Black or NA.

And Haitians are Jews, too, huh, Asclepias?

I'm sure some of them are descended from the original Hebrews but what does that have to do with my question about having proof that most Puerto Ricans are white?

Here's your proof:

"Puerto Ricans, on average, have genetic contributions from Europeans, West Africans, and Native Americans of approximately 66%, 18%, and 16%, respectively.[26] A recent study of Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from 800 individuals found that patrilineal input, as indicated by the Y-chromosome, showed 66% of Puerto Ricans could trace their ancestry to male European ancestors, 18% could trace it to male African ancestors, and 16% could trace it to male Native American ancestors.[27]"

 

[EverCurious]

Yup, and almost touched her. Ummm...rented a pavilion, isn't this a public park, they don't rent pavilions.

Of course they do...all the time. Where do you live where they don't?

California.

Then you are lying....I live in California and you can rent pavilions at any park I've been to that has them.

If you can that's cool, I presume one can go to the site I linked (Forest Preserves of Cook County) and find out.

That's not the way it works in Alaska parks, nor in Arizona, Utah, and Nevada (that I've seen) is all. In those places you pay a fee to get into the park, you could pay an extra fee to "rent" a camping spot, but idk they're not covered like that one was and they're not "private" in the sense that like you rent that camping spot and no one else is allowed on it.
IF she rented that particular pavilion, then why was the drunk dude even there, and why was it seemingly just her and her dog/kid (we never see whom she's calling "baby girl") - there were many tables there, but no one else in her party recorded this asshat? No one else there seemed to be with her - even the guy who confronted the drunk at the end (he pushed the drunk and the drunk pushed him back) didn't seem to know her, or the police officer.

Even if one argues that she rented that space, and it was then quasi-private property and the drunk shouldn't have been on it, then one would have to face the reality that protesting Trump rallies was under similar circumstance - Trump rented a space that became quasi-private property. Which means the hecklers and protesters that entered that space would be guilty of similar "harassment" and subject to "grabbing" - presumably she wanted him arrested, or at a minimum, removed from "her" area. Yet when hecklers and protesters were removed from Trump rallies the left declared Trump was anti free speech.

My question, and it's a huge question that eclipses this single event, is which is it? Is the girl in this video "defending her rightfully purchased space" or is she "anti free speech" according to the left? This constant hypocrisy is why folks have such a problem with the modern lefts ideas; they're flippant and random, there's no possible way for folks to respect the "new way" when the "new way" evolves on a daily basis - which means no matter /what/ folks do, they're in the wrong as far as the left is concerned. It is an impossible, unfair, and unjust society and completely unacceptable in a truly "free" society like America. It forces one to consider other areas where such flippant ideology will be applied to important foundations of law and such. A good point would be the idea of gender pronouns, the left says there is an infinite amount of them, then they want folks punished for not using the "proper one" - what the fuck is the proper one when folks can just make them up on the spot?

Another, very troubling one for many of us, is what level of Islamic culture are we supposed to accept and allow? Do we allow the portions that oppress women? Just the ones that see women as lesser than men? Or do we insist that Muslims are going to have to let that entire idea of non-equality between the sexes go? What about pedophilia? While in the ME our soldiers were told that we had to allow young men to be raped because it was their culture. Are we going to tell Muslims that that part of their religion isn't allowed, or do we let them do it as our soldiers had to? How about the whole freedom of religion issue? Islam teaches that everyone who doesn't believe in religion should convert or die.

How the hell can we expect the current left to navigate these very important societal questions, especially when they can't even maintain a constant opinion on such very simple and integral concepts to America as freedom of speech? We cannot...

THAT pretty much says it all!

I wish it didn't. I wish the "classical liberals" hadn't handed their party and control of the social fabric of the nation over to these emotionally immature, spoiled brats. >.<

 

[Asclepias]

The Cook County Commissioner, Jesus Garcia, is going to far with wanting the man to be charged with a hate crime but the guy is still a racist jackass and was completely in the wrong.

You do realize that Puerto Ricans are mostly white, right?

Can you prove that? Most Puerto Ricans I know are Black or NA.

And Haitians are Jews, too, huh, Asclepias?

I'm sure some of them are descended from the original Hebrews but what does that have to do with my question about having proof that most Puerto Ricans are white?

Here's your proof:

"Puerto Ricans, on average, have genetic contributions from Europeans, West Africans, and Native Americans of approximately 66%, 18%, and 16%, respectively.[26] A recent study of Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from 800 individuals found that patrilineal input, as indicated by the Y-chromosome, showed 66% of Puerto Ricans could trace their ancestry to male European ancestors, 18% could trace it to male African ancestors, and 16% could trace it to male Native American ancestors.[27]"

Thats not proof of your claim. Matter of fact that pretty much is the opposite of your claim. They cant be white if they are mixed.

 

[Marion Morrison]

You do realize that Puerto Ricans are mostly white, right?

Can you prove that? Most Puerto Ricans I know are Black or NA.

And Haitians are Jews, too, huh, Asclepias?

I'm sure some of them are descended from the original Hebrews but what does that have to do with my question about having proof that most Puerto Ricans are white?

Here's your proof:

"Puerto Ricans, on average, have genetic contributions from Europeans, West Africans, and Native Americans of approximately 66%, 18%, and 16%, respectively.[26] A recent study of Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from 800 individuals found that patrilineal input, as indicated by the Y-chromosome, showed 66% of Puerto Ricans could trace their ancestry to male European ancestors, 18% could trace it to male African ancestors, and 16% could trace it to male Native American ancestors.[27]"

Thats not proof of your claim. Matter of fact that pretty much is the opposite of your claim. They cant be white if they are mixed.

66% European, dumbass. I already know you're terrible with statistics, so you should probably quit while only slightly behind.

 

[Asclepias]

Can you prove that? Most Puerto Ricans I know are Black or NA.

And Haitians are Jews, too, huh, Asclepias?

I'm sure some of them are descended from the original Hebrews but what does that have to do with my question about having proof that most Puerto Ricans are white?

Here's your proof:

"Puerto Ricans, on average, have genetic contributions from Europeans, West Africans, and Native Americans of approximately 66%, 18%, and 16%, respectively.[26] A recent study of Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from 800 individuals found that patrilineal input, as indicated by the Y-chromosome, showed 66% of Puerto Ricans could trace their ancestry to male European ancestors, 18% could trace it to male African ancestors, and 16% could trace it to male Native American ancestors.[27]"

Thats not proof of your claim. Matter of fact that pretty much is the opposite of your claim. They cant be white if they are mixed.

66% European, dumbass. I already know you're terrible with statistics, so you should probably quit while only slightly behind.

Thats an average genetic makeup not 66% of the population. Youre an idiot more times than not.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

I wish it didn't. I wish the "classical liberals" hadn't handed their party and control of the social fabric of the nation over to these emotionally immature, spoiled brats. >.<

The thing is, I agree this drunk guy probably earned getting himself arrested, but I DON'T know what happened before. But I DO know the left does MUCH worse than this and they ought to be arrested for assault, but arrests rarely come for these spoiled brats.

Our whole system seems to coddle the radical left.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Don't patronize me.

I honestly don't know what you're referring to. I don't have a "side", I'm neither a Republican or Democratic which is what I first thought you were referring to but it could be something else which is why I asked.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

It happened in Washington State then (?) thanks for that info though I'd like a cite if ya could because CNN says it was Illinois...

I do also thank you that you highlighted the failure of your own argument (even if it /had/ been in Washington), saves me the time.

By highlighting "national origin" you mean America right... you do realize that Porto Rico is part of America, yeah? [Maybe you should have tried the "racism" angle like I suggested son, had a better chance.]

Even CNN admits that in their article: "This was an attack of an American citizen on another American citizen," he said. "Puerto Ricans have been part of the United States and we've been fighting wars with other fellow Americans. We are proud US citizens. People need to understand that."

Anyway, so what "reasonable harm" was the gal in from the drunk and her bitching at each other? I didn't see it, sorry.

He was being a dick, being a dick isn't a crime. (Yet anyway... the third-wave feminists are trying though )

I'm pretty sure that I did not render my comment as an argument, only as an observation which is why I stipulated "In my state" meaning that I was explaining the law here in comparison to what Illinois law might be - there is no real motiviation for me to spend time studying laws in states I'm not licensed in so I didn't bother to research what the applicable IL laws might be.

This is what I stated

the idiot made this an issue of bias when he made it clear he was harassing her because he thought she was not American. In my state that's considered "malicious" hassment which is a separate crime aside from the harassment statute when the harassment is based on protected class status including harassment directed at interracial couples, same sex couples, or actual or perceived national original (someplace other than "America" as this guy though), religion, due to being an immigrant, etc.
​

It doesn't matter if a person is not of the race, ancestry, nation origin, etc.that the attacker thought they were, only that their motivation for committing the offense was based on a prohibited protected class.

Whether or not the police decide to charge him or the prosecutor to pursue the case is beyond the scope of my comment but certainly does not negate my statements.

And while you are correct that being a dick is not a crime, being one while annoucing that you don't like Puerto Ricans, or immigrants or Muslims, etc. could find you with charges filed aginst you, at least here. That was the purpose of my comment.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

You know, for once I thought you men out there would not be on this asshole's side when he was clearly harassing this woman and especially when his dumbass didn't even know that PR was a US territory and theose born there were indeed US citizens. I guess I should have known better.

Oh, and that deal about not touching her is no reason to "stand your ground." There are plenty of instances where it was used when people who weren't touched did just that. It doesn't say you have to be touched, it just says you have to fear for your safety. He was clearly threatening to her and she did fear for her safety because she kept calling for that do nothing cop who probably was on the attackers side.

One more time and I'll type real slow for you.

Find someone who supports the Second Amendment who has said it was okay to shoot someone who hasn't touched you?

BTW....simply pointing out your hypocrisy is in no way an endorsement of this clowns behavior. Get that through your head right from the start.

You know we're obviously looking at this from different perspectives. As a female you don't want irrate and drunk men getting too close to you particularly since she told him to stop bothering her and to get away from her and he wouldn't.

From an armed defensive perspective, if he's close enough to touch her after being told to cease his behavior or advance, then he's already too close because he's also close enough to take the weapon.

 

[EverCurious]

It happened in Washington State then (?) thanks for that info though I'd like a cite if ya could because CNN says it was Illinois...

I do also thank you that you highlighted the failure of your own argument (even if it /had/ been in Washington), saves me the time.

By highlighting "national origin" you mean America right... you do realize that Porto Rico is part of America, yeah? [Maybe you should have tried the "racism" angle like I suggested son, had a better chance.]

Even CNN admits that in their article: "This was an attack of an American citizen on another American citizen," he said. "Puerto Ricans have been part of the United States and we've been fighting wars with other fellow Americans. We are proud US citizens. People need to understand that."

Anyway, so what "reasonable harm" was the gal in from the drunk and her bitching at each other? I didn't see it, sorry.

He was being a dick, being a dick isn't a crime. (Yet anyway... the third-wave feminists are trying though )

I'm pretty sure that I did not render my comment as an argument, only as an observation which is why I stipulated "In my state" meaning that I was explaining the law here in comparison to what Illinois law might be - there is no real motiviation for me to spend time studying laws in states I'm not licensed in so I didn't bother to research what the applicable IL laws might be.

This is what I stated

the idiot made this an issue of bias when he made it clear he was harassing her because he thought she was not American. In my state that's considered "malicious" hassment which is a separate crime aside from the harassment statute when the harassment is based on protected class status including harassment directed at interracial couples, same sex couples, or actual or perceived national original (someplace other than "America" as this guy though), religion, due to being an immigrant, etc.
​

It doesn't matter if a person is not of the race, ancestry, nation origin, etc.that the attacker thought they were, only that their motivation for committing the offense was based on a prohibited protected class.

Whether or not the police decide to charge him or the prosecutor to pursue the case is beyond the scope of my comment but certainly does not negate my statements.

And while you are correct that being a dick is not a crime, being one while annoucing that you don't like Puerto Ricans, or immigrants or Muslims, etc. could find you with charges filed aginst you, at least here. That was the purpose of my comment.

I hear ya.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

If liberals can harass people having dinner, shopping in a bookstore or anything else, this man has the same right to harass her.

Hassment is unlawful irrespective of who is doing it.

 

[EverCurious]

I wish it didn't. I wish the "classical liberals" hadn't handed their party and control of the social fabric of the nation over to these emotionally immature, spoiled brats. >.<

The thing is, I agree this drunk guy probably earned getting himself arrested, but I DON'T know what happened before. But I DO know the left does MUCH worse than this and they ought to be arrested for assault, but arrests rarely come for these spoiled brats.

Our whole system seems to coddle the radical left.

Meh he was a dick, no denying that. However, I disagree with arresting him for engaging in an active debate - aka she was discussing with him vs just ignoring him - is not something one gets arrested for. He was almost certainly arrested for the physical altercation with the other guy; they were pushing each other. As I gather the drunk got belligerent with the officer when asked to settle down and back off. That was his "crime," not engaging in debate with the young woman.

To argue that he should be arrested merely for being a dick and "making her uncomfortable" would get half the fucking nation arrested because quite frankly I get screamed at and put in "potential" physical danger every time I drive lol

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

That's what this guy did. Are you approving?

This guy is an idiot, he was harassing her because he ERRONEOUSLY thought that Puerto Rico is not part of the United States and therefore she was being "un-American". And even if she wasn't American, it's still unlawful to harass people because you don't like people from [fill in the blank] or people who practice [fill in the religion], etc.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Meh he was a dick, no denying that. However, I disagree with arresting him for engaging in an active debate - aka she was discussing with him vs just ignoring him - is not something one gets arrested for. He was almost certainly arrested for the physical altercation with the other guy; they were pushing each other. As I gather the drunk got belligerent with the officer when asked to settle down and back off. That was his "crime," not engaging in debate with the young woman.

To argue that he should be arrested merely for being a dick and "making her uncomfortable" would get half the fucking nation arrested because quite frankly I get screamed at and put in "potential" physical danger every time I drive lol

Just because a person converses with someone else doesn't mean they have to continue with the conversation or that they don't have the right to terminate it and further contact with the person if during the course of the conversation they become verbally abusive or threatening. The fact that she essentially told him to back off and that what he was doing was making her uncomfortable and he wouldn't means that he knew that his continued verbal assault was unwanted and was therefore at that point intentional.

People who are drunk & disorderly and acting like an ass get arrested all of the time.

Assault and/or battery laws are not relevant to street harassment in every state, but when they are, you will find them listed under the "Verbal Harassment" or "Groping" sections of those states.
In many states, assault and battery are considered two separate crimes.

Assault
In general, a person commits an assault when, by word or action, s/he places another
person in fear of receiving a battery.

Battery
A person commits a battery when s/he intentionally touches, strikes, or injures another
person without that person’s consent.

When assault and battery are defined as separate crimes, one can take place without the other.
​

For example, someone can verbally assault you but the situation might not escalate to battery.
Alternatively, in many states groping is considered battery because it is nonconsensual touching.

Someone might commit battery by groping, but it needn’t be preceded or followed by an
assault.

We usually hear of assault and battery together because acts of violence such as fights
are often preceded by verbal assault. However, in the case of street harassment, it may be just as likely that assault or battery happen independently of one another.

http://www.stopstreetharassment.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/SSH-KnowYourRights-StreetHarassmentandtheLaw-20131.pdf​

 

[EverCurious]

Meh he was a dick, no denying that. However, I disagree with arresting him for engaging in an active debate - aka she was discussing with him vs just ignoring him - is not something one gets arrested for. He was almost certainly arrested for the physical altercation with the other guy; they were pushing each other. As I gather the drunk got belligerent with the officer when asked to settle down and back off. That was his "crime," not engaging in debate with the young woman.

To argue that he should be arrested merely for being a dick and "making her uncomfortable" would get half the fucking nation arrested because quite frankly I get screamed at and put in "potential" physical danger every time I drive lol

Just because a person converses with someone else doesn't mean they have to continue with the conversation or that they don't have the right to terminate it and further contact with the person if during the course of the conversation they become verbally abusive or threatening. The fact that she essentially told him to back off and that what he was doing was making her uncomfortable and he wouldn't means that he knew that his continued verbal assault was unwanted and was therefore at that point intentional.

People who are drunk & disorderly and acting like an ass get arrested all of the time.

Assault and/or battery laws are not relevant to street harassment in every state, but when they are, you will find them listed under the "Verbal Harassment" or "Groping" sections of those states.
In many states, assault and battery are considered two separate crimes.

Assault
In general, a person commits an assault when, by word or action, s/he places another
person in fear of receiving a battery.

Battery
A person commits a battery when s/he intentionally touches, strikes, or injures another
person without that person’s consent.

When assault and battery are defined as separate crimes, one can take place without the other.
​

For example, someone can verbally assault you but the situation might not escalate to battery.
Alternatively, in many states groping is considered battery because it is nonconsensual touching.

Someone might commit battery by groping, but it needn’t be preceded or followed by an
assault.

We usually hear of assault and battery together because acts of violence such as fights
are often preceded by verbal assault. However, in the case of street harassment, it may be just as likely that assault or battery happen independently of one another.
http://www.stopstreetharassment.org...ourRights-StreetHarassmentandtheLaw-20131.pdf
http://www.stopstreetharassment.org...ourRights-StreetHarassmentandtheLaw-20131.pdf​

You don't get to "have the last word" in a random discussion/argument as this gal did by having them arrested. It's an argument/disagreement/debate or whatever you want to call it. She engaged him, and case in point, he /did/ step back when she requested it, if he /hadn't/ then he wouldn't be on the far side of the shot at the end of her recording.

He's a dick, no doubt about it, but being a dick is not illegal. He did /not/ threaten her, he argued with her, that's it.