

He could be found not guilty due to Presidential action all day long for not committing assault and battery for all I care.
So long as the boxing champ working for AXY news or whatever is also found to have acted in self defense in accordance to their jurisdiction after their reflexive and mighty right hook starts a needed constitutional crisis.
The courts can handle the absurdity.
Not that the presidential immunity is ok at all, far from it.
But there’s a vital distinction between “Can’t be charged for anything while performing Presidential duties” and “Anyone who exercises a legal right that crosses unto the protected person has that legal right deactivated”.
Which…yes, pretty much is defacto currently for 99/100 things that any aggrieved party could claim as a grievance committed by the US. Gov, currently and effectively, I’m aware.
But unstoppable force meeting immovable mouth?
I feel codifying that too deeply would be a legal bridge too far.
Not for decency but because what it means for the puppeteering interests. The reporter would be more at risk of ending in a black site than a courtroom, imo.


I addressed the realpolitik in my last sentence re: black sites.
You seem to overestimate the acumen of the current members of the praetorian guard, in a way that is out of sync with their recorded performance lately.
The hypothetical presented has the perpetrator instigating a physical altercation in a moment of passionate rage, whereupon the perpetrator has placed themselves in an unfavorable position from which there is not enough time to avoid consequences.
Whether the Secret Service risks shooting their charge to kill the hypothetical reporter on the spot or does their actual job and throws the sack of lies over the back of a strapping agent is not a part of the hypothetical.
In such a scenario, the victim may be dead, but the perp, does not escape the classical (maladjusted) but natural response to saying shit like what is regularly produced with impunity, to another human being. The elderly perp.
You’re looking at the whole hypothetical exercise the wrong way. Despite its cathartic construction, it’s not about how big or tough.
The enemy cannot be considered neither overwhelmingly strong nor inconsequentially weak.
To say either one in absolutist terms is to play word games, rather than approaching a fight how it should be approached.
Honest estimation bound to context is required to “Know thy enemy”.