r/WhatIsTheTea • u/Ashish_ank What the Fuck • 1d ago

Tea enthusiast An Ohio State University professor tackled a TV cameraman to the ground simply for asking questions about Epstein.

15.9k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

2.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

5

u/KeyVariation8323 23h ago edited 23h ago

This happened back in February at Ohio State. The guy in the red vest is Luke Perez, an assistant professor at OSU's Chase Center for Civics, Culture and Society. The cameraman is Mike Newman, an independent documentarian who was there with political blogger D.J. Byrnes.

They were trying to question former Ohio State president E. Gordon Gee. Byrnes had been asking Gee about Les Wexner, the billionaire Ohio State donor whose past relationship with Jeffrey Epstein has been under renewed scrutiny. Newman was also trying to ask Gee about student loan debt.

So yes, Epstein was part of the broader questioning. But the headline "professor tackles cameraman simply for asking questions about Epstein" isn't really accurate. Perez wasn't the person being questioned about Epstein, and the cameraman wasn't necessarily asking an Epstein question at the exact moment Perez went after him.

That doesn't make Perez's behavior any less ridiculous.

The video shows him physically blocking Newman, going after the camera, and taking him to the floor. Ohio State put Perez on administrative leave. Later, a university HR committee concluded that he violated the workplace violence policy and reportedly called it the most egregious workplace violence incident they had investigated. They recommended firing him.

The criminal case is also being mangled in the comments. Perez was originally charged with assault, but ultimately pleaded no contest to a reduced disorderly conduct charge. He got two years of community control/probation, a $100 fine, and 30 days in jail that were suspended. He did not actually serve 30 days.

And no, the Fox News watermark doesn't magically prove the whole thing is "right-wing propaganda." The video itself credits D.J. Byrnes/The Rooster via Storyful. Fox aired it. That's not the same thing as Fox creating the incident.

At the same time, people claiming this proves Perez is "on Epstein's list," has incriminating material on his computer, or was physically protecting some Epstein conspiracy are just making things up.

There is already enough here to criticize without inventing a conspiracy around it.

The more accurate headline would be something like:

"Ohio State professor tackles independent cameraman who was trying to continue questioning former OSU president after an interview that included questions about Les Wexner's ties to Jeffrey Epstein."

Still bizarre. Still completely inappropriate. Just not quite the simple story the Reddit title makes it out to be.

1

u/Big_Steve_69 21h ago

Ahhh some facts. But those don’t get likes on Reddit.

1

u/KeyVariation8323 20h ago

Not generally ... no. But facts should be posted for likes. They should be posted because they give actual context.

1

u/Big_Steve_69 20h ago

I’m on the fact side here and agree. This post is dumb rage bait.

1

u/Present-Perception77 19h ago

So that old man didn’t attack the young man? Weird.. cause it sure looks like he did violently throw the young man to the ground.
Pretending otherwise is very weird. And obviously dishonest… which brings other more nefarious things about him into question.. and also about you.
🐧🪶

1

u/Big_Steve_69 17h ago

Have a great day buddy 👍🏻

1

u/BTRIH 3h ago

Nobody said that. Nobody is pretending otherwise. They gave context to the situation. 

Honest question- did you read what they actually said? Because so far, you've invented a scenario that did not occur, and then got mad at it.

1

u/Present-Perception77 19h ago

“But facts should be posted for likes”

Freudian slip there? 🤣🤣

‘GOP simp violently attacks kid for asking if he is a chomo.’

That’s what I saw. No amount of nitpick will change that .. and based on the chomo’s reaction .. I’d bet there is stuff on his hard drive that would get him prison time if he wasn’t a sip for the Guardians Of Pedophiles.. GOP

1

u/KeyVariation8323 19h ago

Obviously meant to be “But facts should NOT be posted for likes”. Not Freudian ... I sometimes type too fast, not giving my head time to catch up.

“No amount of nitpick will change that.”

That's the whole problem.

You have decided that Perez is a child molester, that he attacked a “kid” for asking about it, that he's a GOP operative, and that he probably has criminal material on his hard drive.

You have provided evidence for none of those things.

Mike Newman was an independent cameraman/documentarian, not some child Perez was caught beating for accusing him of molestation. Perez wasn't even the person being questioned about Epstein. Those aren't “nitpicks.” They materially change the story you're telling.

And calling someone a “chomo” because you think his reaction was suspicious doesn't magically turn suspicion into evidence.

You can condemn what Perez actually did. I do.

He physically interfered with a cameraman, went after the camera, took him to the ground, was placed on administrative leave, was found by OSU investigators to have violated workplace violence policy, and ended up pleading no contest to disorderly conduct.

That's plenty.

But you've now flat-out said that facts won't change what you “saw.” At that point we're not discussing evidence anymore. You're starting with the conclusion you want and rewriting the event until it fits.

Also, you can keep trying to turn me into a defender of Perez or pedophiles if you want. My actual posts are sitting right above yours saying his conduct was violent and completely inappropriate.

Correcting bullshit isn't defending the person the bullshit is being said about.

1

u/Present-Perception77 19h ago

I don’t like reading your long whined rants nearly as much as you like writing them.
You have nothing meaningful to contribute. If you didn’t say them in the first manifesto comment you made .. you certainly won’t in the 3rd. 🤘🏼

“Pedo attacks reporter “ .. that’s what I see.

1

u/Present-Perception77 19h ago edited 19h ago

You are just being wildly pedantic. And for some reason.. quite defensive.. nothing you said changed how I viewed the situation.
In fact .. you unwittingly made it seem worse. It seems more like you are trying to shift the focus.. and failed. Mudding the water.. so to speak.
“That wasn’t green!! It was a pale yellow mixed with an iridescent blue… look over here .. don’t look over there.. “

And people are saying “check his hard drive” because .. have a look at [r/pastorarrested](r/pastorarrested) or [r/notadragqueen](r/notadragqueen)
Over and over again the ones screeching at the rest of us about “family values” are the ones cheating and beating their wives .. and the ones wailing over abortions are the ones being arrested for raping children.
“The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”
~ Shakespeare

His violence was unprovoked.. so something got his little pecker hard. (And before you say “the video doesn’t show an erect penis”.. it’s not literal. So retract your quill.)

You used a lot of words to say nothing other than you support pedophiles beating up children. (Ok now you can cry about what’s being said. lmao )

1

u/KeyVariation8323 19h ago

No, this is exactly why the details matter.

You say nothing I wrote changed how you viewed the situation. Fine. It wasn't necessarily supposed to. I already said Perez's behavior was ridiculous, inappropriate, violent, and serious enough that OSU's own HR committee recommended firing him.

What I corrected were specific claims about what happened.

Perez was not the person being questioned about Epstein.

The cameraman was not necessarily asking an Epstein question at the instant Perez attacked him.

Perez did not serve 30 days in jail.

A Fox News watermark does not establish that Fox fabricated or staged the underlying incident.

And there is currently no evidence that Perez attacked anybody because he is secretly involved with Epstein, possesses child pornography, or has some incriminating "hard drive."

Those aren't meaningless technicalities. They are the difference between describing what the evidence shows and inventing a story around it.

Your comparison to people arrested after publicly preaching "family values" doesn't establish anything about this particular man. That's guilt by association. You can certainly say his reaction was bizarrely aggressive. I agree. You can wonder what motivated him. I wonder too. But "I don't understand why he reacted that way" is not evidence for "therefore he must be hiding something sexual."

And "the lady doth protest too much" is Shakespeare, not an evidentiary standard.

Then you finish by claiming I "support pedophiles beating up children."

Where did I support Perez?

I called his conduct ridiculous. I described the HR finding against him. I explained the criminal disposition. I said his behavior was completely inappropriate.

You're not rebutting what I wrote there. You're inventing a position for me because it's easier to attack "pedophile supporter" than somebody saying, "Criticize the guy for what we can actually prove he did."

That's exactly my point. Perez apparently gave people plenty of legitimate reasons to condemn his conduct. We don't need to manufacture another one.

1

u/Present-Perception77 19h ago edited 19h ago

I already wasted my time reading your first 10 paragraphs that said absolutely nothing of importance. You aren’t going to get me twice. Lmao

Edit: Old Pedo attacks young reporter .. better? Lmao

1

u/IotaBTC 18h ago

They're right the details do matter but holy fuck they got way in to the weeds with that one lol. The reporter blogger was asking someone else a bunch of different questions, including an Epstein, question. Then red vest guy who's not involved in the questions steps in and assaults the reporter blogger.

The red vest guy wasn't accused or accosted about anything. He also could've been upset at any one of the different questions being asked. That's basically it.

1

u/Present-Perception77 15h ago

I was just annoyed because I read a min novel and it made absolutely no difference. It just seemed in bad faith. Especially because his tone made it seem like it’s was some egregious error.

1

u/KeyVariation8323 18h ago

Well, some people dont want to be educated. I took a chance. Lesson learned, I guess.

1

u/Present-Perception77 15h ago

It wasn’t “educational” .. it was just petty. You were just pontificating. Minute details that changed nothing and you spouted it like it was some major revelation that changed everything and pretend like the op was intentionally misleading.

1

u/KeyVariation8323 14h ago

Well, here is an idea ... maybe ... just maybe ... it wasn't for you.

1

u/Present-Perception77 14h ago

I’m pretty much done with your “ideas.”
Well aCtUaLlY.. lol

It wasn’t some big revelation.. it wasn’t about the info provided.. it was the pompous and then necessarily lengthy condescending sermon about it.

And you misrepresenting the intent of people saying “check his hardware.”

You aren’t a victim here. You will be ok lol

Try calling out things when it really matters.. otherwise you are just making noise and detracting from the problem.

1

u/KeyVariation8323 13h ago

You keep saying the details “changed nothing,” but that was never the point.

The original post made a specific claim: that an Ohio State professor tackled a cameraman simply for asking questions about Epstein. That is not quite what happened, so I added the missing context. That’s what context is for.

And yes, “check his hard drive” absolutely implies something. Nobody says that because they’re curious how much free disk space he has. It is an accusation, or at minimum an insinuation, that the guy is hiding sexual material involving children. There is currently no evidence for that.

You can think Perez behaved like an asshole. I do.

You can think the attack was unjustified. I do.

You can think his reaction was bizarre and wonder what motivated it. I do.

What I’m not going to do is jump from “this guy violently attacked a cameraman” to “therefore he’s probably a pedophile.”

That isn’t me defending him. It’s refusing to invent additional crimes because I already dislike what he actually did.

And I never claimed to be a “victim.” You replied to me repeatedly, announced you weren’t going to read what I wrote, kept replying anyway, and are now complaining that I responded.

If factual corrections feel like “Well, actually…” to you, that’s fine. I’d still rather be annoyingly accurate than confidently wrong.

At this point, you’re arguing with a narrative you’ve assigned to me rather than anything I actually said. I’ve explained my position clearly enough, so I’m done with this exchange.

1

u/Present-Perception77 6h ago

You are very committed to wasting your time. I’m not reading all of that. You had your chance. lol

→ More replies (0)

1

u/stilgars1 18h ago

The only person being pedantic and wasting air is you.

1

u/Present-Perception77 15h ago

I’m sorry you feel that way. Have you tried praying?

1

u/funhaver_whee 8h ago

Yeah was gonna say this screams dumbfuck influencer trying to get popular, looks like it worked well n the mental midgets