Or perhaps that they stopped her to accuse her of a crime, confront, and challenge her. None of your definitions include this "in error or being rude" inference you want to draw from it, that's your bias twisting definitions to suit your faux outrage.

I accosted my wife at the door with surprise plans to go out to dinner. I would use that sentence. I'm 48....not sure what generation you're from.

What nonsense are you spouting now...no one said she shouldn't have been accosted, you just take umbrage with the term for some reason, so decry the report as biased fake news or something.
Using the proper word to describe events is nothing like Fox making shit up. I don't have a clue what you mean.

Too late, I'm bald. That excuses me from having to watch any more Faux news. ;-)

Derp. That would be a Trump, not an Accosta.

Have fun with your persecution complex. I find you ridiculous and incapable of honest evaluation. Bye now.

If someone accosts another person, especially a stranger, they stop them or go up to them and speak to them in a way that seems rude or threatening.
[formal, disapproval]
A man had accosted me in the street. [VERB noun]
Synonyms: confront, challenge, address, stop More Synonyms of accost
COBUILD Advanced English Dictionary. Copyright © HarperCollins Publishers
Word Frequency
accost in British
(əˈkɒst )
verb
1. (transitive)
to approach, stop, and speak to (a person), as to ask a question, accuse of a crime, solicit sexually, etc

It is suggesting the police were in error or were being rude at best.
This is how most people of my generation would understand the term.
So all I have to do is shed my clothes now and let things swing in the wind and I can do whatever I please, even coming within feet of the potus?
I don't think It would be a pretty picture/outcome for several reasons.
Biased reporting.
Just because Fox does it doesn't make it right.
You admit you can't even stand watching Fox for more than a couple of minutes.
You therefore have no ground to stand on.
You must endure it until your hair starts falling out as I have with CNN.
That's about 5 minutes.

Another definition might work as well.
The reporter constantly berated,grandstanded and hogged the microphone refusing to show an ounce of decorum.
He pulled an Acosta.

Sticking Fox in there as well shows you aren't serious. Fox is pure propaganda to the extent their top rated hosts (they don't have reporters) actually went on the campaign trail with Trump and spoke at his rallies....talk about agenda.

Trump's actions and words are 98% negative, it's who he is. Reporting on him in a negative light IS honest reporting....for Christ's sake, he repeatedly lusted after his under age daughter publicly, how do you report that as a positive? "He has the fortitude of character to not act on his incestuous fantasies....at least publicly."? Can't say the same about his friend's wives or work subordinates, though.

The day of the synagogue shooting, which was targeted specifically because Trump said repeatedly that Jews are paying dangerous illegal aliens to invade the country, and with more bombs still in the mail, Trump again shirked any responsibility for his rhetoric and blamed the media for his named enemies (including the same media) being targeted by people who quoted his words in their manifestos, and again called the news media enemies of the people, the words that triggered the right wing terrorists in the first place. You argue that, by reporting his complete lack of civil leadership and his targeted threats that are being acted on, they are the problem and the one's taking jabs?! Trump didn't hold off media bashing for a single sentence, his call for unity and his blame and attack were in the same opening sentence of his remarks.

Trump is the leader of the free world, but he never once has he lead towards civility, and excessively rarely honesty or rationality. You expect cable news anchors to be the moral compass of the nation, and completely excuse president from that obligation?! *facepalm
Trump ran on being insulting and derisive of any non Trumpian coverage, Jim is just his latest target by proximity, it would be someone else if it wasn't him. Baby needs a bad man to spit up on.

If this behavior warrants removing credentials, Fox, Breightbart, and Alex Jones would have been permanently barred over a decade ago, but they're all more than welcome....largely because they were constant rude assholes to Obama and had zero respect for the office when he held it.
Good luck demanding professionalism and civility now, after 8 years of birtherism that ship sailed with Trump at the helm. Whining about it now like a thin skinned 3rd grader only makes Trump more ridiculous and hypocritical.....which is astonishing as he had already raised the bar of hypocrisy into orbit.

That's not how democracy or press conferences work.

1: journalists absolutely do NOT have to accept a politicians answer. They are fully entitled to demand a real answer.

2: they're also entitled to follow up questions. Acostas behaviour is completely normal for any member of the press and far less "rude" than anything Fox News did to Obama.

And as for CNN coverage of Trump's achievements....
*related=https://videosift.com/video/CNN-Red-Pills-itself-The-Economy-is-GREAT

Granted. As I wrote above, I think it's likely they both were telling the truth....her leash propped the door open, so he assumed it opened with his fob, she assumed he didn't use one. Neither noticed what the other was doing and both assumed the worst....difference being his assumption was she's a jerk requiring no action, her assumption was he's an intruder in her secure building, requiring action.

Because this is a safety issue and there had been numerous requests by management to under no circumstances allow a stranger into the building without using their fob, and he knew that, and all he would have to do is waive his hand with the fob still in it at the scanner instead of force his way past her physically and be rude and suspicious (showing a random fob doesn't prove a bit it's for that building without using it successfully).....for those reasons combined, I put the lion's share of blame on him.

The entirety of the insanely overboard consequences fell on her before anyone had even partial explanation of her side.

As I also said, I think she should have called police the instant he pushed past her and just followed him, but she wasn't trying to escalate things like I think he was.

I can't be certain of her motives, but I've stopped people from just pushing into my secure building when I lived in one, blacks, whites, Mexicans, men, women, even kids. I made them all use their key or buzz the apartment they were visiting. Had anyone acted like he did, pushing in like a burglar, I would not have been nearly as calm and composed as she was, even if they were a white child....they steal too.

I'm glad you think the reaction as overboard, at least we can agree this didn't warrant death threats on either side.

Yes, and imo any reasonable person would have done exactly that instead of intentionally causing an incident he could film and maybe profit from, or at least get some world star views.

She's married to a black dude, so I'll go out on a limb and say she isn't afraid of black men more than other men.

Of course, there's the possibility that she's actually a captive of her husband, forced against her will to marry and live with someone she feared and didn't respect because of their skin color just to torture her because she's really a racist bitch, but I seriously doubt it.

If the answer is yes, she's done this before to white guys they just didn't film it to publicly shame her and instead just used their fob again like a reasonable neighbor, would you change your position?

No, he has no obligation beyond the building's written rules to engage her at all, but that's exactly why she was suspicious, he violated building rules and stupidly refused to be reasonable....whatever his reason might have been, likely a mistaken assumption she was racially motivated and not just a good neighbor looking out for the safety of her building as the management had repeatedly requested everyone living there do.

What do you think he would do if a few 6'6" skinheads barged in when he opened the door, shoved past him, and rudely refused to prove they belonged there while filming him, snidely commenting about the dumb black boy who thinks he's security? Would you then excuse the hundreds of death threats he started getting from random racists for daring to confront white men? I hope not.

I think it's not likely she would have been so insistent he was barging in if he had used his key fob as he claims, but when he had a working key to his apartment that should have made it obvious he belonged there, after that I'm not sure why the police were needed. That's the only thing I see she did that was uncalled for, calling the police after he produced and used a working apartment key.

I do agree, she should have just called the police (not the board) immediately and kept an eye on him and not tried to physically stop him, for her own safety and liability. I don't agree she should ignore a stranger pushing their way into a secure building, even without the HOA emails. That's just being responsible.

The article indicated she had produced multiple emails from the HOA/management telling her (and every other tenant) to not allow anyone they don't personally know inside without using their key fob, which is what I believe he did, not use the key fob. (If he had used his fob, he could have easily let the door close and used it again in <2 seconds instead of intentionally creating this incident he recorded and uploaded to shame her, it would still be in his hand. It's possible they're both telling the truth, her leash was holding the door open and he used his fob, wrongly assuming that's why the door opened while she wrongly assumed he just pushed it open.)
If that's correct, the HOA asked residents to act as amateur security, I'm curious how they expect that to be enforced against people like him who not only ignore that request but rudely insist on being intentionally obtuse and looking as suspicious as possible. I also wonder if this was his intent with his suspicious actions, creating another racist white woman to figuratively publicly lynch. It seems likely, considering all the facts and the current climate, and his actions during and after the incident. He's milking this for every second of public exposure he can, from what I've seen, being interviewed on every newsertainment show that will have him.

As I thought, one more instance of a white woman following the rules by asking a black man to follow the fucking rules, and so she's labeled a racist.....who's married to an African American. *facepalm

The man pushed his way into the secure building as she opened the door for her dog and refused to tell her which apartment he lived in or demonstrate that he had a key to the building. He knew that was the procedure requested by the building owners/managers, he got the same emails requesting no one allow any stranger into the secure building that she did, but he refused to follow procedure.
What's more, he decided to publicly shame her over attempting to follow posted safety procedures and building rules because he's racist. Guaranteed he would not have recorded and publicized this if she were black doing exactly the same thing, and news outlets wouldn't air it if he did, but because she's white, game on.

Now, for properly following the building rules, she's fired, ostracized, and getting multiple death threats daily. That's outrageous. He should have the same consequences, as the actual racist in this situation.

Bbq where it's not allowed and rudely refuse to move to where it is allowed, I'll call the cops. Loudly hawk water under my window all day without a permit and rudely refuse to move, I'll call the cops. Push into my secure building and act like a rude intruder instead of my new neighbor, I'll call the cops. I don't give one single fuck what color your skin is.....this bullshit that a white person"snitching" on a black person (who is violating the posted rules/law and being a rude asshole about it) is reason to call them racists is just that, bullshit.
Call me a racist now, because dark skin won't protect you from having to follow the rules and law or be stopped/ reported around me any more or less than pink, yellow, tan, red, or any other color skin would.
Downvote spreading this narrative that whites must ignore the rude illegal actions of non whites or be labeled racist. Fuck that, homie don't play dat.

I have two boys, 9 and 14. If they treated people the way Trump, and most of the right, treats people, I'd be ashamed and reprimand them, especially if they did it publicly the way Trump has mocked a disabled reporter, Ford, the parents of fallen soldier... we could go on and on about how he mocks people on a regular basis. Every major religion has some variation of the Golden Rule, treat others as you'd have others treat you, especially Christianity, and yet the entire right ignores this rule, especially when it's somebody they oppose. Be it LGBTQIA+ people, political opponents, economic opponents, they ignore the Golden Rule. They in fact view it as a sign of strength to openly be hostile and rude to others, and yet, when one of theirs is mocked by late night TV, or when Sarah Sanders is kicked out of a restaurant (days after the fact that the entire right was celebrating the Supreme Court victory that they don't have to serve people they don't like), suddenly it is all "why can't people be civilized"? Plank in your own eye ass holes.

As Bob says politics is mean and ugly, but Republicans, Christians, made it that way and have been doubling down on it, ignoring the commandments to Love on another, the commandment to treat others as you'd have them treat you, not to judge least ye be judged and on and on. And somehow the right views that as a strength, as a good thing. They view McCain's efforts to reach across the isle and find a common center ground that everyone can agree on as a weakness. They don't want or will accept a 50/50 solution, they want a solution that is 80 or even better 90 percent on their side, and anything less than that is the other side being obstructionist.

Anyhow, if my kids acted the way Trump does, our President, whom we should hold to the highest standards, I'd make them apologize and be frank with them that I was appalled at their behavior, to mock a person with a disability or a woman or any other person the way Trump does on a regular basis. Yet the entire right is falling over themselves with pleasure at this rude behavior... I just don't get it. I don't get how that is acceptable behavior now from the President of the United States. It'd be one thing if he was still the piece of shit business man (who's business' constantly fail and need bankruptcy protection, even though he rarely pays contractors), 2nd rate reality TV show star, but this is the highest office in the land, where we should expect a person to act with dignity. I may have found Bush Jr to be an idiot and a horrible President, but at least he treated people with respect and the way one would expect of a President. Now we have a man-child and somehow this is a great thing. Fuck our lives when this is acceptable, when this is in fact praise worthy by far too many on the right (and I know, many Republicans said it was wrong of Trump to mock her the way he did, but they didn't really stand up to him, just a quick line to appease the few who might vote for them that would be appalled at that behavior).

EDIT TO ADD: What's upsetting about the Merrick Garland Supreme Court nomination is that they didn't even hold hearings. They had the votes to block him from confirmation, so hold hearings, say "no" and move on, but they wouldn't even do that. And he'd probably have been one of the most moderate justices in the modern era, which would have made explaining the "no" harder perhaps, but at least it would have been fair. But apparently fair is for the weak, one must play the ugly game now... and look at Bob's one reply, they got their eye on Ginsburg, they are hoping she dies so they can replace her with another theocrat like Kavanaugh, and because of that expectation and hope, you can guarantee that all the right will be out in force come November. We really need a miracle turnout to start to change things...

I fully agree. There's obviously an agenda, which I find boring, and no filter for obvious fake stories or misrepresentation (not saying that's the case here, I didn't watch this post) which I see as lying to support that agenda. I hate that, no matter what the topic. It's an admission that they need to lie and exaggerate because the truth just isn't bad enough to make their point.
I hate lies and liars with a passion.

My solution, just ignore any video he posts with a "racism" or "institutional racism" tag or a 'look at this racism' title, don't even view it, forget voting for it, that only encourages the behavior. Well over 1/2 of them are at best misrepresentations of fact, bending over backwards to make everything, from being called out for rudely breaking the law (bbq Becky, watergirl) to basic physics (racist faucets), racist.
There's been far too much crying wolf for me to believe he even sees dogs, and the more he cries, the less I believe wolves still exist....particularly sad since I was a sheep dog on the lookout for wolves before he came along.

I still gladly view and vote for videos he posts on other topics.

Bob, I'll try to ignore your having just being an ignorant douchbag who rudely dismissed those with far more knowledge and personal experience than you possess, simply because they disagreed with your non- medically based, non-scientific based, thoughtless, inhumane political position and I'll try a different tact.....

How is it that, in 2018, you are advocating slavery more foul than the African slave trade....yes, slavery.

Forcing one person to fulfill all the bodily functions of another, brain dead potential "person" (and make no mistake, a blastocyst is not a person, but for sake of argument and your limited understanding capabilities I'll let you claim it is one this one time)....that's Mengele level inhumanity and slavery.

You claim to believe in individual liberties over vague social responsibility....except when you don't.

Forcing one person to physically support another is so far to the left of full socialism you seem to think it went all the way around to the right. It doesn't work that way.
To add the typical right wing slippery slope argument, if the government can force one person to be life support for another potential person, they can force healthy people to give up organs to the unhealthy, or be consigned to hospitals to be used as human dialysis and so forth.
Until those cells can and have survived on their own without support, and can and have functioned as a mammal (meaning breathed, circulated body fluids, and consumed and evacuated foodstuffs) they have not reached "living human" status, and even if you can't grasp that fact, at no point can there be a requirement that another person acts as their sentient intensive care unit without reinstating legal slavery.

Why do you advocate slavery?

When are you donating your kidney and partial liver, and your children's? If you aren't, by your logic you're at least a double murderer and so are they. Why should I or anyone take morality advice from a double murderer?

Design a procedure where the offending not yet human can be safely removed without any (or at least less than an abortion would cause) risk to the mother, but survive on it's own without an incubator-slave, then come back and we'll talk.... until then forced incubation and forced birth is monstrously draconian socialism of a kind even Mengele would turn away from in disgust.

Edit: I came up with an argument I think might change your mind....how many baby Newtboys would you force on the planet before you decided abortion should be mandatory in some cases?

Hilarious.
I hope they deny the water girl in SF.

A girl and her mom set up shop in front of a residential building they don't live at and all day screamed their water selling slogans at passersby. They were repeatedly asked to move by building security, and they refused. Eventually, a resident came out and asked them to move and called local police (not 911) to see if they needed a permit. She is being portrayed as another BBQ Becky (the woman who called police about people illegally charcoal grilling in a public park annoying park users) as if there's something wrong with calling police on people breaking the law.
She, not the water sellers, should have access to free legal advice.
It's disgusting to me that so many have jumped on the 'lets call them racists and viciously mob them if they're caught in public because they are white and they called police on black people....people who were actually breaking the law and being exceptionally rude and disruptive about it when asked to move to a legal area.' bandwagon.

I would guess this is in part the result of the rash of fake emotional support animals (pets in public).
Since likely 90% of "service animals" are really pets with vests and nothing more, and treated as such, those with actual service animals need to understand that the general public has little idea how to act around actual service dogs and have some extra patience. If his animal is trained well, part of that training is to ignore distractions when working. Sure, there's no need to constantly test that, but also no need to freak out if someone talks to your dog in the store.

That said, you also shouldn't engage someone's pet without permission. It's rude and can be dangerous.