Democrat Congressman assaults student for asking a question

F

fossten

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
12,460
Reaction score
6
Location
Louisville
http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=XdaGaGqGZu

Remember, Obama started this...

“They Bring a Knife…We Bring a Gun…Get in Their Faces!…I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!…Punch Back Twice As Hard…So I know whose ass to kick.”

Sort of reminds me of this:

King Arthur: I am your king.

Woman: Well I didn't vote for you.

Arthur: You don't vote for kings.

Woman: Well how'd you become king then?
[Angelic music plays... ]

Arthur: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. THAT is why I am your king.

Dennis: [interrupting] Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

Arthur: Be quiet!

Dennis: Well you can’t expect to wield supreme executive power just ’cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!

Arthur: Shut up!

Dennis: I mean, if I went around sayin’ I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me they’d put me away!

Arthur: Shut up! Will you shut up!

Dennis: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system.

Arthur: Shut up!

Dennis: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! HELP! HELP! I’m being repressed!

Arthur: Bloody peasant!
Click to expand...


EDIT: VIDEO ADDED
YouTube- Congressman Assaults Student on Washington Sidewalk
 
Last edited by a moderator:
He asked repeatedly who the kid was who was video taping and making direct statements of a political nature, probably in an attempt to discover what they were planning on doing with the recording of this impromptu interview. He should have just ignored the kid, but that would have been spun negatively as well. Oh well, turnabout is fair play. Republicans dealt with this crap during the Bush era, so why not make the Dems deal with it too.
 
The only question I heard was whether or not he supported Obama's agenda. Pretty innocuous question for a Congressman to go apesht and start grabbing and yelling. Since when does somebody have to say who they are to ask a question? The Congressman could have just ignored him or even scheduled a later interview.

The kid repeatedly answered him, too - "I'm a student."
 
Thanks Cal, I thought eyeblast would be linkable. I guess it's not.

I can't get youtube while at work.
 
fossten said:
The only question I heard was whether or not he supported Obama's agenda. Pretty innocuous question for a Congressman to go apesht and start grabbing and yelling. Since when does somebody have to say who they are to ask a question? The Congressman could have just ignored him or even scheduled a later interview.

The kid repeatedly answered him, too - "I'm a student."
Click to expand...

No, by all means, the congressman reacted poorly. However, in today's world, one must be especially cautious of what is being recorded. The congressman had no idea what the kid would use it for, and for someone to approach him on the street with a video camera and ask whether they support Obama's agenda, (An INCREDIBLY vague question) I would credit him that caution is due.

I didn't really see the going apesh#t..... I mean, I saw the video in the first post the first time you posted it. I'm sorry if that wasn't really clear. I guess I just wouldnt call that going nuts and assaulting the guy. I didn't see any hard physical contact, and I would be amazed if any of it left even a momentary redness. Inappropriate yes, but not horrible.

From what I see, he grabbed the kids arm so he wouldn't get away till he received a satisfactory answer so that he would know what the video was being used for, then he let go of the kids arm and grabbed him by the shoulders. None of the contact seemed overtly rough, but I suspect there was an attempt to intimidate or at least make his presence "known", which was a little more than what was probably necessary. Still though, when you are a public figure, you never know what people are going to use your image for, and if the video was shown later to be from some legitimate or credible source, he could have been hurt even further by just ignoring the students.

Like I said though, republicans put up with it during the Bush years, so turnabout is fair play.
 
FIND said:
No, by all means, the congressman reacted poorly. However, in today's world, one must be especially cautious of what is being recorded. The congressman had no idea what the kid would use it for, and for someone to approach him on the street with a video camera and ask whether they support Obama's agenda, (An INCREDIBLY vague question) I would credit him that caution is due.

I didn't really see the going apesh#t..... I mean, I saw the video in the first post the first time you posted it. I'm sorry if that wasn't really clear. I guess I just wouldnt call that going nuts and assaulting the guy. I didn't see any hard physical contact, and I would be amazed if any of it left even a momentary redness. Inappropriate yes, but not horrible.

From what I see, he grabbed the kids arm so he wouldn't get away till he received a satisfactory answer so that he would know what the video was being used for, then he let go of the kids arm and grabbed him by the shoulders. None of the contact seemed overtly rough, but I suspect there was an attempt to intimidate or at least make his presence "known", which was a little more than what was probably necessary. Still though, when you are a public figure, you never know what people are going to use your image for, and if the video was shown later to be from some legitimate or credible source, he could have been hurt even further by just ignoring the students.

Like I said though, republicans put up with it during the Bush years, so turnabout is fair play.
Click to expand...
The Republicans never horsecollared anybody.

And again, you're trying to minimize the 'contact' by saying it wasn't that rough. I guarantee you that if it were a Republican Congressman, his resignation would have already been accepted by the mass media.

There is NO EXCUSE for roughing up somebody. None. And give me a break with the caterwauling about what the video would be used for. The kid asked him if he supported Obama's agenda. Puh-leeze. Like that's a real 'gotcha' question. He either supports it or he doesn't. Vague or not, still no excuse. Etheridge could very easily have said, 'no cameras, but I'll be glad to arrange an interview.' He also could have ignored him and walked away. Instead he grabs the guy around the neck. "Show me your papers! Vee have vays of making you talk!" This denotes a blatant arrogance, a view of elevated status above the bourgeoisie.

I will also remind you to take a look at my OP quotes of Obama virtually inciting violence. Couple that with the SEIU attacking the guy at the Tea Party rally, and the guy who had union thugs show up at his door down in Florida, and the trend is becoming rather clear and rather ugly.

If I were the GOP, I'd be using this video in campaign ads. Etheridge will get an early retirement.
 
Merely touching the other person would be considered battery.
The guy acted in a manner that was out of control. There's no reason to justify, explain, rationalize, or defend it.
 
Calabrio said:
Merely touching the other person would be considered battery.
The guy acted in a manner that was out of control. There's no reason to justify, explain, rationalize, or defend it.
Click to expand...

Unwanted contact only amounts to simple assault, generally speaking.
 
FIND said:
Unwanted contact only amounts to simple assault, generally speaking.
Click to expand...

INCORRECT.

From the Legal Dictionary:

Two separate offenses against the person that when used in one expression may be defined as any unlawful and unpermitted touching of another. Assault is an act that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent, harmful, or offensive contact. The act consists of a threat of harm accompanied by an apparent, present ability to carry out the threat. Battery is a harmful or offensive touching of another.
Click to expand...
 
Etheridge was out of bounds on this one - a lot. If the kid refused to give the Representative his name, Etheridge should have walked away - 'I don't give comments to unnamed sources' - it happens all the time.

However, earlier on a thread Cal sort of seem to indicate that your representatives aren't very approachable, and perhaps have Secret Service around them all the time. They don't - as you can see here, they are very approachable on the streets of DC - and especially between the Capital and their offices - they are back and forth there all the time. I have talked to many of my representatives and senators there. But, you always state who you are, and where you are from (their district you hope).

The people making this video did a good job - they chose well (Etheridge is known to have a bit of a temper and is also a big drinker). Etheridge should have never, ever touched this kid. But, as you can see, your elected officials are approachable, for good or bad ;)
 
fossten said:
INCORRECT.

From the Legal Dictionary:
Click to expand...

I'm aware of what legal dictionaries define it as:

The harmful or offensive touching of any part of another person’s body or of something, such as clothing or carried umbrella, that is so closely attached to the person that it is customarily regarded as part of the person. The touching may be in anger or a result of some other intentional wrong. Any amount of touching is considered a battery, even if harmless, if it is offensive to the person who is touched.
Click to expand...

I was stating that under most state or local laws, unwanted contact only amounts to simple assault.

I'll give you the definition for simple assault as per south dakota codified law since I have it handy at the moment, and south dakota doesn't recognize criminal battery, nor do most states on the level of simple battery.

22-18-1. Simple assault--Misdemeanor--Felony for subsequent offenses. Any person who:
(1) Attempts to cause bodily injury to another and has the actual ability to cause the injury;
(2) Recklessly causes bodily injury to another;
(3) Negligently causes bodily injury to another with a dangerous weapon;
(4) Attempts by physical menace or credible threat to put another in fear of imminent bodily harm, with or without the actual ability to harm the other person; or
(5) Intentionally causes bodily injury to another which does not result in serious bodily injury;
is guilty of simple assault. Simple assault is a Class 1 misdemeanor. However, if the defendant has been convicted of, or entered a plea of guilty to, two or more violations of § 22-18-1, 22-18-1.1, 22-18-26, or 22-18-29 within five years of committing the current offense, the defendant is guilty of a Class 6 felony for any third or subsequent offense.
Click to expand...

Under North Dakota century code for instance though, simple bodily contact does not even qualify as simple assault unless there was a credible threat and an intent to cause injury, or there was negligent use of a deadly weapon involved.

A definition of battery as you would ask me to accept it is an INCREDIBLY liberal interpretation of the law. Battery is the use of force against another person resulting in harmful or offensive contact. When it is just offensive contact (not sexual), it would only be simple battery.

The model penal code requires (as do most states that have any legislation covering battery) that, not only must there be offensive contact, but the actor has to INTEND or KNOW that his actions will be offensive, therefore it cannot be a reckless or negligent behavior as we observe in the video. However, since he did engage in physical contact as a means of intimidation, it would amount to simple assault.
 
A quick read through Black's to refresh my memory tells me that we have a video of an assault---belligerently getting in one's face---and battery---belligerent contact. Physical contact while trying to overawe someone is, or should be, an actionable offense.
KS
 
FIND said:
I'm aware of what legal dictionaries define it as:



I was stating that under most state or local laws, unwanted contact only amounts to simple assault.

I'll give you the definition for simple assault as per south dakota codified law since I have it handy at the moment, and south dakota doesn't recognize criminal battery, nor do most states on the level of simple battery.



Under North Dakota century code for instance though, simple bodily contact does not even qualify as simple assault unless there was a credible threat and an intent to cause injury, or there was negligent use of a deadly weapon involved.

A definition of battery as you would ask me to accept it is an INCREDIBLY liberal interpretation of the law. Battery is the use of force against another person resulting in harmful or offensive contact. When it is just offensive contact (not sexual), it would only be simple battery.

The model penal code requires (as do most states that have any legislation covering battery) that, not only must there be offensive contact, but the actor has to INTEND or KNOW that his actions will be offensive, therefore it cannot be a reckless or negligent behavior as we observe in the video. However, since he did engage in physical contact as a means of intimidation, it would amount to simple assault.
Click to expand...
Well that's fantastic, considering South Dakota law doesn't apply here, since Etheridge is in North Carolina. Moreover, it is rather presumptuous of you to predict the outcome of a case that hasn't even been filed yet. Oh, or were you just polishing your e-peen? Perhaps your judgeship would like to represent Congressman Etheridge in his defense, considering you're off to a good start already. So you don't believe Etheridge INTENDED to engage in offensive contact? He 'accidentally' grabbed the student around the throat? :bowrofl:
 
fossten said:
Well that's fantastic, considering South Dakota law doesn't apply here, since Etheridge is in North Carolina. Moreover, it is rather presumptuous of you to predict the outcome of a case that hasn't even been filed yet. Oh, or were you just polishing your e-peen? Perhaps your judgeship would like to represent Congressman Etheridge in his defense, considering you're off to a good start already. So you don't believe Etheridge INTENDED to engage in offensive contact? He 'accidentally' grabbed the student around the throat? :bowrofl:
Click to expand...

What is up your butt? Go take a zanax or something. I was just stating south dakota law as an example. Does North Carolina have a simple battery law? I'm afraid I don't have North Carolina codified laws handy..... DC doesn't have a simple battery law, that is for sure.

Besides, it would still equate to simple assault the way most places define it. I used south dakota law because in that instance, because it is fairly representative of the norm. Are you in some way unsatisfied because you believe simple battery would be a worse crime? Or are you just unsatisfied with the fact that a definition you pulled off the internet is not the definition according to the legislation of most states?

Though, for what its worth.... I doubt there will be any charges filed. Generally speaking, a congressman has to kill a hooker in broad daylight or something like that before they even get a slap on the wrist.
 
Actually, I was referring to tort law, not criminal law. The student still has a tort if he wants to pursue it. And that amounts to assault AND battery.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 83 (members: 0, guests: 83)
Back
Top