Crazy Congressman grabs kid by the wrist and neck..

[dabrockster]

But then gives him a quick hug. I am not sure if he was turned on by the approach from the student and decided this was some role-play in his apartment and then realized he was out in public and quickly let him go.. It was just weird..

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?se...cal&id=7496362

I think the video is crashed on breitbart right now..... But it may come up..


I guess it has been removed from youtube.
http://blog.eyeblast.tv/2010/06/cong...llege-student/

[RobinFinderson]

Obviously public figures need to get used to the fact that citizens have the right to film and pester them in public places. The dude's response is inappropriate, regardless the context. But the context is also interesting... these 'students' with their faces blurred out who wouldn't mention the school where they are studying. It should surprise no one if there is more going on than meets the eye.

[dabrockster]

Obviously public figures need to get used to the fact that citizens have the right to film and pester them in public places. The dude's response is inappropriate, regardless the context. But the context is also interesting... these 'students' with their faces blurred out who wouldn't mention the school where they are studying. It should surprise no one if there is more going on than meets the eye.

Maybe.. I thought of that as well.. It will be interesting to see if these students come out and reveal who they are to refute these comments..

Blood is in the water on this one. I wonder if Etheridge has had tickle fights with people too..

I find this amusing more then anything else. He has apologized and that is good enough for me.. He owned up to it..

[YOhio]

Obviously public figures need to get used to the fact that citizens have the right to film and pester them in public places. The dude's response is inappropriate, regardless the context. But the context is also interesting... these 'students' with their faces blurred out who wouldn't mention the school where they are studying. It should surprise no one if there is more going on than meets the eye.

The irony of that was great. The whole thing was as amateur as it gets. What kind of question is 'do you support the Obama agenda?' Working on a school project? Those kids need much better questions and covers if they want to make it in that business.

[dabrockster]

HACK (DRUDGE: Posts link stating "Hug").. He stole it from me!! So did this writer.. Both are HACKS!!

Left side on Drudge page:
http://www.drudgereport.com/

Link:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/rig...etheridge.html

[Indy Coug]

"Attacks". LOL

[thesaint258]

Obviously public figures need to get used to the fact that citizens have the right to film and pester them in public places. The dude's response is inappropriate, regardless the context. But the context is also interesting... these 'students' with their faces blurred out who wouldn't mention the school where they are studying. It should surprise no one if there is more going on than meets the eye.

I thought about that, but I don't think that the context is interesting here. This doesn't seem to be a case of selective editing where the video starts right before it gets physical. If that were the case, I'd wonder if the kid insulted the man's wife or something which provoked the response. Here, the camera is watching the Congressman while he walks down the street, and it appears we see the whole thing. IMO, it doesn't matter if they were students or a Republican smear team. They asked him a really stupid question, and the Congressman battered the guy. Really, really dumb move on the Congressman's part.

[RobinFinderson]

I thought about that, but I don't think that the context is interesting here. This doesn't seem to be a case of selective editing where the video starts right before it gets physical. If that were the case, I'd wonder if the kid insulted the man's wife or something which provoked the response. Here, the camera is watching the Congressman while he walks down the street, and it appears we see the whole thing. IMO, it doesn't matter if they were students or a Republican smear team. They asked him a really stupid question, and the Congressman battered the guy. Really, really dumb move on the Congressman's part.

The guy acted badly, and that is the story. I won't pretend otherwise.

A tangential issue is the question of how close a person can put a camera in your face before it constitutes threatening behavior. Lets just make something very clear -- if I wanted to spray hydrochloric acid into the face of someone (note to FBI/CIA/Secret Service -- I don't want to, nor will I ever, spray hydrochloric acid into the face of anyone), a hollowed out camera (or one of those old gag squirting cameras) might be a pretty decent weapon. I'm just saying, if someone puts a piece of electronic equipment in your face, at what point do you have the right to defend yourself, and to what level can you defend yourself while determining the measure of hostile intent in the person demonstrating potentially aggressive behavior?

Unlike the rest of us Joe Schmoes, these are actually questions public figures might handle differently from the rest of us.

[thesaint258]

The guy acted badly, and that is the story. I won't pretend otherwise.

A tangential issue is the question of how close a person can put a camera in your face before it constitutes threatening behavior. Lets just make something very clear -- if I wanted to spray hydrochloric acid into the face of someone (note to FBI/CIA/Secret Service -- I don't want to, nor will I ever, spray hydrochloric acid into the face of anyone), a hollowed out camera (or one of those old gag squirting cameras) might be a pretty decent weapon. I'm just saying, if someone puts a piece of electronic equipment in your face, at what point do you have the right to defend yourself, and to what level can you defend yourself while determining the measure of hostile intent in the person demonstrating potentially aggressive behavior?

Unlike the rest of us Joe Schmoes, these are actually questions public figures might handle differently from the rest of us.

I see what you're saying. I think that unless there was a specific threat that someone was going to try something like that, or unless a person was trying to hit you with the camera, there wouldn't be any justification for battery. An assault is the apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive touching.* Even if people get really close with a camera, I don't know that most people would think that the person's going to hit you with it.

*I actually remember something from Torts. I don't know if that's a good or bad thing.

[il Padrino Ute]

And the left insists that the conservatives are the violent ones.

[dabrockster]

The guy acted badly, and that is the story. I won't pretend otherwise.

A tangential issue is the question of how close a person can put a camera in your face before it constitutes threatening behavior. Lets just make something very clear -- if I wanted to spray hydrochloric acid into the face of someone (note to FBI/CIA/Secret Service -- I don't want to, nor will I ever, spray hydrochloric acid into the face of anyone), a hollowed out camera (or one of those old gag squirting cameras) might be a pretty decent weapon. I'm just saying, if someone puts a piece of electronic equipment in your face, at what point do you have the right to defend yourself, and to what level can you defend yourself while determining the measure of hostile intent in the person demonstrating potentially aggressive behavior?

Unlike the rest of us Joe Schmoes, these are actually questions public figures might handle differently from the rest of us.

Sorry Robin but this explanation is a little bit of a stretch (In this case). If a congressman feels so threatened then he should of just kept moving but he chose to be the aggressor to two students. I think he saw the opportunity to flex a little bit of his Napoleon complex and came out looking horrible. I do not doubt that congressman have these concerns but stopping and having a conversation with them would not resolve that threat. He should of just kept walking..

[RobinFinderson]

Sorry Robin but this explanation is a little bit of a stretch (In this case). If a congressman feels so threatened then he should of just kept moving but he chose to be the aggressor to two students. I think he saw the opportunity to flex a little bit of his Napoleon complex and came out looking horrible. I do not doubt that congressman have these concerns but stopping and having a conversation with them would not resolve that threat. He should of just kept walking..

I always think it is interesting when conservatives who support the right of individuals to pull out guns and blow the freaking head off of someone who brandishes a deadly weapon will then turn around a suggest that the right thing to do is to run away rather than deal with aggressive behavior. Before 9/11 you could get on a plane with a box cutter. How hard do you think it would be to weaponize a camera? In this situation you have a couple of young people who won't identify themselves sticking a piece of technical equipment within 24" of your face. Maybe a good rule of thumb for self defense against potential terrorists posing as paparazzi would be that if the camera is within swatting distance, it is fair game.

[dabrockster]

I always think it is interesting when conservatives who support the right of individuals to pull out guns and blow the freaking head off of someone who brandishes a deadly weapon will then turn around a suggest that the right thing to do is to run away rather than deal with aggressive behavior. Before 9/11 you could get on a plane with a box cutter. How hard do you think it would be to weaponize a camera? In this situation you have a couple of young people who won't identify themselves sticking a piece of technical equipment within 24" of your face. Maybe a good rule of thumb for self defense against potential terrorists posing as paparazzi would be that if the camera is within swatting distance, it is fair game.

NRA Card carrying conservative.. Then you throw in 9/11.. Really Robin???

I have no problem with swatting a camera. But he didn't do just that..

[Indy Coug]

The story is classic Mountains and Molehills. Yawn.

[RobinFinderson]

NRA Card carrying conservative.. Then you throw in 9/11.. Really Robin???

I have no problem with swatting a camera. But he didn't do just that..

I'm not sure what your problem is with anything I said. My point is that pre-9/11, a box cutter might not have been considered a weapon. 9/11 changed our perception of what a weapon might be. If someone is waving a piece of 'equipment' in your face, and that person is unwilling to identify him/herself, why shouldn't the person assume that the 'equipment' might be a weapon? And until it has been determined otherwise, in the same way that a lawful gun holder might physically restrain someone showing aggressive behavior until 'hostile intent' can be determined, why doesn't that whole line of reasoning apply here?

I'm just pointing out that your line of reasoning isn't consistent. To demonstrate what I mean, if I asked you, "As a private citizen, when confronted by aggressive and potentially life-threatening behavior from a person who will not self-identify, do you have the right to physically constrain the aggressor as a matter of defense?" Which of the following answers best represents your view:

1. I would only have the right to swat away the potentially threatening weapon, but not to otherwise physically constrain the aggressive potential assailant in any other way.

2. I would have the right to remove by force any potential weapons from my personal space, and I would have the right to physically constrain the aggressive potential assailant until the arrival of authorities or until I could accurately determine the presence of 'hostile intent.'

3. I would have the right to blow the aggressive potential assailant's head off with my legally concealed weapon.

Of course all of this hinges on how a reasonable person might determine hostile intent. Two items stand out in this situation. First, the waving of equipment of undetermined purpose (possibly weaponized) in the personal space (within swatting distance/24") of the rep. Second, the failure to accurately identify credentials (name and school affiliation would have sufficed).

Anyhow, less I seem to be defending Etheridge any more than I am, I think he showed poor PR acumen, but I also think he acted within reason from the perspective of personal defense/safety.