What is with these stupid kids pissing off congressmen!

[ProgressiveVictory]

I say Rep.Etheridge did not do anything wrong!

[AngryAmish]

1. He should have taken a steaming dump on them.

[emilyg]

30. I don't agree with you at all. What

hell is wrong with him?

[Angry Dragon]

2. Then you would be wrong in my opinion

[ProgressiveVictory]

3. Im sorry.

[Angry Dragon]

11. Nothing to be sorry about

You are entitled to your opinion

He never should have touched or grabbed the person

[ProgressiveVictory]

12. He probably shouldn't have but when you have stupid ( probably tea bag kids) wanting

their 15 min, your skin wears thin.

[Atlatl]

4. If Rand Paul did the same thing...

to an African-American with a camera would you feel the same way?

[ProgressiveVictory]

6. I dont believe Rand would be able to be as nice as rep Etheridge

[mmonk]

7. Why African American?

[KurtNYC]

8. It doesn't take 2 ambush cameras and editing to make Rand Paul

look bad.

[Marr]

22. Would you...?

Let's be honest-- people often excuse their own team when they break the rules. Right-wingers do it much more easily, and it's one of their biggest strengths. If they were half as willing to hold their leaders to the same standards they hold up for the opposition, as you see so regularly on the left, they'd be an impotent minority.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

5. So physical assault is okay by you?

He could have handled any number of better ways. Even he has issued a very deep apology.

[ProgressiveVictory]

9. Yes he could have, but i don't think that was physical assault.

Do you think the student could sue Rep. Etheridge and win because of this assault?

[Angry Dragon]

13. He has made himself a public figure

He could have kept walking, he could have stopped and answered the question. We do have a right o question elected public people.

Would you have the right to knock a camera/phone away, grab a arm, put your hand on the back of their neck. You would be arrested for assault.

[ProgressiveVictory]

14. I guess you are right... Why would he not just answer the question.

Yes I support the Obama agenda. Simple and walk away.

[AlinPA]

16. I question whether it is a right to jam a camera into anyone's face.

Paparazzi do it all the time, but IMO, that's not a right.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

36. So does Micheal Moore and 60 Minutes. Are you willing to throw them under the bus?

[cherokeeprogressive]

15. You're quite right. It wasn't assault.

It was battery.

Assault is an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact. If I think you are going to hit me, that's assault.

Battery is an intentional unpermitted act causing harmful or offensive contact with the "person" of another. If you touch me in an unpermitted or offensive way, that's battery.

It was battery, and I won't excuse it just because he's a Democrat. I think he should be charged with battery, and let the legal system do with him the same thing it would have had it been you or me in his shoes.

Apparently, he's a stupid fuck with little or no self-control. You could get in my face and tell me my dead Grandmother masturbated with a cross while speaking in tongues and I wouldn't lay a hand on you. In fact, I'd be laughing, and the harder you tried to goad me into something, the harder I'd laugh.

He's an ass and if he laid a finger on me, for any reason, I'd sue him out of his shoes.

[Zavulon]

23. +1.

I'm not accepting the "cover our boss's ass" apology his staffers whipped up for him, either.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

34. As I understand it, the definition is different is some jurisdictions

However you point is well taken, the crime was the grabbing etc.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

24. I think its a prima facie case for assault

However, I do not expect him to be prosecuted. I do expect some level of censure and it will impact his election. Its was extremely dumb to the point where any adult should question his judgment. His George Allen moment in many ways.

[lumberjack_jeff]

10. Funny. It looks like Bob Beaudelang changed parties. n/t

[Jamastiene]

17. GET THE HELL OFF MY LAWN, YOU ANNOYING KIDS!!!

:rofl:

[hedgehog]

18. It looks like it dawned on him that he was being set up,

and he wanted those kids to identify themselves instead of running off.

[Warren Stupidity]

19. We will participate as useful idiots in another Breitbart scam.

[customerserviceguy]

21. Only Etheridge 'participated' initially

All those who approve of his actions do so with enough time to think about it.

[KurtNYC]

28. Like moths to the flame...

and this "project" got pick up in a blog on the NYT website. The meat of which is:

The apology came after images of the incident spread across the Internet.
...
The young man is not identified in the video, which was made last week. A second person accompanying him pulled out another camera to record the congressman’s actions. The video received widespread attention on Monday after it was posted on the Web site of Andrew Breitbart, a conservative Web publisher and former editor of The Drudge Report. It was circulated by the National Republican Congressional Committee.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/etheridge-caught-on-video-apologizes/

Ugh.

[customerserviceguy]

20. I seem to remember a lot of kids pissing off Congressmen

back in the 1960's. The issues were civil rights and the Vietnam War. Were they wrong, too?

[WillowTree]

25. Oh puh-leeze. They asked him a simple question...

....and he had no way of knowing what answer they were looking for. The question was sufficiently ambiguous that it could have gone either way.

Fact is, there's no law against asking someone a question or photographing them in public places. If there was, every paparazzo in the country would spend half their time in jail.

And there's also no law that says that those kids, whoever they were and whatever their agenda was, had to tell the Congressman their names.

There's also no law that said that Congressman Etheridge had to answer their question or acknowledge them in any way. He could have answered them or he could have walked away without saying a word.

What he can't do is put his hands on them, particularly in the aggressive manner that he did, just because they pointed their cell phones at him and asked a question.

If Karl Rove had behaved in exactly the same manner under exactly the same circumstances, everyone on this board would be calling for his head and they'd be right. It's no more acceptable because this jerk happens to have a D after his name. None.

[emilyg]

31. +1

[bullwinkle428]

26. Anyone recall that little piece that Olbermann did a couple of years back,

where he gave "instructions" on how to best handle one of these "ambush journalism" attacks? He was referring at the time to that little prick "Jesse", who was part of O'Reilly's flying monkey brigade. He gave a few examples of the absolute WRONG way to handle it, including one scenario in which he behaved almost exactly the way Etheridge did!

For the record, he showed the best way to handle it, in which he answered the hypothetical punk's questions with references to Andrea Mackris, a loofah, and a falafel, thus ensuring that O'Reilly would not air the footage even if he was waterboarded!! :rofl:

[liquid diamond]

27. At least he didn't slap that little punk around. lol.

That kid shit his pants.

[donheld]

29. If you don't think Assault & Battery is wrong

then he did no wrong. :eyes:

[pecwae]

32. Yeah, those Kent State kids

should never have pissed off the National Guard troops either. They're all just asking for it!!! Oh, and eleventys!!!!

[Codeine]

33. Then you're an idiot.

You don't get to manhandle people in the street for asking questions, even if you're a congressman.

[HooptieWagon]

35. Not only was Etheridge wrong, he responded exactly as the kids hoped.

apparently this is a new game in the Young Republican circles, ambush a Dem politician and hope to catch them on film over-reacting. The answer is quite simple, really - either stop and answer their question, or simply walk past them. Why give them ammunition?