Congressman Manhandles College Student

[Master of Ossus]

No. I am not. In fact, I thought I was pretty clear when I said, "That congressman could have handled things more professionally, true, and I don't particularly support what he did". But of course I'm arguing on SDnet, silly me, where we concoct ridiculous caricatures of each others' arguments in order to score Macho Internet Points.

But you wouldn't say that a congressman or politician who did respond in such a manner would be guilty of assault and battery.

That's irrelevant. If a Westboro Baptist walks up to a friend of a deceased gay soldier and says "Your friend is burning in hell for being a fag!", that friend may very likely be provoked into giving that Westboro Baptist a bloody nose. Most assault laws take this into consideration; though I don't know if Washington D.C.'s specifically does. Obviously, that isn't what happened here, but all I'm doing is establishing that use of force is not a requirement for responding with it legitimately.

No, they don't. They take consent into account. Consent is not the same thing as vague "provocation." Battery in the US is just a volitional act that causes a harmful or offensive contact with the plaintiff/victim's body.

Very unlikely, because again (and as Kamakazie pointed out), provocation is a component to assault laws.

Prove it. Find a single god-damned statute that includes "provocation" as a component to assault laws. You won't find it. "Consent" is a defense to almost all tortious or criminal conduct, but what these kids did was obviously not consenting to the offensive contact perpetrated by the congressman.

Reached your Macho Internet Point quota for today yet? Or do you need to score more still?

Apparently I haven't made my point sufficiently clear: you don't know the law, but you assume that you do, and your erroneous and ignorant beliefs are leading you to an inaccurate conclusion about the situation.

[Gil Hamilton]

So what you're saying is that politicians should feel free to respond to Michael Moore and Sacha Cohen by pushing their cameras out of the way, grabbing them, and forcibly detaining them?

Knowing Michael Moore or Sacha Cohen? Doing that would probably make their day and definitely make it into the film.

They never used force against him.

But they were looking to instigate a confrontation. Given that this is exactly the sort of response they were hoping to get, they share responsibility, as Kamikaze Sith says above.

And that person will be guilty of assault and battery.

Actually, unless they verbally abuse them, it's just "battery". Secondly, instigation absolutely DOES mitigate the severity of the crime. If the Congressdude randomly shook the shit out of some woman on the street because he was in a bad mood, it really is entirely different than some bozos with an agenda doing the paparazzi equivalent of holding their finger a centimeter from his forehead and going "I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you!".

Can you possibly blame the victim any more?

Can you be so media non-savvy that you actually think these guys were legit journalists looking to ask and receive an answer on a serious, specific policy question? This isn't about "blaming the victim", this is more a lack of sympathy for jackasses who weren't hurt and will likely benefit from this significantly. Further, it's bizarre to me that you are throwing out a phrase that people normally use in the context of women being raped, as if there was any equivalence. Congratulations, you're that douchebag. Maybe you can in addition to implicitly comparing the guys in the video to rape victims you can call the Congresscritter a "Nazi", pull a Godwin's Law, and pick up the spare.

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

Prove it. Find a single god-damned statute that includes "provocation" as a component to assault laws. You won't find it. "Consent" is a defense to almost all tortious or criminal conduct, but what these kids did was obviously not consenting to the offensive contact perpetrated by the congressman.

Here. Colorado law, since that's just what I'm most familiar with. Excerpt from 2nd degree felony assault:
http://www.michie.com/colorado/lpext.dl ... -h.htm&cp=

(2) (a) If assault in the second degree is committed under circumstances where the act causing the injury is performed upon a sudden heat of passion, caused by a serious and highly provoking act of the intended victim, affecting the person causing the injury sufficiently to excite an irresistible passion in a reasonable person, and without an interval between the provocation and the injury sufficient for the voice of reason and humanity to be heard, it is a class 6 felony.

[Master of Ossus]

Knowing Michael Moore or Sacha Cohen? Doing that would probably make their day and definitely make it into the film.

It would also qualify as assault and battery.

But they were looking to instigate a confrontation. Given that this is exactly the sort of response they were hoping to get, they share responsibility, as Kamikaze Sith says above.

Approaching someone with a camera and asking questions, even aggressively, is not "looking to instigate a confrontation." But even if it were, so what? That doesn't mean that the person isn't guilty of assault and battery.

Secondly, instigation absolutely DOES mitigate the severity of the crime. If the Congressdude randomly shook the shit out of some woman on the street because he was in a bad mood, it really is entirely different than some bozos with an agenda doing the paparazzi equivalent of holding their finger a centimeter from his forehead and going "I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you!".

It might mitigate his sentence, but not his legal culpability for battering that kid.

Can you be so media non-savvy that you actually think these guys were legit journalists looking to ask and receive an answer on a serious, specific policy question?

Does it matter? I hadn't realized that we only extend assault and battery laws to protect journalists.

This isn't about "blaming the victim", this is more a lack of sympathy for jackasses who weren't hurt and will likely benefit from this significantly. Further, it's bizarre to me that you are throwing out a phrase that people normally use in the context of women being raped, as if there was any equivalence. Congratulations, you're that douchebag. Maybe you can in addition to implicitly comparing the guys in the video to rape victims you can call the Congresscritter a "Nazi", pull a Godwin's Law, and pick up the spare.

I'm sorry, I should have used the phrase, "You are purposely demonizing the victims specifically in an effort to excuse or partially excuse the perpetrator's criminal behavior towards that victim."

[Master of Ossus]

Here. Colorado law, since that's just what I'm most familiar with. Excerpt from 2nd degree felony assault:
http://www.michie.com/colorado/lpext.dl ... -h.htm&cp=

(2) (a) If assault in the second degree is committed under circumstances where the act causing the injury is performed upon a sudden heat of passion, caused by a serious and highly provoking act of the intended victim, affecting the person causing the injury sufficiently to excite an irresistible passion in a reasonable person, and without an interval between the provocation and the injury sufficient for the voice of reason and humanity to be heard, it is a class 6 felony.

Conceded. That would take his conduct to the realm of a class 6 felony. The argument was obviously about whether it was a defense, though.

[RogueIce]

Here. Colorado law, since that's just what I'm most familiar with. Excerpt from 2nd degree felony assault:
http://www.michie.com/colorado/lpext.dl ... -h.htm&cp=

(2) (a) If assault in the second degree is committed under circumstances where the act causing the injury is performed upon a sudden heat of passion, caused by a serious and highly provoking act of the intended victim, affecting the person causing the injury sufficiently to excite an irresistible passion in a reasonable person, and without an interval between the provocation and the injury sufficient for the voice of reason and humanity to be heard, it is a class 6 felony.

Conceded. That would take his conduct to the realm of a class 6 felony. The argument was obviously about whether it was a defense, though.

That doesn't appear to apply in DC, though:

Link

You can look at the various types of assault there, though "22-403. Assault with intent to commit any other offense" seems like it would fit. You can look at all the various aspects of the DC criminal code here.

[Themightytom]

Of course, that's not what we're talking about. Though continue with your amusing exaggerations.

That's exactly what you were talking about with your "sometimes victim is the instigator" line. There was absolutely no justification for the congressman to resort to physical force because someone asked him about "Obama agenda".

Are you NUTS??? If I was a Democrat the instant I heard "Obama Agenda" I'd be hitting the deck and calling for back up, let alone a democrat in public office. You don't call criticizing an impromptu response by a congressman getting ambushed by two random douche bags on the st, and having his awkward defensive reaction being put up on Youtube, blaming the victim?? You must have been furious that princess Di was speeding. nothing about this process was professional, the response can't be expected to be professional, the exchange wasn't there, the rules weren't being followed.

Etherige was NOT hostile at first, he responded to the "hi Congressman" greeting, it was when they insisted on getting his attention with the "how are you" comment that he started to get defensive, because he obviously didn't want to be bothered, and he wasn't prepared to make any comments. When they started trotting out the old "Obama Agenda" chestnut, he immediately became concerned with "Who are these people taking my picture. He grabbed the kids wrist because he wasn't fast enough to grab the cell phone, how does he know what is being texted, where is image is being sent? That was a narrow sidewalk and those two were right in his face. he never said anything threatening, he didn't go "berserk" he just asked who they were. When he recognized the situation was deteriorating and realized those two smug assholes had taken what he thought was a threatening situation and turned it around om him so that he looked threatening he got justifiably frustrated. That little hug was a physical communication of "Alright you little fucker, I'm not gonna hurt you but I'll let you go.

Were you WATCHING the video or is this a deliberate straw man, he didn't use force "Because they said Obama Agenda" he used force because two guys were in his face waving cameras and cell phones, and wouldn't identify themselves.

This coupled with standard rhetoric uttered by little ideological stormtroopers suggests a potential physical threat.

Moreover their actions represented an implied personal threat, and the same hardware is activated by both.
Just harmless students? Right, because students like to dress up and ambush congress men and not give their names, just like students didn't just do a bullshit sting operation on Acorn last year. Does it occur to you that a professional politician might be alarmed when this kind off thing happens because they could see careers they worked their lives to achieve and have invested their entire identities into end in a slew of mocking internet videos?

If you're a little five foot republican leprechaun maybe you shouldn't trigger the fight or flight response of someone larger than you?

Not really comparable: this comparison would be more apt if the congressman stabbed the kid in the chest for his questions.

I never specified the woman in the analogy was raped. If I simply tapped her on the ass there would still be absolutely no justification and would still be a case for sexual harassment. Especially if I happened to be a high ranking politician.

[/quote]

Wow convenient that you didn't elaborate your case in the first place, so that you could slip in a more innocuous meaning if necessary...

[Coyote]

When I ran for office, I went through the Wellstone Action program to get people prepared for political life. Part of the program is where they bring in some people to be "reporters" at a press conference you're holding as a candidate/office holder. The reporter role-players do everything they can to knock you off your balance, talk all at once, shout out questions, twist your meanings, apply politically loaded assumptions to anything you say, etc. If you say "the sky is blue" then they'll say, "does that mean you dislike the color red!?" Anything to rattle your cage and get you off your game to see a meltdown. Once you wilt, they've got you.

That said, this politician has got to know that being a politician is a very public life. You have to be aware that at any time, all the time, someone will ask you questions, that those questions will be annoying or stupid, and at any time they may well be "traps" from the "other side" to "get" you. It is part of the territory.

If he can't handle the heat, he should get out of the kitchen.

[Gil Hamilton]

It would also qualify as assault and battery.

It would never end up in court, so it certainly would NOT be. That is the sort of thing that Moore and Cohen are out to capture. They'd be too busy editting their documentary with a shit eating grin a piece to actually prosecute anything, unless the person actually did some real harm to them.

Approaching someone with a camera and asking questions, even aggressively, is not "looking to instigate a confrontation." But even if it were, so what? That doesn't mean that the person isn't guilty of assault and battery.

So you are stating that you don't believe these guys were attempting to instigate embarrassing behavior? The "so what" is that if you go out to pick a fight, you are a responsible party, not a victim, even if you didn't take the first swing or any swing.

It might mitigate his sentence, but not his legal culpability for battering that kid.

See above.

Does it matter? I hadn't realized that we only extend assault and battery laws to protect journalists.

Of course it matters. If they are going out to instigate an incident, if they actually succeed, they are partially responsible. The congresscritter shouldn't have grabbed them, absolutely, I agree with you. However, this is an entirely different kettle of fish than what you are making it sound like.

I'm sorry, I should have used the phrase, "You are purposely demonizing the victims specifically in an effort to excuse or partially excuse the perpetrator's criminal behavior towards that victim."

I'm not "demonizing" anyone, since that implies that I'm lying about them in order to make them look bad. List anything dishonest I've said about the instigators and I'll gladly retract. These guys aren't "victims", in fact, I'm struggling to see where they were actively harmed by the incident. Rape victims are actively harmed by both the encounter and when jackasses imply that they deserved it. These guys? Not so much.

By the way, where the hell were you when there was that thread about Buzz Aldrin decking that "moon landing was faked" guy who was stalking him? Oh wait, you responded in that thread with:

How many of those morons are there? I thought they had died out with the USSR.

In any case, I also heard that it was not the first time he had gotten in Aldrin's face. What a dope.

Shouldn't you have been crying there too about how Buzz Aldrin viciously battered the clown in question and no matter how much the guy deserved it, Buzz was out of line. That guy did was just being obnoxious too, and Buzz laid him out. Why weren't you demanding that Buzz Aldrin be brought up on charges there?

[Kamakazie Sith]

[That's exactly what you were talking about with your "sometimes victim is the instigator" line. There was absolutely no justification for the congressman to resort to physical force because someone asked him about "Obama agenda".

Could you be any more black and white? Your analogy does not fit with this example.

Nobody is saying that the congressmens actions were justified. All I'm saying is that if you annoy someone and they loose their cool you share in the responsibility. I'm not saying anything more.

I never specified the woman in the analogy was raped. If I simply tapped her on the ass there would still be absolutely no justification and would still be a case for sexual harassment. Especially if I happened to be a high ranking politician.

You're correct, but again that's not what we're talking about here.

[Ryushikaze]

I'm not sure this is assault and battery. They might have a case for assault- being put in a position where they feel threatened-, but is the wrist holding sufficient for battery? Everything else seems to be fairly defensive, not aggressive, and he doesn't seem to hit them at any time as far as I can see.
In any case, even if this were taken to court, I'm not sure the Students would have a case, or if they did, much would come of it.

[CaptainChewbacca]

I'm not sure this is assault and battery. They might have a case for assault- being put in a position where they feel threatened-, but is the wrist holding sufficient for battery? Everything else seems to be fairly defensive, not aggressive, and he doesn't seem to hit them at any time as far as I can see.
In any case, even if this were taken to court, I'm not sure the Students would have a case, or if they did, much would come of it.

It's not just the wrist, he also grabs the kid by the neck and pulls him in for a moment.

[Master of Ossus]

It would never end up in court, so it certainly would NOT be. That is the sort of thing that Moore and Cohen are out to capture. They'd be too busy editting their documentary with a shit eating grin a piece to actually prosecute anything, unless the person actually did some real harm to them.

Individuals don't prosecute crimes: the people do.

So you are stating that you don't believe these guys were attempting to instigate embarrassing behavior? The "so what" is that if you go out to pick a fight, you are a responsible party, not a victim, even if you didn't take the first swing or any swing.

That's ridiculous: these guys weren't trying to instigate a fight or every journalist in the country would be getting hazard pay. They asked one question. Was it aggressive? Yeah. Can you take issue with it? Sure. That's not trying to instigate a fight.

I'm not "demonizing" anyone, since that implies that I'm lying about them in order to make them look bad. List anything dishonest I've said about the instigators and I'll gladly retract. These guys aren't "victims", in fact, I'm struggling to see where they were actively harmed by the incident. Rape victims are actively harmed by both the encounter and when jackasses imply that they deserved it. These guys? Not so much.

You've claimed repeatedly that they instigated the fight, even though their only conduct appears to have been to ask one question. In no possible universe does this conduct "instigate a fight." Moreover, they have rights to bodily integrity that he violated when he assaulted and battered them.

By the way, where the hell were you when there was that thread about Buzz Aldrin decking that "moon landing was faked" guy who was stalking him? Oh wait, you responded in that thread with:

How many of those morons are there? I thought they had died out with the USSR.

In any case, I also heard that it was not the first time he had gotten in Aldrin's face. What a dope.

Shouldn't you have been crying there too about how Buzz Aldrin viciously battered the clown in question and no matter how much the guy deserved it, Buzz was out of line. That guy did was just being obnoxious too, and Buzz laid him out. Why weren't you demanding that Buzz Aldrin be brought up on charges there?

I suppose that you got me, despite the obvious differences between the two incidents (e.g., this guy was engaged in slandering Aldrin, it was a repeated course of conduct, etc.) but realistically they should both be prosecuted for assault and battery. Moreover, I never claimed that either was a "vicious" battery. Neither of them resulted in serious injury.

[Gil Hamilton]

Individuals don't prosecute crimes: the people do.

Individuals do press charges though. You know what I meant. They'd be too busy laughing to the bank to take anyone to court and you know it. That's the whole put on ambushing someone with a camera and being obnoxious. You are trying to provoke them into doing something embarrassing on tape when they aren't at their best. Slapping the cameras out of the way and tussling with the person asking "questions" is the holy grail. I'm mystified how you can be so ridiculously media unsavvy that you think they Moore or Cohen or these guys don't want that to happen.

That's ridiculous: these guys weren't trying to instigate a fight or every journalist in the country would be getting hazard pay. They asked one question. Was it aggressive? Yeah. Can you take issue with it? Sure. That's not trying to instigate a fight.

Oh, yeah, I'm sure they were looking for a serious response to "Do you support the 'Obama Agenda'?". It's official; you are so absolutely stupid that you think these guys were actually trying to get information from the congresscritter and didn't have an agenda to videotape something embarrassing. I don't know how you could be, but your insistence that they were just there "asking a question", proves it.

I suppose that you got me, despite the obvious differences between the two incidents (e.g., this guy was engaged in slandering Aldrin, it was a repeated course of conduct, etc.) but realistically they should both be prosecuted for assault and battery. Moreover, I never claimed that either was a "vicious" battery. Neither of them resulted in serious injury.

Bullshit, you hypocrite, you aren't getting out of ths so easily. If you actually MEANT that, you'd have commented on it then. Instead, you called the guy Buzz Aldrin decked "a moron" and "a dope". You didn't even say "Yeah, the guy was a dope, but Aldrin was wrong to hit him". You didn't blame Buzz at all, or chastise ANYONE in that thread who was cheering that Aldrin punched the guy to the ground.

That guy never laid a finger on buzz and I think there were actually two incidents. One where he had some bibles and demanded Aldrin swear on them that he went to the Moon. The other he called Buzz a "coward" and a "lair". In this case or the one with Buzz, all the guys were doing were being assholes in the other guys personal space. Yet, somehow, you only started going "he should be prosecuted!" in the one where the guy happens to be a politician in the political party opposite yours. Funny how that works, huh?

No, you don't mean all this nonsense about prosecuting people for assault and battery for ANY time they swing at someone. If you meant that, you wouldn't have been a cheerleader in the Buzz Aldrin thread. You didn't have a problem then for a person taking a swing at someone for merely being an asshole to them. Now this is you just being political at someone in the other party from you, not because you care about assault and battery.

[Master of Ossus]

Individuals do press charges though. You know what I meant. They'd be too busy laughing to the bank to take anyone to court and you know it. That's the whole put on ambushing someone with a camera and being obnoxious. You are trying to provoke them into doing something embarrassing on tape when they aren't at their best. Slapping the cameras out of the way and tussling with the person asking "questions" is the holy grail. I'm mystified how you can be so ridiculously media unsavvy that you think they Moore or Cohen or these guys don't want that to happen.

Wanting something to happen is not the same thing as consent.

Oh, yeah, I'm sure they were looking for a serious response to "Do you support the 'Obama Agenda'?". It's official; you are so absolutely stupid that you think these guys were actually trying to get information from the congresscritter and didn't have an agenda to videotape something embarrassing. I don't know how you could be, but your insistence that they were just there "asking a question", proves it.

It was just a question--that doesn't give someone license to punch another person.

Bullshit, you hypocrite, you aren't getting out of ths so easily. If you actually MEANT that, you'd have commented on it then. Instead, you called the guy Buzz Aldrin decked "a moron" and "a dope". You didn't even say "Yeah, the guy was a dope, but Aldrin was wrong to hit him". You didn't blame Buzz at all, or chastise ANYONE in that thread who was cheering that Aldrin punched the guy to the ground.

That guy never laid a finger on buzz and I think there were actually two incidents. One where he had some bibles and demanded Aldrin swear on them that he went to the Moon. The other he called Buzz a "coward" and a "lair". In this case or the one with Buzz, all the guys were doing were being assholes in the other guys personal space. Yet, somehow, you only started going "he should be prosecuted!" in the one where the guy happens to be a politician in the political party opposite yours. Funny how that works, huh?

No, you don't mean all this nonsense about prosecuting people for assault and battery for ANY time they swing at someone. If you meant that, you wouldn't have been a cheerleader in the Buzz Aldrin thread. You didn't have a problem then for a person taking a swing at someone for merely being an asshole to them. Now this is you just being political at someone in the other party from you, not because you care about assault and battery.

I suppose that you're right: there is some level of provocation at which I think assault charges would be inappropriate. I just don't think that these people came anywhere close to it. Really, I'm dumbfounded that anyone could think that they did.

[Gil Hamilton]

Wanting something to happen is not the same thing as consent.

I want to frame this on the wall as an example of the tortured logic BS lawyers say. If you want something to happen, then when it DOES happen it isn't against your will. Hell, even LEGALLY you aren't even right, since "consent" actually means approval of an action. These guys, like Michael Moore or Sacha Cohen, damn well certainly do approve of when people act like violent jackasses to them on film, just so as long as they aren't actually hurt. You NEVER see these guys press charges unless they think that they can make a circus out of it, because when their targets behave like that on film, it's the damn holy grail of responses to a camera ambush.

It was just a question--that doesn't give someone license to punch another person.

A question does not, probably. However, being an obnoxious jackass in a clear camera ambush? Even YOU expressed before approval of someone punching a guy to the floor for being an obnoxious jackass, and THAT guy was very possibly mentally disturbed (you kind of have to be, if you make it a personal mission to stalk an ex-astronaut because you think the Apollo missions were a government conspiracy). THESE guys in the OP knew full well what they were doing and you know full well weren't going to stop if the congressman just ignored them. Yeah, getting violent with them was the wrong move, but the congressman is more guity of rampant stupidity than a crime. However, if you don't think that Buzz Aldrin deserves to go to court (let's be honest here, you probably don't) for punching someone who probably wasn't all there to begin with, I can't imagine why you think this guy does for being aggressive with people who were there trying to provoke a confrontation on film.

I suppose that you're right: there is some level of provocation at which I think assault charges would be inappropriate. I just don't think that these people came anywhere close to it. Really, I'm dumbfounded that anyone could think that they did.

The guy Buzz Aldrin punched may well have had actual mental problems, leading to him becoming obsessed with Aldrin as a symbol for a government conspiracy where the Apollo missions never happened and the whole thing was faked in a movie studio! That you give your approval to. Beating down the crazy guy for ultimately being obnoxious over the course of possibly being delusional. Or as you so concisely put it, him being a "dope" or "moron".

Yet here, you are suddenly talking about prosecuting a guy for being violent toward people who were being every bit as obnoxious and invasive of the person's personal space, even though those people were in full control of their faculties and you even admit WANTED a confrontation to happen!

What I'm dumbfounded on is your severe hypocrisy in this. You are on record as approving of battery on a crazy person, calling the person being hit a "moron" and a "dope", yet want to prosecute someone for responding about the same to people who were no less being jackasses, but this time doing it very deliberately. Way to go.

[Ford Prefect]

I have to admit I got a laugh out of how hard the kid was shitting his pants when Etheridge grabbed him. I distinctly get the impression they weren't expecting his reaction to be KUNG FU GRIP.

[Ryushikaze]

I'm not sure this is assault and battery. They might have a case for assault- being put in a position where they feel threatened-, but is the wrist holding sufficient for battery? Everything else seems to be fairly defensive, not aggressive, and he doesn't seem to hit them at any time as far as I can see.
In any case, even if this were taken to court, I'm not sure the Students would have a case, or if they did, much would come of it.

It's not just the wrist, he also grabs the kid by the neck and pulls him in for a moment.

I missed the neck grab, and the holding in close is closer to unlawful detainment, IMO, and he lets the kid go fairly quickly.
In any case, they might be able to get the case through, but it really depends on A: If they press charges or sue civilly B: if civil, they do not settle out of court, and C: If the judge decides if the case has merit.