Congressman Manhandles College Student

[CaptainChewbacca]

From Huffington Post lest I be accused of bias.

Rep. Bob Etheridge (D-N.C.) appeared unreceptive to the question of an anonymous reporter this weekend, when he grabbed the self-identified "student" after he asked the congressman if he "fully supported the Obama agenda."

In the video, the North Carolina lawmaker is seen approaching the camera, while the reporter asks, "Hi, Congressman. How are you? Do you fully support the Obama agenda?"

Etheridge appears visibly irritated and immediately asks, "who are you?" before knocking the interviewer's camera to the ground.

For those who can't see the vid, two young, slightly-douche-y guys are asking the congressman a question about his views. He grabs one by the wrist, refusing to let him go and demanding they tell him who they are. THEN, he grabs the kid by the neck and pulls him in for a weird hug/headlock hybrid before letting him go.

Is there any universe where this is NOT assault?

[Temujin]

What a reaction! He either was already having a bad day or he has serious anger management issues. I could see that reaction if the kids had ambushed him or kept pursuing him, but that was just ridiculous.

Is there any universe where this is NOT assault?

Well, if the kids want to push the issue, they could probably make his life a living hell. What's stupid is these could be Young Republican punks purposely trying to get a reaction out of him to make him look bad, and he just gave them (whoever they are) and anyone else who opposes him ammunition to use against him.

[Gerald Tarrant]

Well, if the kids want to push the issue, they could probably make his life a living hell. What's stupid is these could be Young Republican punks purposely trying to get a reaction out of him to make him look bad, and he just gave them (whoever they are) and anyone else who opposes him ammunition to use against him.

I think they may be College Republicans, certainly their questions didn't seem neutral "The Obama Agenda" is kind of a loaded term. Bringing a camera to whatever political action you intend also seems to be a sine qua non for both for activists from both sides. They were probably just hoping to get a soundbite and clip of him being an asshole. Doesn't excuse the manhandling they got, though.

[Ypoknons]

An offical apology is in order, you'd expect any politican to have more self control. Beyond that, I'm not familar with local law and standards.

[CaptainChewbacca]

An offical apology is in order, you'd expect any politican to have more self control. Beyond that, I'm not familar with local law and standards.

Well, the article link now has an update:

Rep. Bob Etheridge (D-N.C.) has apologized for his combative behavior over the weekend in a statement released by his office:

"I deeply and profoundly regret my reaction and I apologize to all involved," Etheridge said. "Throughout my many years of service to the people of North Carolina, I have always tried to treat people from all viewpoints with respect. No matter how intrusive and partisan our politics can become, this does not justify a poor response. I have and I will always work to promote a civil public discourse."

Now... will it be enough?

[Ryan Thunder]

I doubt it.

[Master of Ossus]

What a reaction! He either was already having a bad day or he has serious anger management issues. I could see that reaction if the kids had ambushed him or kept pursuing him, but that was just ridiculous.

He seemed pretty ticked off even when he was walking over and before they said anything--look at his face and his walking gait. His reaction was pretty ridiculous, though.

Is there any universe where this is NOT assault?

Well, if the kids want to push the issue, they could probably make his life a living hell. What's stupid is these could be Young Republican punks purposely trying to get a reaction out of him to make him look bad, and he just gave them (whoever they are) and anyone else who opposes him ammunition to use against him.

I don't know. Even if you're trying to get a reaction out of people, having a bad day shouldn't make it that easy. What he did was assault and battery, though, and he really should be charged for it.

[Gil Hamilton]

Charged for it? He gave those kids their fifteen minutes. They should probably write him a "thank you" card for giving them exactly the sort of reaction they set out to video tape, where he was unambiguously aggressive without actually hurting them in any way. Now they can go on to be smug pricks on talk radio for a while and go back to high fiving their university's conservative club, while other dudes hit up the AV cage to rent a camera so they, too, can be slapped around by Congressman Whatshisface.

[CaptainChewbacca]

So far the kids faces are blurred in every version of the video and nobody's come forward to claim the identity. I don't think they're looking for fame.

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

Assault and battery my ass. That congressman could have handled things more professionally, true, and I don't particularly support what he did, but I can't condemn it, either. Those punks provoked it by the looks of it, and they weren't hurt. If the congressman had actually swung at them or something, then yeah that would be a problem, but he didn't.

Aiming a camera at someone and saying "Hi!" is a lot more aggressive than it sounds, especially in the context of that situation -- that was not a news crew; they had the demeanor more of paparazzi. The camera also got pretty damn close to the congressman, though whose fault that is isn't very clear. Coupled with coming out swinging immediately with a question like "Do you support the Obama Agenda?" screams "hit job". Note that they never gave their names (as far as I can tell) -- they simply reply with the ambiguous "we're just students!" in a sort of "who, me?" response. All professional reporters actually give their names when they ambush someone (e.g., "Hi, I'm Bob Smith from Channel 7 News, do you have a moment to answer a few questions...?" and even that can be considered pretty rude in some situations).

Go around poking people with toothpicks often enough and eventually one of them is just going to deck you instead of telling you to buzz off.

Furthermore, a camera can distort the perception of events pretty damn drastically, even without malicious or dishonest editing (which may also be the case here), which is another factor to take into consideration.

[D.Turtle]

It doesn't seem strongly edited. Theres a short fade-out/fade-in right at the beginning, but no time passes, as can be seen by the car in the background.

Then there is a short cut right after the Congressman pushes the camera out of the way at 0:16 in the video. However there is at most only a few seconds missing, as at 0:37 you can see a woman in red pass by who was in the background at the beginning of the video.

Needless to say, the reaction of the Congressman was overblown.

[gizmojumpjet]

Assault and battery my ass. That congressman could have handled things more professionally, true, and I don't particularly support what he did, but I can't condemn it, either. Those punks provoked it by the looks of it, and they weren't hurt. If the congressman had actually swung at them or something, then yeah that would be a problem, but he didn't.

Aiming a camera at someone and saying "Hi!" is a lot more aggressive than it sounds, especially in the context of that situation -- that was not a news crew; they had the demeanor more of paparazzi. The camera also got pretty damn close to the congressman, though whose fault that is isn't very clear. Coupled with coming out swinging immediately with a question like "Do you support the Obama Agenda?" screams "hit job". Note that they never gave their names (as far as I can tell) -- they simply reply with the ambiguous "we're just students!" in a sort of "who, me?" response. All professional reporters actually give their names when they ambush someone (e.g., "Hi, I'm Bob Smith from Channel 7 News, do you have a moment to answer a few questions...?" and even that can be considered pretty rude in some situations).

Go around poking people with toothpicks often enough and eventually one of them is just going to deck you instead of telling you to buzz off.

There's a term for what you're doing. It's called "blaming the victim".

[Akhlut]

I understand that the congressman was pissed, but his reaction was completely and utterly wrong. A quick "tell me who you are or I'm not saying a word" would have been a lot better, as opposed to dealing with the fallout of this.

As far as charging him goes: congressmen have special legal immunity relating to being in, going to, and coming from sessions of Congress.

From the US Constitution: "They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."

So, it really depends on whether this would be considered a felony where he was at or just a misdemeanor or other, lesser offense. If so, then he can't be charged.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Assault and battery my ass. That congressman could have handled things more professionally, true, and I don't particularly support what he did, but I can't condemn it, either. Those punks provoked it by the looks of it, and they weren't hurt. If the congressman had actually swung at them or something, then yeah that would be a problem, but he didn't.

Aiming a camera at someone and saying "Hi!" is a lot more aggressive than it sounds, especially in the context of that situation -- that was not a news crew; they had the demeanor more of paparazzi. The camera also got pretty damn close to the congressman, though whose fault that is isn't very clear. Coupled with coming out swinging immediately with a question like "Do you support the Obama Agenda?" screams "hit job". Note that they never gave their names (as far as I can tell) -- they simply reply with the ambiguous "we're just students!" in a sort of "who, me?" response. All professional reporters actually give their names when they ambush someone (e.g., "Hi, I'm Bob Smith from Channel 7 News, do you have a moment to answer a few questions...?" and even that can be considered pretty rude in some situations).

Go around poking people with toothpicks often enough and eventually one of them is just going to deck you instead of telling you to buzz off.

There's a term for what you're doing. It's called "blaming the victim".

No, he isn't doing that. He's explaining that sometimes the victim can be an instigator. If you follow someone around being annoying with the intention of getting them to lose their temper then you do share in the blame if that happens.

[Kane Starkiller]

Goddamn right. The slut had it coming, walking around in that miniskirt smiling at me. Can't walk around a man dressed like that get into his face and expect nothing will happen.

[gizmojumpjet]

No, he isn't doing that. He's explaining that sometimes the victim can be an instigator. If you follow someone around being annoying with the intention of getting them to lose their temper then you do share in the blame if that happens.

Nope, sorry, asking politicians questions, even uncomfortable ones, can't be considered an instigation to violence by any reasonable person.

[Master of Ossus]

Assault and battery my ass. That congressman could have handled things more professionally, true, and I don't particularly support what he did, but I can't condemn it, either. Those punks provoked it by the looks of it, and they weren't hurt. If the congressman had actually swung at them or something, then yeah that would be a problem, but he didn't.

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?

Aiming a camera at someone and saying "Hi!" is a lot more aggressive than it sounds, especially in the context of that situation -- that was not a news crew; they had the demeanor more of paparazzi.

They never used force against him.

The camera also got pretty damn close to the congressman, though whose fault that is isn't very clear. Coupled with coming out swinging immediately with a question like "Do you support the Obama Agenda?" screams "hit job". Note that they never gave their names (as far as I can tell) -- they simply reply with the ambiguous "we're just students!" in a sort of "who, me?" response. All professional reporters actually give their names when they ambush someone (e.g., "Hi, I'm Bob Smith from Channel 7 News, do you have a moment to answer a few questions...?" and even that can be considered pretty rude in some situations).

Go around poking people with toothpicks often enough and eventually one of them is just going to deck you instead of telling you to buzz off.

And that person will be guilty of assault and battery.

Furthermore, a camera can distort the perception of events pretty damn drastically, even without malicious or dishonest editing (which may also be the case here), which is another factor to take into consideration.

Can you possibly blame the victim any more?

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

That poor baby! Why, his wrist might be sore!

If the congressman had actually hurt the two then I wouldn't be "blaming the victim" ( ). Since he obviously did not hurt them (I've sustained worse injuries fooling around with my little brother, for Christ's sake), just what is the problem here, beyond unprofessionalism (which is a valid complaint)? I'd like to expect a little better from my congresscritters, but that doesn't make this situation criminal.

Funny anecdote; I was actually on a criminal assault jury. The supposed "victim" pressed charges against someone who gave him a bloody nose (figuratively and literally) during a scuffle. But we had no choice but to find the defendant not guilty on both charges of assault (including the lesser, minor charge) because no crime was committed. It was two morons who had some disagreement over something and one of them came out of it a little roughed up. (And before I'm accused of blaming this victim too, I'd initially voted guilty on the lesser charge along with about half the jury)

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

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?

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.

They never used force against him.

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.

And that person will be guilty of assault and battery.

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

Can you possibly blame the victim any more?

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

[Gil Hamilton]

So far the kids faces are blurred in every version of the video and nobody's come forward to claim the identity. I don't think they're looking for fame.

Out of curiosity, who do you think walks up to a congressman with a video camera and then starts acting obnoxious to him that isn't looking for it to become an embarrassing incident that they can cash in on? Further, do you think journalists are going to get in a congresscritters face and use the phrase "the Obama Agenda", rather than actually ask a specific policy question ("Do you support Obama on Healthcare?" for example). If you think these guys weren't looking to make an embarrassing video, I've got a beach in Tucson for you. Fortunately for them, the Congresscritter delivered in spades.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Goddamn right. The slut had it coming, walking around in that miniskirt smiling at me. Can't walk around a man dressed like that get into his face and expect nothing will happen.

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

[Kamakazie Sith]

No, he isn't doing that. He's explaining that sometimes the victim can be an instigator. If you follow someone around being annoying with the intention of getting them to lose their temper then you do share in the blame if that happens.

Nope, sorry, asking politicians questions, even uncomfortable ones, can't be considered an instigation to violence by any reasonable person.

How about if you follow him around everywhere and when he asks you to leave him alone you continue to follow him around everywhere. He may be a politician, but even a journalist doesn't have a right to harass.

Now, I'm not saying that went on here at all. I am saying that we don't know the whole story and even if the above is what happened it still doesn't justify physical violence. However, it makes it understandable.

Because people are using grossly out of context examples I shall use one. The father of a dead child killing the person who murdered their child.

[Akhlut]

Goddamn right. The slut had it coming, walking around in that miniskirt smiling at me. Can't walk around a man dressed like that get into his face and expect nothing will happen.

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

[Crossroads Inc.]

You know, I won't defend the assholes in this, because they did provoke him and they did act like assholes and its rather blatant they wanted to get a reaction. What is really shameful here is that the congressman lost it so dramatically.

I don't care who is provoking you or what they said, if your a political figure you should have better hold on your emotions then this.

It is rather obvious these kids are republicans out to get a rise out of a Southern Democrat, but the way he responded is what is really indefensible. Again I think the kids were assholes, but that doesn't mean you can smack them around, you might WANT to, lord knows I'd want to. But knowing we live in the age of the internet where a vid can be seen by 2 million people in a day, I'd really REALLY try and hold back.

This guy should have ignored them for as long as he could, and if they follow him non stop he can call the cops on them for harassment.

[Kane Starkiller]

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".

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.