Dem. Rep. Bob Etheridge should be arrested for assault

[Ben]

YouTube- Congressman Assaults Student on Washington Sidewalk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v60oNUoHBYM&feature=player_embedded)

[Ben]

Rep. Bob Etheridge should be arrested for assault (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/06/14/law/index.html)

By Glenn Greenwald
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/06/14/law/md_horiz.jpg Rep. Bob Etheridge

(updated below - Update II)
Rep. Bob Etheridge (D-NC) was walking on a public sidewalk last week when he was politely asked a question by someone holding a camera, and this is what happened:




Continue reading (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/06/14/law/index.html)


That's a clear case of assault and battery (the unedited video from the first camera is here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZKie0Z4kaw&feature=player_embedded)). There is some speculation that the individuals questioning him have some connection to the right-wing organization of Andrew Breitbart (http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0610/Breitbart_strikes_again_Catches_lawmaker_assault_o n_cameraman.html). I hope it goes without saying how irrelevant that is. The only reason I think this is worth noting is this: imagine what would have happened to those students if this situation had been reversed, and it was they who had physically assaulted Rep. Etheridge, rather than the other way around. How quickly would they have been arrested and prosecuted? The application of our laws isn't supposed to depend upon who is perpetrating the crime and who the victim is. Obviously, there are few principles, if there are any, more discarded (http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/07/09/2027248) than that one (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/12/us/politics/12inquire.html) in Washington, but it would be nice to see its being applied in this instance by having this Congressman, obviously inebriated with an extreme sense of entitlement, arrested and charged.

UPDATE: In response to the emergence of this video, Etheridge's office has released this statement (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/06/14/etheridge_releases_statement/index.html):

I have seen the video posted on several blogs. I deeply and profoundly regret my reaction and I apologize to all involved. 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.
That's nice. Of course, most people who commit crimes express regret once they get caught (especially on video) and it becomes a scandal, so it doesn't affect the point that he ought to be treated exactly the same way as these individuals would have been had they physically assault him.

UPDATE II: Given that this was a Democratic Congressman assaulting citizens who are perceived to be right-wing, I obviously knew that some people would rush to justify what he did; that's part of the reason I posted this. But even I'm surprised by the extent of the eagerness to defend a clearly illegal and indefensible assault based on the political ideologies of those involved (just check the comment section for how extreme that mentality is, and I've seen it elsewhere). Some are honest enough to admit that because the victims here were right-wing advocates, they should be presumed to have provoked this and got what they deserved (who knew that the law of assault depends upon the political affiliation of aggressor and victim?), while others -- amazingly -- continue to fantasize about all sorts of events that they claim probably happened off camera to mitigate or justify the Congressman's actions, even though: (a) I linked to the unedited video above which shows that no such thing happened and (b) Rep. Etheridge has now issued a statement and not even he claims there were any such mitigating or justifying events that were concealed as a result of dishonest video editing. But still, the claim persists.
Some people obviously cannot accept that a Good Democrat could possibly do something bad to a conservative, and they'll continue to deny reality -- or just invent realities that don't exist -- to justify that. This is not a hard case. As Pam Spaulding said (http://twitter.com/Pam_Spaulding/status/16164409449): "Sad that personal responsibility for being a violent hothead now comes with mitigation talking points. Dems need to quit it." Tribalism is a natural part of the human perspective, but it's amazing when even incidents as relatively trivial and clear-cut as this one are processed through its distorting lens. Do you think any Democrats defending Etheridge -- or most conservatives criticizing him -- would be doing so if he were a right-wing GOP Congressman from North Carolina who assaulted nice liberal students questioning him on a public sidewalk about his conservative views?

[trish]

In the words of Sundance Kid, "Who are those guys?"

[Ben]

As Glenn Greenwald notes (blog above): "There is some speculation that the individuals questioning him have some connection to the right-wing organization of Andrew Breitbart (http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0610/Breitbart_strikes_again_Catches_lawmaker_assault_o n_cameraman.html). I hope it goes without saying how irrelevant that is. The only reason I think this is worth noting is this: imagine what would have happened to those students if this situation had been reversed, and it was they who had physically assaulted Rep. Etheridge, rather than the other way around. How quickly would they have been arrested and prosecuted? The application of our laws isn't supposed to depend upon who is perpetrating the crime and who the victim is."

[trish]

Yeah it's irrelevant to why the sky is blue. But I want to know who they are? Why they shoved a phone camera in his face and why they blurred their own faces in the video?

[onmyknees]

[Yeah it's irrelevant to why the sky is blue. But I want to know who they are? Why they shoved a phone camera in his face and why they blurred their own faces in the video?

Hey...let me take a wild guess............this redneck asshole has a "D" next to his name?? If he didn't you can bet that money you were going to use to go see that Eros escort that Tish would rip him a new asshole if he was an "R"...Man Tish...what else do you need to know????? He put his hands around the neck of a college kid with a camera. Unlesss they edited the tape...he should be arrested. The only thing I would love more than a date with Morgan Bailey is for this guy to have put his hands on me....I would have dropped his sorry old democratic ass right there on the sidewalk and been justified in doing so. Were those kids provoking him??....it's irrelevent...deal with it. The guy needs to go.....

[trish]

Hey, I'm just asking questions. Who are those guys? Was it really a student project? Why did they edit out their faces? Why did they put a camera in a Congressman's face? Did they "interview anyone else? Any republicans? Why don't we see the Congressman's arm reaching out for the camera held by the unseen "student"? Was that edited out? Curious minds want to know the relevant facts (as you point out, editing is relevant).

[dave252]

It doesnt matter who they are affiliated with, why they are questions or even who they are, remember, these people are suppose to be working for us! They are our employees. This is unexcusable!

[trish]

But that doesn't answer my question. Who are they affiliated with? Why did they edit their own faces out of the recording? What else did they edit out? Did they single out Etheridge or did they attempt other interviews? Why did Etheridge seem to think it was important to get the "student's" face in the recording? Why didn't they simply answer his question and tell him who they were?...what university was the project for?...what sort of course it was for? Why were they so evasive? Why were they so invasive of his personal space? Why does it matter that I'm asking these questions if the questions don't matter?

[jniowa]

Why don't they show their faces? They are filming someone (happens to be a US Congressman) while blurring their own identity and refusing to identify themselves, educational institution or group affiliation. It's ridiculous all the way around. He shouldn't freak out and they shouldn't fuck with him.

[sunairco]

Unfortunately this is one of those times that you have to put aside partisainship and call a spade a spade. Even if those annoying little bastards were affiliated with a right wing group and were in his face trying to provoke him, he as NO right to assult them physically. This goes beyond the present moment and shows character. If he's a paranoid hothead that's able to be provoked by some smarmy little jerks, imagine the consequences the man's impulsive and reactive behavior could have during a debate or a vote on a critical issue. Politics is brutal and requires nerves of steel and brinksmanship. Some punks with a cellphone can cause this guy to pop, what would he do under pressure otherwise as a legislator? I'm sorry, I'm as progressive, liberal Democrat as one can get, but I can't under any circumstances justify his behavior no matter what the provocation.

[mugiwara]

Gee, maybe they didn't show their faces because they don't want to become the immediate focus of a liberal Kill-the-messenger smear campaign ala "Joe the Plumber". What's great is by astutely concealing their identity before letting this video go viral, they open the door for the moonbat left to defend Etheridge's clear act of assault by claiming that these kids asking a Democrat congressman if he supports the Democrat president's agenda (how dare they ask him that!) is proof that they are agents of some "vast right-wing conspiracy". lol

[trish]

Who's defending Etheridge?
Who's claiming these kids are part of a vast right wing conspiracy?
I just want to know who they are? Why they aren't saying? Why didn't they tell Etheridge when he asked them the first time? The "kill the messenger explanation just doesn't explain it. Why didn't they answer him when asked the second time? The third time? The fourth? Why did they edit their faces out of a video? Are they ashamed? Are they hiding their identities? Are they hiding their expressions? Are they hiding someone else's identity? They edited out their faces. They edited in a narrative board. What else did they edit in or out? Who else have they interviewed (successfully or unsuccessfully)? I'm not attacking. I'm not defending. I'm just a couch potato who's having trouble following the plot.

[NYBURBS]

No excuse for what he did. If the Congress as a whole had any integrity they would vote to remove him.

[Faldur]

Assault is assault.. dude should be wearing bracelets, and asking bubba what time the crafts class is.

[Cuchulain]

A) This belongs in the politics section
B) Yes, the Congressman went WAY over the top. When they refused to identify themselves, he should have just walked away.
C) Grabbing someone by the wrist, then putting a restraining arm around his shoulder sets a pretty low bar for assault, especially when the guy committing the 'assault' is about three times their age.
D) If two kids in suits with a camera walked up to me asking questions and then wouldn't identify themselves, I'd have slammed their empty heads together and ENJOYED it.
E) I'll bet they were part of Breitbart's crew of clowns.

[NYBURBS]

A) This belongs in the politics section
B) Yes, the Congressman went WAY over the top. When they refused to identify themselves, he should have just walked away.
C) Grabbing someone by the wrist, then putting a restraining arm around his shoulder sets a pretty low bar for assault, especially when the guy committing the 'assault' is about three times their age.
D) If two kids in suits with a camera walked up to me asking questions and then wouldn't identify themselves, I'd have slammed their empty heads together and ENJOYED it.
E) I'll bet they were part of Breitbart's crew of clowns.

Yea it wasn't technically assault in the criminal sense (at least it wouldn't be in NY). It was more along the lines of harassment and unlawful imprisonment. Either way it is unacceptable behavior, especially from a Congressman.

[Ben]

Trish is merely posing a series of questions.... In all likelihood it was conservative provocateur Andrew Breitbart.
Here's his wikipedia page:


Andrew Breitbart - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Andrew-Breitbart-(edit).jpg" class="image"><img alt="Andrew-Breitbart-(edit).jpg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/72/Andrew-Breitbart-%28edit%29.jpg/250px-Andrew-Breitbart-%28edit%29.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/7/72/Andrew-Breitbart-%28edit%29.jpg/250px-Andrew-Breitbart-%28edit%29.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Breitbart)

[Cuchulain]

Yea it wasn't technically assault in the criminal sense (at least it wouldn't be in NY). It was more along the lines of harassment and unlawful imprisonment. Either way it is unacceptable behavior, especially from a Congressman.

Ah, Comrade Burbs...maybe so, maybe so. Still, calling for this excitable old mans head on a pike, as so many in the REICHwing have done, seems extreme and nothing more than partisan gamesmanship. There are so many examples of unethical, outrageous behavior by members of Congress that go by with hardly anyone blinking an eye. To return to my earlier phrase, if we set the bar this low, the Halls of Congress would soon be empty - which might not be a bad thing, I'll grant you.

Still, I'm sure Rush, Hannity, Beck and the other freaks will play this to the hilt. I also expect some enterprising young leftwingers to begin a similar crusade of guerilla journalism soon enough (hopefully, without resorting to pimp suits). It might be fun to watch, but will just distract the public even more from true political crimes. Bread and circuses, plain and simple.

Best to you and yours, my friend.

[trish]

The old man's pretty fast, you gotta give 'em that. You see the way he relieved that little weasel of his cell phone? Damn he's good! The Congressman's actions were a bit extreme; but as NYBURBS speculates, they don't constitute an assault. That's why this story has no legs on actual news venues. The interesting thing about the clip is four-fold.

First, Etheridge's actions (whether you agree with them or not) have clear motivations. He attempts to obstruct one camera (and fails) and succeeds in capturing another. Bravo. Did you know that eleven states have laws against photographing people without their permission (with an exemption for professional photojournalists). Etheridge holds the photo-assailant by the wrist, draws him in and turns him into the frame of the still operating camera. The motive here is pretty clear. It seems to be an attempt (though it failed via editing) to reveal the identity of his photo-assailant to any who might watch the published video. (A honest man would've figured that either the kid didn't want his face revealed to the public and not post the video, or the kid's face will show up on the video and someone will be able to identity him. Alas, that's what an honest man figured).

Second. The motives as well as the identity of the photo-assault team are a mystery. Why did they not identify themselves? A quick, "I'm X and this is Y, we're students of Z and we're doing a project for our W class," and they may have gotten a question or two answered. Did they really want to know the answer to the one question they asked? Didn’t they have other questions? While they were detained, why didn't they batter Etheridge with questions? Didn’t they have any prepared?

Third. The first thing out of mouth of the right wing journalists and commentators is that these questions are irrelevant! Never mind the political machine behind the curtain. What's up with that? Journalists who don't want to ask questions!

Fourth. Everybody's saying these two weasels are working for Andrew Breitbart. There's nothing in the tape that gives any indication of that. So where does that little tidbit of speculation come from? How did it get out there? Who dropped that crumb? Who's actually manipulating the media here and how? Given that this wasn’t much of a story, and that it was probably a bigger story than the perps could’ve hoped for, what was the real reason for the little charade? Was this just to get some usable anti-campaign footage against Etheridge? Of course it was. Was there any way for Etheridge to defend himself? Actually there wasn't, though walking away wouldn't have been as negative as over-reacting.

In deference to the would be interviewers: no person was harmed in the making of this video, no one except Rep. Etheridge and that was the whole point of the exercise from the beginning.

(A little pre-emptive note: I'm not defending Etheridge's actions. I'm just asking my own questions and speculating on the motivation of his video-assailants).