I see what you are saying. Perhaps something previous was edited out that made the Representative get so enraged that holding the kids wrist, whacking at his camera and head area was deemed ok. Well..edited or not...it is not ok to do the physical that the Rep did. If you can't handle baiting and being ridiculed, specifically in his position, time to find a new career. Learn to walk away.

Indeed.

You misunderstand me. My fault, I'm sorry.

What I was trying to say is that Etheridge's caution was not unwise for the same reason that mookie has pointed out. People in government are held very accountable for everything they say and do, so it is not unreasonable to expect them to question who they are talking to for fear of being misrepresented.

That may sound funny coming from me, as I am staunchly anti-government, and I wouldn't trust Rep. Etheridge as far as I could throw him, but I am still willing to give him the benefit of the doubt in this case. There are agencies on all sides of the cluster**** that we call US politics who have an agenda to push are are not above taking things out of context just to get their way. We should know that by now.

You are very right about that, assuming that the video itself is accurate and complete, but there are still two sides to the story. Etheridge grabbed the student, but he immediately released his arm upon being asked to. He then "hugged" the student, but again released him upon request. That really doesn't qualify as assault.

Personally, I feel that a US representative should not have to ask who a person is before confidently stating his platform and ideals, and for that reason and his voting record I do question the quality of Rep. Etheridge, but I'm not at all sure that this video is politically or criminally damning.

The assault was the whacking of the camera. Furthermore the holding of the students wrist was also assault. This is an assault case no matter how you view the tape. The hugging bit was after the Rep said in his brain what he was doing was not right.

Who are you? Who are you? Who are you?

Is this guy drunk?

Bottom line is that he shouldn't "lose it."

Sorry, unless the reporter assaulted him FIRST, there is nothing that could have been edited out to even mitigate his behavior. You would also expect that you'd hear him referencing any comments made before, which he doesn't.

You claim this is Breitbart's "MO." Elaborate, please. I know he's considered conservative, but can you provided edited and unedited video as proof that this is not just something that sometimes happens, but that demonstrates the pattern of behavior required to call it his modus operandi?

Actually, watch the video again. He's walking down a sidewalk towards the camera with a high wall to the left. Clearly nothing immediately predicated the interview.

He was also clearly drunk I think.

I see no "MO" here, sorry.

I'd like to think so, but that is not legally the case. Don't take my word for it, see whether or not he gets charged with anything. More importantly, see if he gets convicted of anything. My guess is that neitehr will take place. [/quote}

I hope not, because that could be a mitigating factor in an assault case, though he could still be charged with public intoxication. Again, my guess is that he will be convicted of neither. If he were to be convicted of assault the charge would likely include public intoxication, and if he's found innocent of assault the verdict could be used to indemnify him against "Public Intoxication", which, in as few words as possible, requires disruption of the peace. What that means is something else entirely.

That's our justice system at work, AVG. All it takes is a good lawyer and some creative interpreation of creatively interpreted indecipherable law to make anything legal, but you know that already, don't you?

It is a sad state of affairs, my friend.:nope:

But as you know nothing of what preceded the video you cannot know that.

But that politician was clearly a politician so by default is a pillock and was caught acting like one.

Part of being an elected official used to mean acting in a professional manner. Congresshumans have been harassed for about 220 years by the public. If you can't keep on walking and maintain some dignity, then you should not be a congresshuman.

Sure both parties acted jerks. But there was no cause for this congressman to act that way. :nope:

Yes! I was about to post the same thing! Well, I thought he sounded drunk. Or maybe I just haven't heard that variation of the southern drawl before.

EDIT: I thought it was battery, but I looked up the DC statutes and they don't separate assault and battery, they just have an all inclusive "assault", so I was wrong.

by the way, voluntary intoxication is only a defense when there is a very specific intent required for the crime; battery (or assault) isn't one of them.

It is assault hands down. Even the very act of a husband grabbing his wifes wrist in the same manner as this Rep did is enough for an arrest. :hmmm: Look at it this way. If I walked up to you and whacked your phone or camera out of your hand it will be considered assault. Can't chalk it up to just having a bad day.

No clearly it was an ambush concocted by the tea party angry mob ! :rotfl2:

By the way does this not remind you of some nefarious paparazzi events? The media was all over those. This you have to drag out of you tube.