SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - The who are you US congressman

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)

- - The who are you US congressman (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=171063)

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk (Post 1419955)

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.

Quote:

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

Is this guy drunk?

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:

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk (Post 1419782)

He just needs to learn to say, "No comment." Then just walk away. That ploy has worked for decades. :03:

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:

Quote:

Originally Posted by mookiemookie (Post 1419787)

Did he look absolutely sh*tfaced to anyone else?

But that kid in the video is one of Breitbart's minions. While physically assaulting someone is over the line, it makes you wonder how the video was edited (as Breitbart is famous for) and what they're not showing. How did they antagonize the guy to the point where he gets physically violent?

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tater (Post 1419828)

There is no possible way to un-edit that to make it acceptable. Laying hands on someone is assault, period.

And yeah, he looked drunk to me, too.

So we have an elected representative drunk while he's at work, who also assaults people.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl (Post 1420082)

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:

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tater (Post 1420061)

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.